Tuesday, 10 May 2022

D&D Monsters: Golems

The golem is a creature of Jewish myth; a man formed of clay, as Adam was said to have been, and brought to life by a skilled rabbi. This usually involves a holy word, either written on parchment and placed in the golem's mouth or carved directly into its forehead. The resulting golem works as a servitor, and is incapable of speech. In the most famous version of the tale, it eventually goes berserk when its creator forgets to deactivate it on the Sabbath, and it ends up breaking the holy commandment not to work at such times.

In D&D, however, the word is used for a much larger class of creatures, humanoid forms made of pretty well any material and animated to serve their creator. Some of these, too, have a habit of going berserk, although the trigger for doing so is decidedly more random.


Clay Golem

The clay golem is, of course, the one that most closely resembles the being in the original myth. In this respect, it's notable that it has to be created by a powerful priest (and, in, 1E, specifically a priest of a benevolent deity), rather than a wizard or necromancer. In 1E, it is shown as a humanoid figure sculpted from clay and apparently wearing a loincloth. For all we can tell from the picture, this might be a part of the moulded clay, just an artistic convention by its creator, but, from 2E onwards, we're told that a leather jockstrap is an essential accoutrement for all clay golems.

One has to question why this might be, and the only reasonable answer seems to be that the earth elemental required to animate the clay body won't do so unless it's, ahem... anatomically accurate. Why the earth elemental might insist on this, however, is a bit of a mystery, and it's compounded by the fact that it's manifestly not true of the clay golems in the 2E and 5E illustrations - which, of course, also are not wearing the garment that the accompanying text says they are. This is because the 2E clay golem has been sculpted as if it's wearing a full set of clothing and armour (which are surely part of its body) and the 5E version is a particularly crude sculpture that lacks nose, ears, or toes, and only has four digits on each hand. And if you can put up with those bits missing, it's hard to see why you'd insist on another body part you'd have no conceivable use for.

The description also implies, incidentally, that nobody creates golems in a female image. (Apparently, at least one such is mentioned in Jewish tales of the beings). 

The 5E version also looks as if it's formed from regular, moist, clay and this is implied to be true for most of the others as well. The exception seems to be that clothed 2E clay golem, which resembles one of the terracotta soldiers in the tomb of the first Chinese emperor in our world and, as such, is implied to be earthenware ceramic - that is, fired clay, not the raw material.

As described in 1E, the clay golem is invulnerable to most weapons, even if they are magic, and can only be affected by a few spells specifically intended to damage earthen material. While it's understandable that stabby weapons, such as spears or rapiers, wouldn't do much to something that lacks any internal organs, it's harder to see why axes and swords can't, say, lop a limb off... one would have thought they'd be more effective on a homogenous non-brittle material than a mace would be, but there you go. 

The 3E version isn't quite so invulnerable, although it's still pretty hard to hurt, and while the original was at least easy to hit, this one has very impressive armour. It's as strong as a hill giant, while being considerably smaller and, for that matter, is also slightly shorter than in 1E. It still moves slowly and clumsily except when it puts on brief bursts of magical speed. For some odd reason, it is healed by strong acids, which one would otherwise expect to chemically alter the composition of the clay, but have little effect on its integrity one way or the other. Much of this remains true in 5E, although the resistances are downplayed and there's no additional resistance to sharp weapons. 

Stone Golem

The stone golem is essentially an animated statue, something that's common enough in myth and fiction, but would not be described as a 'golem' in such a context. We're specifically told that, so long as they're humanoid in form, stone golems can be carved in whatever way the creator wants. Which explains both the stylised forms shown in 1E and 5E and the more realistic statuary of 2E... doubtless many other looks are possible in a range of artistic styles. Presumably, the more powerful earth elementals used to power them are less bothered by anatomical form than are the weaker ones used to animate the lesser golems.

It's also clear from 3E that there's no requirement for a stone golem to be a specific size (as seems to be the case for the clay version), since some exceptionally large ones are stated to exist. The cost of the enchantment probably makes the construction of small ones non-profitable, but otherwise the main limitation may be getting a large enough piece of solid stone and the inconvenience of using something too big to enter castles or whatever.

While flesh and clay golems are inclined to go berserk, following their inspirations in horror movies and mythic legend, stone golems are much more dependable. They remain slow-moving, doubtless because of their ponderous weight - the quoted figure of 2,000 lbs (900 kg) given in 3E is probably about right given the stated height of the golem and the density of granite. The latter is said to be the preferred construction material and explains the impressive armour rating in 3E; the lower rating in 1E is probably due to the fact that you need a decent magical weapon to damage them at all in that edition and hitting them isn't really the problem.

