A qualitative Nymph (Dryad)

This one was supposed to be easy. I guess it could have been, had I known any chill. But I am a chill-free zone, and so I labour with unwarranted obsession to create a qualitative version of a creature I have never even considered using at the table… 

Anyway, the Little Brown Books tell us:

The beautiful tree sprites of mythology, Dryads are each a part of their own respective tree and will stay within 24" of their trees. They are shy and non-violent, but they have a powerful Charm Person spell with a +10% chance of succeeding, and anyone who approaches/follows a Dryad is likely (90%) to have the spell thrown at him. Anyone charmed by a Dryad will never return from the forest. Dryads have exact knowledge of the woods around them. (Monsters and Treasure p. 16)

Amount: 1-6  ; AC: 5; Movement: 12; HD: 2; In Lair: 20%; Treasure type: D (some copper, silver, gold, gems and jewelry, and magic items). (ibid. p. 4)

At first glance these seem rather harmless, but if you approach them upon encountering them there is a pretty high chance you’ll lose a character. The +10% I think means you need to roll +2 higher on a d20 to make the saving throw, and as charmed characters are basically dead (they ‘will never return from the forest’), those are some really harsh odds. A far more formidable foe than you would think. 
But once a party knows this, there is absolutely no reason to ever approach encountered Dryads and risk losing a character, and as they don’t approach the players themselves this turns them basically into flavour encounters. If I understand this correctly that is a really weird design choice.
I suppose their knowledge of the surrounding area might incentivise players to approach them, but the risk seems way too high for it to be worth it. 
Also interesting that they are only 20% of the time in a lair, but cannot venture far from their tree. What is a Dryad lair then? Would that be them in their tree, as opposed to chilling just off the side of it? Again, curious design if I am not somehow mistaken. 

 

As alluded to in the intro, I thought it would be easy to refer to an old source to spice these bland branches up a bit. However, I quickly found that to be more difficult than I had assumed. It seems that most of the ancient authors that refer to dryads sort of assume the reader knows what they are. Even Hesiod, whom I used for the Chimera, was basically useless to me. 
Instead I’ll use the book Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore by Jennifer Larson. I feel justified in using a book on nymphs as a source on dryads given that dryads are a certain kind of nymph:

‘Sources of widely varying date elaborate the basic motif of the hamadryad into narratives about heroes’ encounters with these tree-dwelling nymphs.’ (Greek Nymphs, p. 73)

Nymphs that dwell in trees are given only a single unique characteristic to differentiate them from other nymphs: Their wellbeing is tied to the wellbeing of their tree. As described in an excerpt from the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite Larson includes: 

“But when they are born, pines or high-topped oaks spring up with them upon the fruitful earth, beautiful lush trees standing high on the lofty mountains. They call them the sanctuaries of the immortals, and mortals never cut them with an ax. But when the fate of death is near, first those lovely trees wither where they stand, and the bark shrivels about them and the twigs fall, and the soul of both [nymph and tree] leaves the light of the sun together.” (ibid, p.33. Translated from ancient Greek by Larson). 

Nothing else of note is said about dryads specifically, though nymphs more generally have some interesting features:

‘In the Greek imagination, nymphs are inseparable from the landscape. To a greater degree than most other Greek deities, they are closely associated with certain topographical features. The most basic of these is the spring, for nymphs are above all deities of water.’ (ibid, p.8)

Water deities, tied to the land. Makes me think of animism, with nymphs as divine expressions of water features. 

‘The word numphê is used from the beginning to mean both “bride” and “female water/landscape deity’ (ibid, p.21)

‘Any spot that is refreshingly cool, green, and pleasing to the eye might be the abode of nymphs.’ (ibid, p.10)

‘The nymphs, on the other hand, are neither good nor evil, for the gods of classical antiquity did not exist on a moral spectrum of the Christian type.’ (ibid, p.88)

All nymphs are female, and their name means bride (or the word for bride means nymph, I am not sure on the etymological order). They prefer places that are nice for most living creatures, be they human or herd animals. The combination gives us a potentially fun interpretation of nymphs as the ‘better halves’ of a more cruel or at least callous nature in general. We wanna worship and chill with the nymphs because in general they are pretty chill. 

