D&D Monsters: Griffons and Hippogriffs

The mythic origins of griffons lie in Ancient Greece, if not earlier - a combination of the king of the beasts and the king of the birds. The specific form of that combination was largely cemented by the late Middle Ages into the one we are currently familiar with, and griffons ('griffin' and 'gryphon' are equally valid spellings) are common features in modern fantasy, especially in RPGs. 

The hippogriff, however, is much more modern; it first appears in a poetic work of fiction written in 1516, where it is described as the offspring of a male griffon and a female horse (which, since griffons were thought to kill and eat horses on sight was intended as something miraculous). Although the existence of one may well imply the other, it's possibly more common than the griffon itself in fantasy fiction, with the most famous modern example being that in the Harry Potter books.

In D&D, both the griffon and the hippogriff are typical magical beasts, creatures possessing no particular powers, unless one counts the ability to fly. Their exotic looks are quite sufficient, and, in any event, no such abilities are really alluded to in such legends as exist.

---

1E

In 1E, the griffon takes the form that has been standard in heraldry and other depictions since medieval times. It has the body, hind legs, ears, and tail of a lion, with the head and forequarters of an eagle. Wings sprout from the shoulders and the lion's forelimbs are replaced with a bird's legs. The hippogriff is similar, replacing the lion parts with those of a horse, although the neck appears also to be equine, and the animal does have a horse-like mane. Despite the obviously raptor-like beak, hippogriffs are said to be omnivores, although griffons are as carnivorous as we'd expect.

In this edition, griffons live in groups the same size as those of lions, and are stated in 2E to have a similar social structure. Their claws do similar damage, so they're probably about the same size and strength (barring the wings) and they certainly have the same intelligence. They're harder to hit and damage, which is probably down to greater agility and aggression, and are about as tough as a heavy warhorse. Stated to be omnivorous, they are rated as having the higher intelligence score that this edition typically gives to meat-eating animals, rather than to herbivores (horses included).

---

3E

The appearance of the griffon has changed little in this edition, although the front legs have feathers down to the ankles, as they do in eagles, rather than being the barer, more chicken-like, form of 1E. The tail is also, for some reason, bushy, resembling that of a fox or wolf. Little has changed in terms of the animal's behaviour, but we can see from the statistics that this version is slighter weaker and less agile than a (male) lion, although it weighs about the same. On the other hand, it has a tougher hide, and has sufficient intelligence to understand human speech - well above the level of a typical animal.

The hippogriff, however, has had a more radical makeover in terms of its appearance. This version has all four limbs replaced by clawed, bird-like feet, and a somewhat horse-like head, albeit with an eagle's beak. The mane and tail are both feathered, rather than being formed of mammalian hair. In most respects, including weight and strength, it is, once again, closer to a heavy warhorse than any other breed. It is, however, more agile than a regular horse, and no more intelligent (perhaps partly because mundane carnivores aren't typically given an extra intelligence point in this edition).

---

5E

The 5E griffon has lost the visible ears of earlier editions (and most traditional images) and the head has whitish, rather than brown, feathers. Perhaps, then, there are multiple species of griffon, and this one happens to resemble the American bald eagle rather than, say, a golden eagle. Not only has its intelligence dropped back down to animal level, it's actually less intelligent than a lion, which may be intended to reflect it having an avian head. It, is, however, now slightly stronger than a lion, instead of slightly weaker.

The hippogriff has now regained its hind-hooves, but it, too, has lost the visible ears, along with any semblance of a mane; like the griffon, the whole of its neck is now avian. Like many eagles, it has a crest on the head, although the feather-pattern seems to resemble a Bonelli's eagle more than it does typical crested species. It is, again, similar to a warhorse, but sacrifices some strength for agility.

---

Within the context of their own universe, griffons and hippogriffs are just animals, perhaps no more remarkable than an elephant or a sabretooth cat is to us. I've previously discussed the (relatively minor) skeletal adjustments needed for their six-limbed form and the biological implications of being part bird, part mammal. Much of this applies equally to griffons, with the note that it's undisputed that the latter do, in fact, lay eggs so that the female reproductive system must be avian in form. The male equivalent presumably isn't, given that that part looks mammalian externally, but that's not really a problem. (True, most birds lack a penis, but waterfowl such as ducks do have one, so clearly, it can work).

The natural habitat of griffons and hippogriffs is typically stated to be open terrain, often with rocky outcrops for nesting. This makes sense for a large, flying predator, which needs to be able to see its prey at a distance and would have difficulty flying through dense woodland because of the size of its wings. And rocky crags are an obvious nesting ground, providing some protection from whatever might want to eat the eggs.

Griffons are implied in 1E, and explicitly stated in later editions, to live in "prides" similar to those of lions. Where the size of the group is stated, it's smaller than that typical for lions although, even in the real world, there is considerable variation, depending on such things as availability of food. Perhaps partly for this reason, there are some differences in pride structure between Asiatic and African lions (even though they're actually the same species). But, in general, we can say that a lion pride consists of a number of related females, their cubs, and a smaller number of mostly unrelated adult males.

Male lions leave their pride at adulthood, living for a while either alone, or, more commonly, in groups of two or three. These may be brothers, but more often they are not, although they are likely to be of similar size and age so that neither is especially dominant. They live nomadically, hoping to find a pride that will allow them in, ousting the existing males and, if the lionesses can't prevent them from doing so, killing their cubs. Even while in a pride, they may patrol the edges of their territory - perhaps to keep potential rivals out - while females also travel in smaller groups while hunting, rather than perpetually staying together.

