Monster Manual project

[James Holloway]

Another good episode. A thought that's occurred to me recently is that D&D gnolls are actually very much like folkloric ghouls - especially the connection with hyenas. I'm painting up some of the Frostgrave gnolls as ghouls for HOTT at the moment.

That's true, the moreso when you look at Yeenoghu's sort of corpselike appearance. I always thought of ghouls as being more like jackals than hyenas, though. Either way, they both have that sort of "dishonourable scavenger" motif going on. As someone else pointed out, you can call someone a dog as an insult or a compliment(ish). But there's no way to call someone a jackal or a hyena favourably.

[James Holloway]

And I almost forgot! It's time for a new episode. Today's topic: Giants!

http://monsterman.libsyn.com/episode-22-giants

[Hobgoblin]

That's true, the moreso when you look at Yeenoghu's sort of corpselike appearance. I always thought of ghouls as being more like jackals than hyenas, though.

According to Hasan El-Shamy's Folk Traditions of the Arab World, there's at least one Arab folktale that describes the ghoul as a hybrid of a hyena and a jinniyah (female jinn). Oddly enough, ghouls originally seem to have been more like ogres than scavengers - and the graveyard lurking and eating of buried corpses (as opposed to eating freshly killed humans) may have largely been introduced by Western writers and translators.

One of the interesting things about D&D monsters is the way in which synonymous creatures are spun out into distinct entities. After all, kobold, orc, bugbear and hobgoblin all just mean "goblin" - and ettin, ogre, titan, etc., essentially mean "giant". I wonder if the phonetic similarity of Dunsany's "gnole" and "ghoul" played some part in D&D's hyena-headed gnolls. As you say, Yeenoghu adds a connection to the living dead.

[James Holloway]

According to Hasan El-Shamy's Folk Traditions of the Arab World, there's at least one Arab folktale that describes the ghoul as a hybrid of a hyena and a jinniyah (female jinn). Oddly enough, ghouls originally seem to have been more like ogres than scavengers - and the graveyard lurking and eating of buried corpses (as opposed to eating freshly killed humans) may have largely been introduced by Western writers and translators.

One of the interesting things about D&D monsters is the way in which synonymous creatures are spun out into distinct entities. After all, kobold, orc, bugbear and hobgoblin all just mean "goblin" - and ettin, ogre, titan, etc., essentially mean "giant". I wonder if the phonetic similarity of Dunsany's "gnol" and "ghoul" played some part in D&D's hyena-headed gnolls. As you say, Yeenoghu adds a connection to the living dead.

Yeah, I say that very thing about goblins in the upcoming goblin episode -- there are a load of monsters that are folklorically just something like "bad fairy." Ent is another example of a name that just means "giant."

With gnolls, they do sort of fill an animal-man slot that isn't otherwise filled, I guess, especially as the D&D ghoul doesn't have the doglike features of the Lovecraftian one. So maybe we're seeing the "degenerate cannibal" and "canine monster" aspects of the ghoul being split off? I mean, I don't think anyone put that level of *thought* into it, at least not explicitly.

One of the weird things about the upcoming golem episode is that it's one of the much rarer cases where the MM takes completely distinct monsters and says "these are the same kind of thing" rather than taking one creature with many names and asserting that all the different names are different things. It sort of bugs me on a folklore and literature level, but in D&D terms there isn't one of them I would really part with, you know? I like gnolls a lot, as the gnoll episode will show. I think it's largely because hyena heads just make them look cheerfully malevolent. Orcs may be brutes, but gnolls are dirtbags, which I find appealing.

[Hobgoblin]

Yeah, I say that very thing about goblins in the upcoming goblin episode -- there are a load of monsters that are folklorically just something like "bad fairy." Ent is another example of a name that just means "giant."

Yes, indeed - enta geweorc and all that.

With gnolls, they do sort of fill an animal-man slot that isn't otherwise filled, I guess, especially as the D&D ghoul doesn't have the doglike features of the Lovecraftian one. So maybe we're seeing the "degenerate cannibal" and "canine monster" aspects of the ghoul being split off? I mean, I don't think anyone put that level of *thought* into it, at least not explicitly.

I wonder if the "degenerate cannibal" side of things was amplified by Night of the Living Dead, which must have been fairly fresh in the popular memory in the early 70s. Its "zombies" are called ghouls, as I'm sure you know. It might explain why Gygax, etc., didn't go with the bestial ghoul of Lovecraft and Arabian folklore. I suppose there are also the transparent-fleshed ghouls of Nehwon too.

One of the weird things about the upcoming golem episode is that it's one of the much rarer cases where the MM takes completely distinct monsters and says "these are the same kind of thing" rather than taking one creature with many names and asserting that all the different names are different things. It sort of bugs me on a folklore and literature level, but in D&D terms there isn't one of them I would really part with, you know?