Which seems to be what people historically did, the book describes various sites of worship dedicated to nymphs as well as the concept of ‘nympholepsy’:

‘which is a blanket word that can be used to describe several overlapping concepts. First and foremost, as Connor has shown, the term refers to a heightening of awareness and elevated verbal skills believed to result from the nymphs’ influence on a susceptible individual. It is in this sense that Boiotian Bakis was inspired to produce oracles, and it is this form of nympholepsy to which Sokrates alludes when he playfully announces that he is on the verge of speaking in dithyrambs under the influence of the nymphs of Ilissos (1.2). In such contexts, poetry and prophecy, always closely related, cannot be separated, and the nympholept, like the poet, the Sibyl, or the Pythia, experiences a state of divine madness but not one that his or her contemporaries would regard as pathological.’ (ibid. p.13)

So they can sort of possess you, causing you to become divinely inspired. As you can imagine, achieving a state like that was deemed desirable, causing typically men to dedicate their lives to serve local nymphs, which is another way the term nympholepcy is used:

‘[…] the term nympholept could be used to describe someone who exhibited an unusual degree of religious devotion to the nymphs.’ (ibid, p.14)

But nymphs aren’t wholly passive when it comes to gathering followers, which gives us a final use of nympholepsy: Abduction by nymphs.

‘Another sense of the term nympholepsy [...] is that of physical rather than mental rapture by the nymphs. In mythology and cult, we have Hylas, Bormos, and Dryope, who were snatched away into the company of the nymphs, and in funerary inscriptions, we find that children or young women were sometimes said to have been so abducted or received.’ (ibid, pp.13-14)

And having been abducted, often meant joining the nymphs in more than one sense of the word: 

‘Dryope, the Thessalian shepherdess who bore a son, Amphissos, to Apollo, was such a favorite of the hamadryad nymphs that they later snatched her and made her one of themselves.’ p.70

Abduction ties into a specific position nymphs, and by extension dryads, have in Greek mythology: Being sexually dominant despite being female. This gives them a strange, almost transgressive funtion in traditional ancient Greek society:

‘Abduction (like the fulfillment of sexual desire) is the prerogative of the more powerful over the weaker: Olympian over nymph, immortal over mortal, older over younger, and male over female, to the Greek way of thinking. Thus abductions of mortals by nymphs fit the expected pattern in one way (immortal over mortal) and reverse it in another (female over male).’ p.66

‘All the accounts of goddess-mortal unions I have so far discussed have at their root the same male fear of placing oneself at the mercy of a more powerful female (with, perhaps, an attendant unconscious attraction to this idea). The reversal of expected gender roles creates a powerful anxiety that is completely absent when gods have their way with mortal maidens.’ p.83

Nothing scares a man more than a woman treating them the way they treat women, at least that seems to be a theme in ancient Greek poetry about unions between mortal men and nymphs. 

I have no real interest in making nymphs specifically scary to straight men, but this idea of being treated the way we treat others as kinda scary is something I do like. To me it often seems like humans in general treat the world as 'for us', causing us to exploit natural resources without any regard for existing ecologies and treating non human animals in ways that are honestly quite abhorrent. So what if this is how nymphs treat humans and other mortals? That might add some less specifically hetero-masculine and more anthropocentric anxiety in having to deal with them. 

The final quality nymphs in general have that I have yet failed to mention is their relevance to pastoral parts of society:

‘The nymphs are variously said to teach divination and a range of pastoral skills; they are especially associated with beekeeping.’ (ibid, p.87)

This is also seen in the usual kinds of mortals nymphs canonically hook up with: shepherds. The book details a bunch of examples, but none is by itself relevant enough to mention. 

So this is quite a lot. Lets see if I can manage to turn it into something useable at the table:

Nymph (Dryad)

Traits: 

• Large (as a tree), runs (like a mountain stream), shimmering (like falling water)

Strengths: 

• Divine being: Being divine, they can foretel futures, interpret omens, and commune with other divinities. 
• Enchanting: Their mere presence is intoxicating, making those around them more agreeable. If they so desire, no mortal can refuse them. 

Weaknesses: 

• Water Bound: They can’t move out of sight of the landmark they are bound to, whether that be tree, stream, spring or straight. When they perish, so does the landmark and vice versa. 
• Easily Flattered: It takes little to stay on their good side. Pleasantries and symbolic offerings suffice. 

Ecology:

• Higher Standing: They are better than you and know it. If you behave like a pest, they’ll try to eradicate you; if you take their fancy, they’ll make you their pet. 
• Diligent Esthetes: Their pursuit of beauty combined with near endless time account for the unmistaken natural beauty they cultivate around their abodes. 

