Tuesday 13 November 2018

D&D Monsters: Troglodytes

Having looked at the lizardfolk a few months ago, I'm going to (more briefly, I suspect) look at the other low-level race of reptilian humanoids in D&D: the troglodytes. Like lizardfolk, troglodytes have no real counterpart in mythology or legend.

Having said which, the term, which literally means "cave-divers" in Ancient Greek, is an old one, and was used to refer to a purported human tribe by Herodotus back in the 5th century BC, and by other authors since. It's often used to refer to cave-dwelling subterranean races, such as H.G. Wells' Morlocks, and even has its place in modern taxonomy as a part of the scientific names of a number of creatures (most notably chimpanzees and wrens). But none of these things have any real connection to the race described by Gygax, for which, so far as one can tell, he simply borrowed the name.


1E

Troglodytes, as described in the original Monster Manual, are a reptilian humanoid race distinguished from lizardfolk by a number of features. Their feet are more digitigrade (that is, they stand on their toes, but not on their heel), their tail and snout shorter, and their head more rounded. They are also slightly shorter, but more heavily built, and have a large crest on their head supported by a row of spines - while lizardfolk now have a head-crest as well, this did not appear until 3E, making it perhaps the most obvious physical difference at the time.

They live only in subterranean caverns, as one would expect given their name, and hate all human life. (From context, this probably means mammalian humanoids in general, rather than humans specifically). They have a similar intelligence to the more bestial lizardfolk, and don't wear any form of clothing or armour, with only a few belts to carry their primitive stone tools and weapons. Despite being chaotic, they live in communities averaging a hundred or so individuals, with chieftains and other leaders, but perhaps little in the way of formal organisation or customs.

Saturday 25 August 2018

D&D Monsters: Lizardfolk

The idea of reptilian humanoids is one that's quite common in science fiction, but rather less so in fantasy literature, at least in its early days, presumably because they don't have much in the way of mythical antecedents. H.P. Lovecraft referred to a reptilian race in passing in his 1921 short story 'The Nameless City', while Robert E. Howard introduced a race of serpent people as antagonists in his own writings starting in 1929. Since Howard and Lovecraft were friends, later works considered these two instances to represent the same race, and they became part of the Cthulhu Mythos, and, eventually, the Call of Cthulhu RPG.

Although beings with a mix of humanoid and reptilian features do exist in some mythologies, none have much resemblance to lizardfolk as they exist in D&D, and it seems plausible that Gygax had something like Howard's race in mind when he created them. (Having said which, reptilian humanoids did also exist in SF at the time; Doctor Who's Silurians pre-date D&D, for example, but seem an implausible inspiration).

Monday 28 May 2018

D&D Monsters: Centaurs

This series of posts doesn't exactly have a large audience, but I have nothing else to do this morning, so let's turn to a race that's a staple of fantasy in terms of its existence, but that, in my experience, is rarely seen in actual games: the centaur.

Centaurs, of course, originally appear in the myths of Ancient Greece, from whence they were borrowed by the Romans, and, later still, often seen in medieval bestiaries. (Similar creatures do appear in some other mythologies, but the true centaur that we're talking about here is the Greek one). They have regularly appeared in fantasy literature, with the Narnia and Harry Potter series being perhaps the best known examples. In the myths, they are sometimes wild and uncivilised hunters, and sometimes wise and noble teachers, reflecting their dual human/bestial form; novels have tended more towards the 'wise' version.

While the very earliest Greek depictions of centaurs varied somewhat in which bits were human and which bits horse, the classic look that we're familiar with today was already in place by about the 5th century BC, so it has a long pedigree, and unlike, say, goblins, there's strong agreement on what centaurs are supposed to look like. Both the human and horse parts are often said to be physically attractive for their species, and, while female centaurs appear only rarely in myth, they have been reasonably common in artwork even as far back as the Greek period.

Saturday 12 May 2018

D&D Monsters: Kobolds

Having recently looked at the toughest of the five standard "evil tribal humanoids" of D&D, it's time to complete the set by looking at the weakest. The kobolds of D&D have, it's fair to say, generally been treated with ridicule. That's not because they're particularly silly (although there are enough examples of creatures that are), but because they're so puny: one of the very few creatures that are likely to lose to first level characters, even when they have them outnumbered. The intent may be to have even first level characters appear heroic by defeating larger bands of foes; the result has mainly been to make those foes laughable.