In the case of griffons, this system raises the question of how they nest. If males outside the pride live nomadic lives then, presumably, they don't nest, except perhaps for some temporary bedding. In fact, especially given that the vegetation required to make nests is likely in short supply in the sort of barren terrain they're supposed to inhabit, it may well be that only reproducing females construct nests. 

In the case of lions, the female moves apart from the pride in order to give birth, rejoining it four to six weeks later once the cubs are old enough to travel. Griffons likely have more of a problem here, since the eggs not only have to hatch but the young also have to fledge. The need for incubation may also mean that, as with birds, the male has to share in nest-watching duties, rather than being largely disinterested as male lions are.

The social structure of hippogriffs is less clearly stated. They do seem to live in smaller groups than wild horses do, but, if they're omnivores, with a significant amount of meat in their diet, that makes sense, suitable prey being less widely available than the grass that horses eat. Wild horses are unusual among mammals in that their herds are not really composed of close relatives; when the young reach adulthood, both sexes disperse and mingle to form or join new herds. 

The typical structure of a wild horse herd is of a number of adult females, their immature children, and a single adult male. This is essentially a harem, with the male patrolling the territory, as much to protect against a potential usurper as to guard his partners and children. The other adult males live outside the herd, forming brief, temporary associations for mutual convenience but never anything long-lasting.

We could, however, question whether this is likely to be true for hippogriffs, given that their partly meat-based diet is likely to be more dispersed than grass typically is, especially in barren terrain. Here, it's interesting to note that wild asses have a different social structure than horses, and this is thought to be due to a more dispersed food supply (in their case because they live in arid terrain; we see the same patterns in zebra species living in arid versus lush landscapes). 

Here again, individuals of both sexes disperse upon adulthood, but females form much looser, wide-ranging herds, while males spend almost their entire lives apart from them, except when doing the obvious. The larger males mate with females from multiple different herds, but equally, the females mate with whichever dominant male happens to be close to them at the time - there's no harem, both sexes effectively having multiple one-night stands. Smaller males still don't get a look in and live in smaller single-sex groups.

Regardless of which system we go with, males can't share in incubation duties at the nest, since they're either living apart or have far too many partners for this to be viable. A plausible alternative is communal raising by the females, with not all laying eggs in a given year. Birds don't really do this, but some mammals do, so it's not unreasonable.

While there are obvious evolutionary reasons why griffons and hippogriffs couldn't really exist, physics presents a problem that's even more insurmountable: they couldn't fly. As most people are probably aware, the problem here is that the wing area needs to be sufficient to support the weight, and while the wing area scales as the square of the relevant linear dimensions, weight scales as the cube. Double the length of something and, all things being equal, weight increased eight-fold and wing area only four-fold. 

You're going to need a bigger wing.

But all things are not necessarily equal and there are ways round this. After all, hang-gliders do exist, and the largest creatures ever to fly - the azhdarchid pterosaurs - had head-body lengths far in excess of those of a lion. Leaving aside the fact that a minority of scientists have queried whether azhdarchids could fly at all, let alone well, how did they do this?

Body shape is part of it; they were much more aerodynamic than lions and much of that length is the absurdly long neck. But it also helped that they were lighter than we'd expect from their size, what with hollow bones and so on, and that their wings were, indeed, absolutely enormous. We can't do much about the aerodynamics, but how far would we have to grow the wings and/or lighten the body for a griffon to fly?

The relevant factor here is the "wing-loading", typically measured in kilograms of weight per square metre of wing. If something moves fast enough, you can get away with a massive wing-loading, which is why aeroplanes can be so large. But griffons are not powered by a Boeing 737 turbofan jet engine, so let's be reasonable here. 

Things that move at a sane speed, such as birds and hang-gliders, typically have a wing-loading between 5 and 20, although a maximum of 25 is theoretically possible. The figures given in the 3E Monster Manual give a wing-loading of about 36, far above what's possible for a real-world animal, and roughly the same as a Beech 99 airliner with a cruising speed of 236 mph.

However, it turns out that a griffon the weight of a small lioness could achieve a wing-loading of 25 with a wingspan of around 6 metres (20'). That leaves it just about able to fly, albeit really badly and requiring a considerable take-off distance or a suitably high launching point. Bear in mind that that is a wing-span over three times the length of the lion, which is rather a lot, and that it's a very light lion even if the wings themselves have zero weight - which obviously, they won't.

More reasonable assumptions about flight performance leave our griffon weighing no more than 50 kg (110 lbs) including the wings and whatever it's carrying, which would require such light bones and so many internal air spaces that the animal would be far more fragile and less muscular than we'd reasonably expect. To counter the weight given in 3E you'd need a wingspan of over 30 metres (100'), assuming it can't carry a rider, which apparently it can. And the griffon/lion is only about 2 metres (6') long...

While the laws of physics must necessarily be different in the D&D universe, or magic wouldn't work, the relevant ones here almost certainly aren't. If they were, a human could fly by strapping moderately-sized wings to his arms, which seems unlikely. Instead, the wings of griffons - and of all those other over-sized flying creatures from dragons to angels - must magically generate lift that keeps their bearer aloft. Since there's no indication that griffon feathers can do such a thing once removed from the griffon, it clearly requires an intact and living body for the magic to work.

Which is also true of many creatures with more dramatically visible magical powers.