A qualitative dragon

Fucking dragons. They've tormented me for over two fucking months. 

Unlike the other creatures I disfigured in prior posts, there is no easy 'let's just use this original source' for dragons. They were far too much for far too long, but I finally think I have found an angle that allows me to rid myself of them for the forseeable future.  

 illustration of Smaug by Tove Jansson

First things first, their depiction in the Little Brown Books (LBB). It is long and rambling so, as a series' first, I'll reoder the text slightly to make it more legible and I am leaving out the example of play for subduing dragons for some much needed brevity:

'DRAGONS: 

There are six varieties of Dragons, each with seperate characteristics in particular and other things in common. The varieties will be dealt with first:

[...] 

Special Characteristics:  

• White Dragons will be found only in cold regions.  

• Black Dragons will be found only in swamps and marshes. If the Dragon can talk there is a 5% chance it can use magic, 1st level only.  

• Green Dragons frequent woods and forests. If the Dragon can talk there is a 10% chance it can use magic, 1st and 2nd level spells.  

• Blue Dragons are at home in the deserts and arid lands. There is a 15% chance that talking Blue Dragons can use magic spells of from the 1st and 2nd level.  

• Red Dragons inhabit mountainous and hilly regions. If the dragon can talk there is a 15% chance it can use magic, 1st through 3rd levels.  

• Golden Dragons are able to abide anywhere, as they are actually a class unto themselves. These monsters are by far the most intelligent of all their kind, and they are able to use magic. They can employ spells up to the 6th level, gaining one level for each of their stages of maturity, having one spell for each hit die they have. Golden Dragons are the only Dragons which are Lawful in nature although this exception is not noted on the Alignment table. They will often appear as human or in some other guise. They will not usually serve any character. 

[...]

Certain weapons will be more or less effective than others against the various types of Dragons. This is indicated on the following chart, the number indicating the  
addition or subtraction for the probability of hitting as well as the amount of damage done.

[...]

Breath Weapons: 

The Dragon is able to use its breath but three times per day, so sometimes it will bite instead. To determine this simply roll two six-sided dice;  a score of six or less indicates the Dragon will bite, but a seven or better indicates it wilI breathe.  

Cone-shaped breath weapons originate from the mouth of the Dragon at 1/2"  
diameter.  

Line-shaped breath weapons will travel in a straight line beginning at the height of the Dragon's head at the time it releases.  

Cloud-shaped breath weapons extend from ground level to a height of 3".

Hit Dice: 

The number of dice is an indication of the size of the creature. Most will fall in the middle, but 20% will be small and 20% very-large. The value of the hit dice, as well as the value of the breath weapon, will be subject to the  maturity of the Dragon.

Maturity:

[...]

Attacking Dragons: 

Sleeping Dragons may be attacked with a free melee round by the attacker and +2 on hit dice for chances of hitting.

[...] 

Subduing Dragons: 

Any attack may be to subdue rather than to kill, but this intent must be announced before melee begins. When intent to subdue is announced hits scored upon the Dragon are counted as subduing rather than killing points. Each round of melee the number of points scored in hits is ratioed over the total number the Dragon has (hit point total), the hits obtained being stated as a percentile of the total possible, i.e. 12%, 67%, etc. The percentile dice are then rolled to determine if the Dragon has been subdued. A roll equal to or less than the percentage of hits already obtained means the Dragon is subdued. 

[...] 

Value of Subdued Dragons: 

Subdued Dragons can be sold on the open market (going out of existance in the game) for from 500 to 1,000 Gold Pieces per hit  
point it can take. [...] Offers are determined by the referee merely by rolIing a six-sided die to see if the offer will be 500 (die 1) 600 (die 2), etc. Gold Pieces. Of course the character or characters who subdued the Dragon could keep it in their own service or sell it to other players for whatever they  
could get.  

Length of Subdual: 

A subdued Dragon will remain in that state until such time as an opportunity presents itself to escape or kill its master presents itself, but as long as the master is in a commanding position it will not attempt either course. 

Two or More Dragons: 

If two Dragons are encountered they will be a mated pair of at least the 4th age catagory. If three or four Dragons are encountered they will constitute a family group of a male, female and one or two young. The adults will be of the 4th or greater age catagory, the young of the 1st. If the young are attacked both parents will automatically use their breath weapons. If the female is attacked the male will attack at double value unless he is simultaneously attacked, and vice versa.