The downside of constructing your golem from stone, on the other hand, is that, compared with clay and iron, it should be much harder to repair if it gets damaged. Indeed, 3E does say that it takes magic to do this, presumably by bonding separated chips of stone back together again. A bonus is that its signature power allows it to slow the movement of other beings around it, possibly by infusing them with earth elemental energy and increasing their density.

Iron Golem

The original version of the iron golem appears to be a manlike piece of iron statuary, possibly cast in a single block. All later versions, however, are shown as mobile suits of armour although, as with the stone golem, we're specifically told that many different forms are possible. Whether there's anything inside the suit of armour or it's simply hollow isn't apparent from the 2E illustration, and is arguable from the 5E one, which at least looks to have a solid hinge at the elbows. In 3E, however, there are some internal struts and pistons clearly visible in places, suggesting something of a more mechanical nature than is the case for the stone golem.

Such automata do figure in Greek myths, with perhaps the closest resemblance being to Talos, a creation of Hephaestos, the smithing god. He was bronze, however, not iron, something that may have been felt to sound less effective in a post-Bronze Age fantasy world. Or the iron golem may simply be an attempt to have something that's basically a robot in D&D, without all the troubling electronics - although rather more robot-like creatures have been introduced to the game since.

As one might expect, an iron golem is difficult to injure absent spells that specifically target metal. It is hampered by lightning, which might well be expected to have some effect on conductive metal, but intense heat is actually beneficial, apparently allowing the softer red-hot metal to meld back into its original shape as if it were being forged. (Of course, a sufficiently hot blast furnace ought to melt it, but then iron isn't known for its resistance to acid either, and that seemingly does nothing to it).

Like all standard golems, it moves slowly, and is as strong as giant much larger than itself - although exactly how strong does vary between editions. This is probably due to a combination of its iron composition being able to sustain more stress than fleshy muscle and the fact that it likely doesn't feel pain and can't be exhausted. As with other golems made from inanimate matter, it must be using the senses of the elemental that animates it, since it doesn't have any natural eyes - although it is notable that its darkvison is superior to that of a regular elemental, so it may be boosted in some way.

An oddity of the iron golem is its ability to spew poison gas. While some of the automatons in Greek myth (although not Talos) could breathe fire, poison gas is a different matter. It might be inspired by the 1963 film Jason and the Argonauts, which features Talos, looking very similar to the 1E illustration. In that film, Talos is animated by poison gas, although he is destroyed once it escapes from his body.

That's clearly very different from the iron golem, which uses poison gas as a deliberate attack that can be rapidly regenerated. While a golem could potentially have some sort of chemical crucible inside it that can mix reagents to create the gas, it doesn't appear to need restocking, and it doesn't eat, so it seems unlikely that the gas is created by any mundane (al)chemical process. Likely, there is some kind of chamber and attached piping, but the gas may be created magically - taking nitrogen and oxygen from the air to make nitrogen dioxide, for example, but without the need for high temperature and a platinum catalyst.

Saturday, 30 April 2022

DW Monsters: The Ambassadors

Having completed the seven key humanoid aliens of the show (other than the Time Lords themselves), I’m now going to turn to aliens that appeared less frequently, as well as those that are less humanoid in form. One of the ground rules here is that I will still be looking at races, and not at beings that are said to be unique, or that are unusual or “high level” examples of their kind. I’ll also pass over races that aren’t, in terms of basic game statistics, especially notable, most often because they’re physically indistinguishable from humans.

I’m going to approach this by running through the eras of the various TV incarnations of the Doctor. The first batch consists of “monsters” and other aliens that appear during the Third Doctor’s era, of which there are quite a few.

  •        Spearhead from Space is the Third Doctor’s debut story, and features the autons.
  •         Doctor Who and the Silurians is the debut for the eponymous reptiles.

Wednesday, 27 April 2022

D&D Monsters: Flesh Golems

The flesh golem, as depicted in D&D, is quite clearly based on Frankenstein's Monster. This, of course, has its origin in Mary Shelley's original story, but it's probably fair to say that most people's perceptions of the creature are more heavily influenced by the take on it in the Universal Pictures horror films of the 1930s. So it is with the flesh golem, which owes rather more to the movie version than to that in the novel, despite attempts to transform its look from 2E onwards.


1E

The debt to Frankenstein's Monster is particularly clear in the 1E illustration, which gives the golem the high, almost cylindrical head seen in the 1930s film version. Otherwise, the golem is an animated humanoid apparently stitched together from pieces of human body; it is hairless with a lantern jaw and distinct brow ridges. It is stated to be 7½ feet (230cm) tall which, given that this is obviously taller than the vast majority of humans, implies that either the magical process which creates it enlarges the original body parts or that multiple pieces are grafted together to make the body. 