The word "kobold" is German, and refers to a sort of capricious or malevolent sprite, similar to goblins in English folklore. They are often household spirits, but are, perhaps, better known as evil spirits haunting mines and bringing rock collapses and toxic vapours down on hapless miners. It's almost certainly this conception that Gygax used as inspiration when he devised the race for the earliest edition of D&D.

Friday 16 March 2018

D&D Monsters: Gnolls

Continuing my look at some of the standard monsters of D&D, and continuing with the theme of the "evil tribal" races, it's time to turn to the gnolls - something that's particularly appropriate right now, given that they've recently been used as antagonists on Critical Role.

Although it has also been borrowed by other works, such as Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels, the term "gnoll" is not one that's native to folklore or legend. Gygax borrowed the word from a short fantasy story by Lord Dunsany, in which it is used to describe sinister woodland beings. Although Dunsany never described what his "gnoles" looked like, Gygax has stated that he took the word to mean that they were supposed to resemble a cross between a gnome and a troll, which is as plausible an etymology as any.

By the time of the 1E Monster Manual, however, he had already switched to the "hyena man" look that they have kept ever since. This appears to be original to D&D.

Wednesday 14 March 2018

D&D Monsters: Hobgoblins

Last time, I looked at the history of goblins in D&D; now it's time to look at their larger cousins, the hobgoblins. Of the five standard "evil tribal humanoids", hobgoblins stand out in that they appear, from the earliest illustrations, to be rather more civilised than the others. In my experience, a number of campaign worlds, home-brews included, have therefore included relatively sophisticated hobgoblin nations, rather than leaving them solely as barbarian hordes, as is more commonly done with orcs.

The term "hobgoblin" is a part of traditional British folklore, referring to a particular sort of goblin that's usually seen as less malevolent than the normal sort - albeit capricious, and often dangerous pranksters. Puck, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, is a hobgoblin of this sort, showing that Shakespeare, at least, thought of these beings as mischievous, but not actively evil. The original meaning of "hob" is unclear, although there's nothing to suggest that it originally meant "larger".

Tolkien is the first to use "hobgoblin" in that sense, using it, briefly, to refer to larger orcs in The Hobbit, in distinction to the regular "goblins". Gygax presumably borrowed this for D&D, and seems also to have been influenced by the uruk-hai of The Lord of the Rings, which share a number of traits with 1E hobgoblins.

Monday 1 January 2018

D&D Monsters: Goblins

Following on from my earlier ponderings on the development of orcs in Dungeons and Dragons and related franchises, I am now going to focus on a very similar creature: the goblin. Goblins have, perhaps, changed less than orcs over the years since their first introduction into the game, but change they have, and they are a very common low-level opponent, one that's generally intended to be marginally weaker than a starting player character, and thus a threat in large numbers without being a complete walk-over when encountered in smaller groups.

The term "goblin" is, of course, an ancient one in English, referring to a (usually) malevolent magical being that is typically small and misshapen; a sort of evil fairy. As with orcs, the more modern conception of goblins comes from J.R.R. Tolkien. Indeed, Tolkien uses the word as simply another word for "orc", mainly as the term that hobbits use for that race. The fact that the word therefore ends up being used more frequently in The Hobbit, in which these particular antagonists seem less of a serious threat than their counterparts in Lord of the Rings do, likely combines with the original folklore meaning of the word to produce the "like orcs, only weaker" idea first used in D&D.


1E

Goblins appear in the very earliest editions of D&D, at first without much in the way of description. By the time of the "Advanced" edition, they are part of a distinct hierarchy of five evil tribal humanoid races, forming the second step on the chain, one slot below the orcs. Statistically speaking, they are extremely similar to orcs, but just marginally weaker: they are slower, have one less hit point, a 5% lower chance of landing a blow on an opponent, and inflict, on average, one less point of damage when they do so. In practical terms, this doesn't make a huge difference, but it could be just enough to turn the tide in an otherwise close battle (as is likely at low level).