Dragon Treasure: 

Very Young and Young Dragons are unlikely to have acquired treasure, Sub-Adult Dragons will have about half the indicated treasure for Dragons. Very Old Dragons can have as much as twice the indicated amount.' (Monsters and Treasure pp.11-14)

Amount: 1-4; AC: 2; Movement: 9/24; HD: 5-12; In Lair: 60%; Treasure type: H (copper, silver and gold coins, gems, and a chance at a decent amount of magic items and treasure maps) (ibid. p.3)  

This is... a lot. Surprisingly though, it is also really sparse. What I mean is: We get a lot of subsystems that are for whatever reason mentioned in the context of dragons rather than the common rules, but other than that we get very little interesting information: 

• Dragons have breath attacks 
• They mature at a rate similar to humans, but exclusively benefit from aging
• Assuming the 1 to 4 is rolled on a d4, 60% of dragons encountered are mating pairs and 30% are the children of mating pairs. 
• They only support up to two young at a time, never as single parents
• They come in six flavours of which gold is objectively the strongest and most special. 

No shade to anyone who's into this, but I think this is super boring. I hate that it reduces dragons to something like a taxonomic genus and thus to just a certain kind of animal, I hate gold dragon supremacy, I hate 'nuclear family' as a model for dragon group and reproductive behaviour, and I really hate that a 100+ year old dragon is considered 'very old' and thus the strongest a dragon can get. Really, having them mature at the same rate humans do breaks my mind.

Surely we can do better, we must do better. But how?

Natural History: a dead end

The first idea was to do what I did for basilisks: these are creatures folks used to believe actually exist, so what did they think dragons were?

A snake. 

No really, thats it...

'Dragons, in the original sense of the word, are real animals. These iconic monsters of European folklore are the literary descendants of ordinary snakes that evolved through the centuries with much help from the discipline of natural history. Classical authors applied the term dragon to large snakes such as Aesculapian snakes and pythons. Over time, so many fabulous traits accrued in the descriptions of these animals that by the Renaissance dragon descriptions strained credulity, and eighteenth-century scientists dismissed dragons as mythical.' (from the abstract of Snake to Monster: Conrad Gessner’s Schlangenbuch and the Evolution of the Dragon in the Literature of Natural History by Senter et al. in Journal of Folklore Research vol. 53, no. 1)

This was a very dissapointing dead end to reach so quickly. I tried looking for interesting traits ascribed to dragons in natural history but they are profoundly boring. Just look at this overview from the same paper:

 

(ibid. p. 69)

Ibn Sina's grouping of morays and stingrays under dragons is a fun little novelty, but for the most part this is useless at the table. 

The paper did allow me to justify excluding non-european dragon origins to keep the scope more manageable: 

'It is important to note that the Occidental (Western) dragon is not directly related to the Chinese dragon. The latter is a mythical creature believed to have its own independent origin and evolution in art and literature' (ibid p. 71)

Their reference to a book called the Art of the Dragon from 1988 by Yang Xin, Yohua Li, and Naixiang Xu, I could not check as I could not find a copy online nor did the local university library have it. 

Sigurd and Fáfnir: an unexpected journey 

Tolkien reference very much intended, as will become clear later. 

The main reason I chose this story is that according to Max Miller from the youtube channel Cooking History, Regin (Fáfnir's dwarven brother) lies to Sigurd that the creature he wants him to kill is a snake (at about 9:25 of this video). 

I can't find this particular claim by Regin in either the Volsung saga, nor in my copy of the poetic Edda, but I am desperate to make a decision on which dragon to use, so any link between OG drakōn (i.e. greek snakes) and literary dragons is taken as a qualifying criterion.  

Both the saga and the Edda have very little to say about Fáfnir, but fortunately Tolkien has written an adaptation of Sigurd's encounter with the dragon (The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun, specifically part V Regin) which gives us a lot more in that regard:

[...]

Fathoms thirty fell

the fearful cliff

whence the dragon bowed him

drinking thristy.

[...] 

the land trembled

forth came Fáfnir,

fire his breathing;

down the mountain rushed

mists of poison

 

The fire and fume 

over fearless head

rushed by roaring;

rocks were groaning

the black belly, 

bent and coiling,

over hidden hollow

hung and glided. 