Wednesday, 20 April 2022

D&D Monsters: Pixies

Pixies are a form of fairy originally found in the folklore of southwest England, specifically Devon and Cornwall. They are typically more benign than many other fairies, but still mischievous and inclined to cause trouble for humans. In D&D, they were one of four races of fairy-like beings in the original Monster Manual, and seem to be intended as a bit of light-hearted relief, a potentially humorous inconvenience, rather than dangerous monsters to be slain. Of the four originals, they are the only ones to remain in the core monster books for both third and fifth editions.


1E

As originally described, pixies look much like elves, except for being only 2'6" (75cm) tall. Or at least, that's what the text says, since the pixie in the picture looks a lot smaller than this. Assuming that the stated figure is accurate, however, it's still a good four inches (10 cm) shorter than a typical two-year-old human child. This makes them the tallest of the four fairy races, and far closer in height to a halfling than, say, a dwarf is to a human.  More distinctively, of course, they have two pairs of wings projecting from their back, which look to be similar to those of a dragonfly. 

They are highly intelligent, much more so than the average human, but, as one might expect, physically rather weak. Even when they are visible, they are not especially easy to hit, and this probably implies high natural agility as well as them simply being a small target. They seem moderately gregarious, typically being encountered in groups of a dozen or so, although there's no indication of how their society might work. That there's no indication of more powerful individuals among them may well imply an egalitarian culture and it's notable that they all have a fair amount of innate magic. Like most other non-human races in this edition, they speak their own language, which is specifically distinct from that of the sprites, their smaller and more benevolent counterparts.

2E adds that they are vegetarian and nocturnal and have societies based on family ties - which implies that they reproduce like humans do, rather than being some sort of purely magical spirit. Their wings are said to be silvery, and to resemble those of moths.

3E

In 3E, the wings now resemble those of a bee more than anything else. They have the same height as before, but we're told that they typically weigh around 30 lbs (13 kg). This is a typical weight for a 2-year-old human... which, remember, is notably taller than a full-grown pixie. When we add this to the fact that the pixie in the illustration is unnaturally thin by human standards, he would have to be much denser than a human - perhaps due to heavy bones - for this to make sense. Most likely, they're quite a lot lighter.

Most of the detailed numbers provided for the stats are in line with what we had in 1E; the intelligence score remains the same, they're physically weak, but highly agile, and so on. Their acute senses weren't mentioned before, but seem a logical extrapolation. They have, however, shifted to a "good" alignment, and we're told that they go out of their way to fight evil. Rather than just mucking about, as they did before. Some of this may be due to a fusion of the pixie with the sprites of earlier editions since the latter are now a general category of which pixies are a part, rather than a distinct race. 

They also live in larger groups than before, with "tribes" of about 50 individuals being common. They now speak the same language as most other fey - and, for that matter, centaurs. A slightly less physical nature is implied by the fact that they're difficult to hurt without using "cold iron" - a term that, in reality, simply means "iron or steel used to make weapons", but, in D&D tends to imply something a bit more special.

5E

Pixies have drastically shrunk in this edition, now being only one foot tall (30cm) - much smaller in comparison to a halfling than a halfling is to a human, and, indeed, smaller than the smallest of the 1E fairy types (the brownie, at 1'6"). Their skin is green, not caucasian, and, no longer cadaverously thin, they have childlike bodily proportions, if a comparatively adult figure. The wings of the one in the illustration resemble those of a butterfly, but we're specifically told that there is some variation in wing-form between different pixies, so the various different forms we've seen up to this point aren't necessarily contradictory.

They have to maintain concentration to stay invisible, which isn't especially hard but isn't quite the innate invisibility of 1E, either. The resistance to regular damage and vulnerability to "cold iron" have both gone, and they're even punier than they were before, as befits their smaller size. A significant change is that they are now no more intelligent than humans, although they retain their inherent charm and heightened senses. They have also abandoned the use of weapons, having previously wielded daggers and been crack shots with bows that were surprisingly effective for their size.

Although pixies shrink in 5E compared with prior editions, all agree that they are much smaller than humans, and they even make halflings look tall. Despite their magical nature, there's nothing to indicate that they aren't physical, biological beings (except possibly the resistance to damage in 3E) rather than some neutral counterpart to demons or angels.

Smaller size does bring some scaling issues with it but, for the most part, nothing that's especially insurmountable, since there are obviously many mammals that are much smaller than pixies. Indeed, the 5E pixie is sufficiently small that, especially with light bones or the like, they might actually be able to fly without absurdly large wings or much in the way of magical assistance - they're considerably smaller than, say, a golden eagle. For that matter, the larger pixies of other editions could technically fly without magic, but they'd need at least a six-foot (180 cm) wingspan to do so, which they clearly don't possess.