I know what you mean. It's one of these things that makes the assumed world of D&D much better for games than say Middle Earth - where, once you've dealt with orcs, trolls and wargs, you're largely through the common-or-garden monsters. Conversely, it makes the D&D universe largely unsuitable for fiction. Glorantha and Tekumel might be the only game settings to walk that particular tightrope.

I like gnolls a lot, as the gnoll episode will show. I think it's largely because hyena heads just make them look cheerfully malevolent. Orcs may be brutes, but gnolls are dirtbags, which I find appealing.

Yup, hyena-men are hard to beat.

[James Holloway]

Speaking of hyena-men, it's time for gnolls! And also gnomes.

But mostly gnolls!

http://monsterman.libsyn.com/episode-23-gnolls-and-gnomes

[Hobgoblin]

Another great episode!

One minor point of information: I don't think the gnome/troll idea comes from Dunsany, but from Gygax and Arneson in the first edition of D&D, where they describe gnolls as follows: 

"A cross between Gnomes and Trolls (. . . perhaps, Lord Sunsany [sic] did not really make it all that clear) with +2 morale. Otherwise they are similar to Hobgoblins, although the Gnoll king and his bodyguard of from 1–4 will fight as Trolls but lack regenerative power."

Note that there's no mention of hyenas there: the hyena-man concept only arrives with the Monster Manual. I think there's a bit of a pattern there: all the "goblin" creatures in original D&D are differentiated largely by hit dice and other stats, rather than by physical characteristics - which makes sense, given that the words all mean more or less the same thing. But in the Monster Manual, these things get changed. So kobolds go from being a sub-type of goblin to a sort of dog-man, gnolls become hyena-men, orcs become pig-men and hobgoblins become sort of mandrill-men samurai.

Good point about the Reaper gnolls - they're a little too butch and not sneaky-looking enough. The Frostgrave plastics have more of the creepy, cackling aspect.

[James Holloway]

Another great episode!

One minor point of information: I don't think the gnome/troll idea comes from Dunsany, but from Gygax and Arneson in the first edition of D&D, where they describe gnolls as follows: 

"A cross between Gnomes and Trolls (. . . perhaps, Lord Sunsany [sic] did not really make it all that clear) with +2 morale. Otherwise they are similar to Hobgoblins, although the Gnoll king and his bodyguard of from 1–4 will fight as Trolls but lack regenerative power."

Note that there's no mention of hyenas there: the hyena-man concept only arrives with the Monster Manual. I think there's a bit of a pattern there: all the "goblin" creatures in original D&D are differentiated largely by hit dice and other stats, rather than by physical characteristics - which makes sense, given that the words all mean more or less the same thing. But in the Monster Manual, these things get changed. So kobolds go from being a sub-type of goblin to a sort of dog-man, gnolls become hyena-men, orcs become pig-men and hobgoblins become sort of mandrill-men samurai.

Good point about the Reaper gnolls - they're a little too butch and not sneaky-looking enough. The Frostgrave plastics have more of the creepy, cackling aspect.

Yeah, I need to pick up some of those FG gnolls.

I think your explanation is spot on -- we start with a mechanical need for differentiation of humanoid monsters, and then when we have more space and a bigger art budget we start filling in the differences.

On the gnome/troll thing: I grew up near Stanford University, which has a local landscape feature just called "the knoll" -- as in a low hill, like "the grassy knoll." The first time I heard of this, a school friend explained to me that a "knoll" was a cross between a gnome and a troll. And this became a running gag -- when you passed a road sign pointing to the knoll, you'd say "look out, the knoll" or whatever.

So I guess I just always assumed that "gnoll" was self-evidently gnome + troll, although it could equally just be a good-sounding made up word. Making up names that sound like they should be folkloric monsters is very hard, but "gnole" is a good one.

I confess I have not actually read How Nuth Would etc.

[Hobgoblin]

On the gnome/troll thing: I grew up near Stanford University, which has a local landscape feature just called "the knoll" -- as in a low hill, like "the grassy knoll." The first time I heard of this, a school friend explained to me that a "knoll" was a cross between a gnome and a troll. And this became a running gag -- when you passed a road sign pointing to the knoll, you'd say "look out, the knoll" or whatever.

That actually sounds as if some OD&D text might have percolated into the local folklore - which is quite marvellous in itself - though it could just be "parallel evolution". Grenadier used to call its gnoll miniatures "knolls" (copyright worries, one presumes).

Alan Garner has a tremendous, half-page story called "Gobbleknoll" in his Folk Tales. It starts, "There was a hill that ate people." I think it's a retelling of a Native American story (with the rabbit as Trickster, etc.). Oddly enough, that collection contains another example of a published text becoming a folktale in "Iram Biram", which is a retelling of Lucy Clifford's 1882 story "The New Mother".

I confess I have not actually read How Nuth Would etc.