So the dragon Fáfnir:

• Is very long, he can bend down 30 fathoms to drink
• Is heavy, the ground shakes under his footsteps
• Is constantly breathing fire
• Emits a mist of poison
• Can project his fice by roaring
• Has a long, coiling body, suggesting something like a snake

Fáfnir is killed with a single thrust, but the sword used was only approved by Regin for the job after it was capable of cleaving an anvil in two, so we can add 

• Had incredibly tough skin

to the list of his qualities.

That is not yet the extent of the dragon's qualities. After killing it, Regin intends to consume the dragon's heart, in Tolkien's adaptation to gain the dragon's wisdom. While preparing it, Sigurd tastes some of the dragon's blood after which: 'beasts cry he knew, and birds voices'. 

Consumption of the dragon thus bestows abilities. Perhaps these are the dragon's own abilities, the language of beasts and birds being part of his wisdom, in which case 

• Can understand beasts and birds 
• Transfers knowledge and skills to whomever consumes their body 

should both be added. 

Finally, and cucially, Fáfnir wasn't born a dragon, he became one after killing his father for the blood money that was payed for the death of his brother Otter. There is some beautiful poetic irony in killing someone to get the money they got as compensation for the untimely death of their son. I find that way more compelling than the potential 'patricide is bad' reading of the curse.

Fuck that was long. I promise (mostly to myself) the next few will be shorter, and hopefully take less time.v

Dragon

Traits: 

• Long (like a train), creep (like a gator), fly (like a kite)

Strengths: 

• Scaly armor: Overlapping scales, like harderdened steel, cover the entire outside of their body. 
• Fiery breath: Exhale flames with each breath. Able to bellow large balls of fire with a roar. 
• Toxic mist: The fumes coming of its flames are poisonous, crippling all who breathe them. 
• Beguiling speech: When conversing it is difficult not to tell them more than you intended.

Weaknesses: 

• Cold-blooded: Does not understand compassion and gets sluggish if cooled down.
• Self-centred: Cannot imagine anyone caring about or being motivated my anything other than them.  

Ecology:

• Blood curse: Born by spilling blood to gain what was given to compensate for unjustly taken lives.
• Growing greed: The larger the hoard, the greater their size. The greater their size, the larger their greed. 
• Magical bodies: Their form caused by curse, consuming them bestows blessings and cursed alige. 
• Inhospitable neighbours: They do not honour the laws of hospitality. Their prolonged presence blights the surrounding lands. 

A qualitative (D)jinn

DISCLAIMER: I am a white man from Europe and my parents seemed totally uninterested in having my siblings and I learn about other cultures. Despite this I’ve tried my best to educate myself on this blogpost's topic, but I might have made mistakes or unintentionally reproduced harmful orientalism. If you spot anything wrong or disrespectful, please let me know so I can edit the post to amend such issues. 

I have been dreading this one. Jinn (all accounts I have found romanize it without the ‘d’) have a very different cultural background than the monsters we have looked at so far. They are also the first that are canonized by a widely practised religion: Islam. There are a lot of people that genuinely believe in the existence of Jinn, not in the least because according to the Quran, Satan isn’t a fallen angel but the prideful Jinn Iblis. 
That isn’t to say all Muslims believe in the existence of Jinn, but to explain why belief in some variant of them is so prevalent among people of cultures strongly influenced by the Islamic faith. 
Fortunately, islam is not contentious at all in Europe (where I’m from) or the Americas (who seem to make up my primary audience), and there are no conflicts going on that fuel baseless hatred and fear of Muslims. So going into this as a person without a Muslim background will be super easy and chill and there is absolutely no reason to be stressed about being insensitive about my approach to Jinn for use in silly elf games whatsoever.