The size of the brain does present more of a problem if we're sticking to real-world biology. Scaling issues mean that it must be smaller than that of a human infant, which makes it hard to believe that they'd be more intelligent than a human adult. A certain degree of improved compactness or unusual architecture can get round this - crows, for example, are a lot more intelligent than you'd expect for their size and mice aren't exactly dim by animal standards, but neither are going to write the works of Shakespeare any time soon. So it's likely that, here, real-world neurology is taking a back seat to a fey soul of some kind.

The wings also do present issues other than their size. The actual structure of them isn't much of a problem, with some sort of strong, possibly chitinous, material composing their surface (covered with microscopic coloured scales if they resemble butterflies or moths) and veins running through them just as they do in real insect wings. But it's less clear how they would attach to the skeleton and musculature, both of which they'd need to do in order to function.

If pixie wings fold as those of insects do - and, in fairness, most of the pictures are ambiguous on this point, so they might not - they require a complex joint at the base to allow multiple different motions, rather than just flapping. The wings seem to originate to either side of the spine in the upper back so, since they can't be anchored to an exoskeleton as they are in real insects, the joint must either be on an extra set of clavicle-like bones below the shoulders, or perhaps connected to the rear part of some of the ribs. 

Although small size and a correspondingly light body help, the flight muscles would still need to be large which, per the usual vision of what such creatures should look like, they don't seem to be. For that matter, if the muscles worked like those on insect wings, they'd have to run through where the lungs should be on a mammal, occupying much of the chest cavity. So, while magic might not be required to keep pixies aloft, it probably is more manoeuvrability in the air, or for take-off and landing, perhaps by providing a boost to modified intercostal muscles.

The various unique powers of pixies are, however, all magical, and these don't change much from edition to edition, including invisibility, the ability to cause confusion, read thoughts, create floating lights, and so on. At least in the earlier editions, there's an indication of a reasonably sophisticated culture, considering that at the very least they own (and presumably make) fine tailored clothing and magical weapons. It's clearly one that stays very far apart from typical human society, and therefore pays little, if any, role in the wider history of most game worlds.

Saturday, 16 April 2022

DW Monsters: Ood

The final race on my initial list of key humanoid ‘monster’ races is also the only one unique to the modern era of the show. (I’m not currently planning on suspending the series after this post, although it will remain low priority; I’ll explain where it’s going next once I get there).

Appearances

By far the most recent of the seven races I’m listing as key humanoids in this series, the Ood made their debut in the Tenth Doctor story The Impossible Planet in 2006, over 30 years after the next oldest on that list. They returned two years later in Planet of the Ood, in which we learn of their origin, and have made significant appearances in three further TV stories since then, most recently Flux. That’s ignoring short “tardisodes” and the like, some of which have also featured them, and the occasional brief cameo elsewhere.

Wednesday, 13 April 2022

D&D Monsters: Couatls

The couatl has its basis in Mesoamerican mythology, although it's arguable how much it resembles the original. The name is apparently inspired by that of the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl the "feathered serpent". In reality, coatl simply means "snake" so it doesn't refer to any specific mythic creature taken on its own. Having said that, snakes were important to the Mesoamerican people, and associated with many of their gods. In particular, several of them were feathered, magically merging the features of a flying creature with one that crawls along the ground. They seem to have been regarded as divine beings, which fits with the original 1E description of their habitat and relationship with humans.


1E

As originally seen, the couatl has a head and body that closely resemble those of a regular snake. While the presence of an extra set of teeth between the fangs is unusual, in other respects, the arrangement of the teeth resembles those of snakes such as cobras, kraits, and mambas, rather than say, rattlesnakes or boomslangs. While the head is at least partially covered with scales like that of a normal snake, the couatl's body is feathered, with longer feathers along the back and what appear to be softer, downy, ones on the underside. 

Wednesday, 6 April 2022

D&D Monsters: Beholders

The beholder is, perhaps, the single most iconic monster in D&D - the one creature that, more than any other, says "this is D&D" rather than some other fantasy setting. That's largely due to its unique appearance, which is quite unlike anything that exists in myth or legend or, indeed, in prior fiction. It was created, not by Gygax, but by one of the players in his original campaign, first appearing in a supplement for 0E, and has successfully stood the test of time ever since.


1E

As originally shown, the beholder is a spherical creature covered in irregular, flat, "chitinous" plates. A wide mouth occupies much of the lower half and is lined with small pointed teeth similar to those of reptiles. There is a single large lidless eye above the mouth and ten much smaller eyestalks arranged in a ring around the upper surface. The latter are protected by segmented chitin and have also have lidless eyes, similar to those of a snail or slug, although the eyestalks presumably aren't retractable. Severing the eyestalks doesn't otherwise hurt the creature, which suggests that it's able to shut off the blood supply to a severed stalk - or perhaps that it doesn't have blood. There are no other visible features, such as nostrils.