Now, now! There's no excuse for that! It'll take you all of ten minutes - and is well worth the read:

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dunsany/wonder/10.html

I've often read that and "The Hoard of the Gibbelins" to my kids as bedtime stories. They absolutely love them - along with a fair few other Dunsany tales, but those are the favourites.

I think "Nuth" also gives an insight into the thief character class in D&D.

[James Holloway]

It has begun! Voting is now open for the Monster Man contest, so go there and support your fellow gamers. Just click on a monster to go to its entry. I hope.

https://goo.gl/YahBth

[James Holloway]

This new episode is all about goblins (and goats). My wife Allison pops in to guest host!

http://monsterman.libsyn.com/episode-24-goat-giant-to-goblin

These little guys are Reaper Bones. I like their mischievous faces. I know that people don't like green goblins, but that ship sailed in the 60s.

[James Holloway]

Following up on goblins, we've got golems! It turns out I don't have a lot of golem figures -- I don't even think I have a lot of unpainted ones! -- which is weird for me, since I do like these monsters.



http://monsterman.libsyn.com/episode-25-golems

[Hobgoblin]

I enjoyed the goblin show. One thing, though: in The Princess and the Goblin, I don't think MacDonald's goblins are described as being made of stone (unless there's a later description I've forgotten), but as originally being people - perhaps driven underground by (of all things!) the tax burden on the surface! Here's the quote:

"Now in these subterranean caverns lived a strange race of beings, called by some gnomes, by some kobolds, by some goblins. There was a legend current in the country that at one time they lived above ground, and were very like other people. But for some reason or other, concerning which there were different legendary theories, the king had laid what they thought too severe taxes upon them, or had required observances of them they did not like, or had begun to treat them with more severity, in some way or other, and impose stricter laws; and the consequence was that they had all disappeared from the face of the country. According to the legend, however, instead of going to some other country, they had all taken refuge in the subterranean caverns, whence they never came out but at night, and then seldom showed themselves in any numbers, and never to many people at once. It was only in the least frequented and most difficult parts of the mountains that they were said to gather even at night in the open air. Those who had caught sight of any of them said that they had greatly altered in the course of generations; and no wonder, seeing they lived away from the sun, in cold and wet and dark places. They were now, not ordinarily ugly, but either absolutely hideous, or ludicrously grotesque both in face and form. There was no invention, they said, of the most lawless imagination expressed by pen or pencil, that could surpass the extravagance of their appearance. But I suspect those who said so had mistaken some of their animal companions for the goblins themselves—of which more by and by. The goblins themselves were not so far removed from the human as such a description would imply. And as they grew misshapen in body they had grown in knowledge and cleverness, and now were able to do things no mortal could see the possibility of."

This passage is interesting for a number of reasons, not least because of MacDonald's acknowledged influence on Tolkien's orcs. Like the MacDonald's goblins, the goblins of The Hobbit are clever:

"Now goblins are cruel, wicked, and bad-hearted. They make no beautiful things, but they make many clever ones.”

That's quite interesting in light of the received image of the D&D goblin as being stupid, as you discuss in the podcast.

Also, like Tolkien's goblins, MacDonald's are "corrupted" creatures (in this case, corrupted by their environment).

The other thing that's interesting is the use of synonyms: kobolds, goblins and gnomes. That's very much in line with the podcast's discussion of how Gygax etc separated out synonymous terms.

It's also fair to say that MacDonald's goblins are very much like D&D dwarves. The contemporary illustrations show them with long beards, and like Tolkien's dwarves (and goblins), they are very strong: " ... although dwarfed and misshapen, they had strength equal to their cunning". See Tolkien's references to the "terrifying" strength of Grishnakh's arms, etc. In the original D&D booklets, the goblin illustration shows an ugly creature with a long beard.

So the MacDonald/Tolkien goblin is short, ugly clever and strong. The D&D goblin is merely short and ugly. I wonder why.

Very keen to hear your take on golems tonight!

[SotF]

This new episode is all about goblins (and goats). My wife Allison pops in to guest host!

http://monsterman.libsyn.com/episode-24-goat-giant-to-goblin

These little guys are Reaper Bones. I like their mischievous faces. I know that people don't like green goblins, but that ship sailed in the 60s.

Yeah, the pathfinder style goblins are fun ones. Reaper has another set of 4 of them and a single one. You also have the few from the Deep Cuts range that are also great.

I think the Reaper Gremlins also might match with them.

[James Holloway]

Yeah, the pathfinder style goblins are fun ones. Reaper has another set of 4 of them and a single one. You also have the few from the Deep Cuts range that are also great.

I think the Reaper Gremlins also might match with them.

I think I have those other goblins, at least the single character, around here somewhere, but just never got around to painting them. That is the problem with goblins, of course -- to do them effectively you need lots. I suppose I have a load of the old Warhammer Fantasy Regiments goblins, which did have the advantage of being free.