‘All Djinn are aerial creatures and have not the powers typically credited to them in fairy tales. They fight as Giants with a -1 as far as damage is concerned, thus doing from 1-11 points of damage when hitting. They can carry up to 6,000 Gold Pieces in weight, walking or flying (the latter for short periods only). They can create food which is nutritionally sound. They can create drinkable beverages. They can create soft goods and wooden objects of permanence, but metalic [sic] items last but a short time when created by them (the harder the metal the shorter its life), so that Djinn-GoId lasts but one day. They can create illusions which will remain until dispelled by touch or magic, and they need not concentrate upon the illusions to maintain them. They can form a whirlwind 1’’ base diameter, 2" top diameter, and 3" in height which otherwise is like that of an Air Elemental. Djinn are also able to become invisible or assume gaseous form.’ (Monsters and treasure p.19)

Amount: - - - - - - - ; AC: 5; Movement: 9/23; HD: 7+1; In Lair: never; Treasure type: none (ibid. p.4)

This… sucks… right? 
For starters, wtf do they mean ‘amount: - - - - - -’? Based on the fact that some of the other creatures with their amount listed as - - - - - - are either closer to environmental hazards (green slime) or mounts and pack animals (various kinds of horses and mules), are we to assume Jinn are similarly either more of a hazard or (more likely imo) a servile being like pack animals and mounts are? Does that mean we are to assume they come in lamps and lead-sealed pots? Or as servants of folks in possession of such items?
Also, wtf is ‘have not the powers typically credited to them in fairy tales’? Which ones! Given the weirdly specific description of their creative powers and powers of illusion I am going to assume wish fulfilment is what is meant with this, but are there any others?
It feels like the authors were trying to be economical, relying on common sense understandings of Jinn (based on the Galland version of A thousand and one nights), but then decided that wishes would be too strong, leaving us with this mangled abomination of a description. I hate this so much. 

Doing better than the LBB should be easy, they placed the bar at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. However, there is still a minor difficulty: What people believe Jinn to be isn’t unified among those that believe in them. Given that Islam is the dominant religion in countries as diverse as Oman, Burkina Faso, Kazakhstan and Indonesia this shouldn’t come as a surprise.
So rather than try to find a single definitive understanding of Jinn as a reference for my qualitative version, I am taking a highly specific understanding of Jinn as my point of reference. Specifically I will refer to Jinn as they are conceived by Buffi healers from a Moroccan shrine dedicated to the saint Ben Yeffu as described by Mohammed Maarouf in his work Jinn eviction as a discourse of power. 
In the second chapter of this book Maarouf describes the characteristics of Jinn according to the Buffi and the ways in which these characteristics coincide with and differ from his reading of Jinn as described in the Quran and Hadith. 
Based that chapter here is a list of the qualities of Jinn:

• They live in ‘subterranean abodes’ p.83
• They tend to leave these abodes after al-asr (the afternoon prayer) ibid
• They are not referred to using the proper name ‘Jinn’ out of fear this will offend them and cause retaliation. Instead the use of euphemisms is common. ibid 
• Buffi healers are immune to Jinn due to their blood ties to the saint Ben Yeffu (despite the fact that they almost all have family members with similar blood ties who are affected by Jinn possession). p.84
• Jinn ‘eat, drink, make sex and die’ p.85
• They like unsalted food, especially sweet food. Also they drink blood. ibid
• They live in groups such as cities and tribes composed solely of Jinn. ibid
• They differ among one another in type (satanic or divine), sex, religion (Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Pagan), race and language. ibid
• They can speak either through a possessed person or a shapeless voice. ibid
• They can take the form of humans, animals and human-animal hybrids. p. 85-86
• Their eyes are located on the forehead or (if Jewish) on the fingernails (I am unsure if this is only when they posses a host or if these are the locations on their own bodies as well). p.87
• They can travel great distances instantly, pass through walls and (contrary to what is said in the Quran and Hadith) divine the future. ibid
• Healers can negotiate labour contracts with Jinn, which are binding for both parties, i e. healers have Jinn that work for them p.90
• Jinn haunt places and need to be placated during construction and before human occupation of these constructions. p.91
• They vary in shape and colour p.94
• They actively control their hosts (contrary to what is said in the Quran and Hadith where they can only manipulate humans through temptation). p.101
• They can have human-like occupations. The book mentions doctor, judge, engineer, teacher and police. p.103
• As part of their eviction they are tried in a court. p.105-106
• They each prefer different colours, which are often symbolically associated with their behaviour (e.g. red for a butcher) p.109
• They are assumed to be made of fire as opposed to humans which are made of clay (just like in orthodox Islam). p.96
• Satan is believed to be a defiant Jinn originally called Iblis (just like in orthodox Islam). ibid
• There are no Jinn prophets (according to the Quran and Hadith). p.97
• They can perform physical labour as it is written in the Quran they build king Solomon statues and synagogues. ibid
• According to the Quran they try to gain divine knowledge from heaven but are thwarted in their attempts by shooting stars (which is amazing). p.98

What I really like about this conception is the mixture of the mundane (Jinn doctors live in Jinn cities with their Jinn families, and presumably work in Jinn hospitals, while visiting Jinn mosques on friday afternoons) and the supernatural (invisible creatures that can move through walls, travel great distances instantaneously, shapeshift, and have a thirst for blood). The idea of having to negotiate a contract with a Jinn is also really enticing to me. 
So let's see if we can make a Jinn that is a bit less orientalist and a bit more faithful to the way they are conceived of by Moroccan culture, specifically the maraboutic Buffi tradition.

Jinn

Traits: 

• Medium (like a human), fast (like the flicker of a flame), invisible (like the wind)

Strengths: 

• Incorporeal bodies: Physical matter is inconsequential to them. It neither hurts nor halts them. 
• Possessive minds: They can possess a living being, taking direct control of their actions. Also get overly attached to people, places and objects. 

Weaknesses: 

• Bound by words: They have to honour any agreement made, unless it was broken by the other party first. 
• Salt-phobia: They cannot abide salt. Consuming it undoes possession, circles of it function like barriers. 

Ecology:

• Parallel Existence: Born from fire, they reside in the higher strata of our world, in incorporeal cities and invisible lands. 
• Ideational Beings: Lacking physicality seems to have led to a propensity for concepts and narratives, knowledge and fables. 

  

 

 

 

 

 

A qualitative Cockatrice

Seeing how I am currently on sick-leave and spend most of my days trying to distract myself from the state of my mental health, I won’t pretend this one is overdue because of a busy life. Really, I have been procrastinating this write-up, because the cockatrice historically isn’t really its own being. Rather it is a synonym for ‘basilisk’. We see this even in the description given to us by the Little Brown Books:

“The Cockatrice is a less powerful but more mobile Basilisk. It turns opponents to stone by touch. The Cockatrice is able to fly. They are not intelligent.” (Monsters and Treasure p.10)

Amount: 1-8; AC: 6; Movement: 9/18; HD: 5; In Lair: 35%; Treasure type: D (some copper, silver, gold, gems and jewelry, and magic items). (Ibid. p.3 and p.22)

There is little to comment on, they are really for the most part just as the first sentence describes them. Even their need to touch their opponents to petrify and their ability to fly fit in the ‘less powerful’ and ‘more mobile’ descriptors respectively. The only additional difference is the amount you encounter. Basilisks are never in groups of more than four; a flock of cockatrices can number up to eight. 

What if we take this idea, that Basilisks and Cockatrices are the same creature, seriously? With my limited knowledge of biology, I could think of three ways in which members of the same species can differ significantly:

Option 1: Sexual dimorphism

Probably best to have actual biologists describe these:

““Sexual dimorphism” means that the two sexes of a species differ in external appearance or other features. Males and females may differ in size, color, shape, the development of appendages (such as horns, teeth, feathers, or fins), and also in scent or sound production.” (1)

Basically, anything you can use to determine whether or not a given member of a species is male or female. 
For some creatures this dimorphism is rather tame, different coloured feathers for ducks spring to my mind. In terms of size and shape they look (to me) mostly the same, so it is really just the feathers that give away their sex (assuming this is a strict binary, which I am not sure of). 
Other creatures differ more radically. Anglerfish are the first that jump to my mind. They differ greatly in size, but also the females are the only one with the glowstick appendage, and the degree to which they fuse as part of their reproduction is very asymmetrical. 

Option 2: Phenotypic plasticity

As the biologists put it:

”Phenotypic plasticity, [is] defined as the ability of an individual to alter its phenotype in response to environmental changes” (2)

 So changes in physical appearance based on the situation you find yourself in.
The most well known of these is probably a chameleon changing colour, but one I personally find very interesting is locusts. These are, genetically speaking, just regular old grasshoppers. However, under certain conditions they will drastically change their behaviour (forming swarms that roam and eat everything in sight) as well as their physical appearance (changing in colour, wing length etc.). 

Option 3: Metamorphosis (in this case, complete metamorphosis)

And finally: 

 “More than 80% of insect species, possibly representing around 60% of all animals, undergo a particularly marked form of metamorphosis in which an ecologically inactive life stage called the pupa is interposed between the larva and the adult, during which the insect's body is almost entirely rebuilt. This kind of transformation is called holometaboly or ‘complete metamorphosis', where the larval body is always markedly different in form from that of the adult.” (3)

You look like one thing, form a pupa, and turn into a different looking thing. Same species, drastically different appearances. 
It is probably slightly redundant to give examples of this, but for completion’s sake: think maggots to flies, caterpillars to butterflies, larvae to bees, etc.     

Though all three of these options these could be fun, I find myself preferring complete metamorphosis. My interpretation of the Basilisk is very food oriented, it looks for different kinds of rock and thus tries to petrify as many different kinds or organic material as it possibly can. The comparison to something like a caterpillar is easily made. 
    The Cockatrice could then, much like butterflies, be mostly focussed on dispersing eggs, for which the increased mobility is very useful. It being less durable also feels appropriate to me: there is no real need to compete over resources, so it can just fly away, rather than stand their ground and fight. 

So this is the angle through which I will create a qualitative cockatrice:

Cockatrice (adult form of Basilisk)  

Traits:

•  medium-sized (like secretarybird), flying (like vulture), prized (like gems)

Strengths: 

• Cement Vomit: They can projectile vomit a disgusting sticky substance, which quickly begins to set, similar to cement. 
• Stunning Claws: Brilliant talons which cause whatever flesh they sink into to become rigid and numb. 

Weaknesses: 

• Eyecatching: Its crystalline feathers shimmer even in the lowest light, making them easy to spot in most surroundings. 
• Destructive Independence: Unable to cooperate or accept assistance of any kind. 

Ecology:

• Metamorphic Fission: Commonly emerges in sets of two from the geode-like pupa formed by a Basilisk once it has reached sufficient size; one male, one female. 
• Parasitic Inheritance: The stares of their offspring would kill them. Instead they look for hosts to plant their egg on, after which they cover both host and egg in their vomit. 

 

Leftover of a basilisk pupa after cockatrices emerged 

The 'biologists' 

1. (Katherine Ralls, Sarah Mesnick, Sexual Dimorphism, Editor(s): William F. Perrin, Bernd Würsig, J.G.M. Thewissen, Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (Second Edition), Academic Press, 2009, Pages 1005-1011, ISBN 9780123735539, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-373553-9.00233-9) 

 2. (Juan M. Guayasamin, Tim Krynak, Katherine Krynak, Jaime Culebras, Carl R. Hutter, Phenotypic plasticity raises questions for taxonomically important traits: a remarkable new Andean rainfrog (Pristimantis) with the ability to change skin texture, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 173, Issue 4, April 2015, Pages 913–928, https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12222) 

3. (Truman, J., Riddiford, L. The origins of insect metamorphosis. Nature 401, 447–452 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/46737)  

Disclaimer: No biologists were harmed in the writing of this blogpost.  

A qualitative Chimera

This entree had me stumped for a bit. It got me thinking about something interesting though: When we use names of monsters, what are we reffering to?

For the chimera specifically, I found four ways in which we can use the term.

1. Monsters as fantastical animals

This first one fits well with the depiction in the Little Brown Books (LBB):

“Combining the worst of many creatures, a Chimera has the forebody of a great cat, the hind quarters of a goat, dragon wings, and three heads. The goat’s head can gore with its long and sharp horns, the lion’s head can tear with its great fangs, and the dragon’s head can either bite or breath [sic] fire (but with a range of only 5’ and but three dice damage).” (Monsters and treasure p.11)

Amount: 1-4; AC: 4; Movement: 12/18; HD 9; in Lair: 50%; Treasure type: F (i.e. chance of silver, gold, gems/jewelry, and non-weapon magic). (Ibid. p.3 and p.22)

Three clues point to this interpretation being that of a fantastical animal: The indefinite article (‘a Chimera’), the universal features that Chimera apparently have (great cat + goat + dragon), and the amount you can encounter (1 to 4). Only when writing up this post did I notice that this has been the LBB’s interpretation of all the monsters we’ve looked at so far. 

On the whole, I think it is pretty boring. Despite being a dragon with a bunch of add-ons, it feels more like a worse dragon. The stats seem to somewhat support this, as they have worse AC, a worse breath attack in terms of reach, and less variation (though the type of big cat is left open to interpretation, the dragon head will always breathe fire). Why would you ever use this over a dragon?

2. Monsters as singular aberrations

This is how we see the Chimera being described in classical sources:

"First he [King Iobates of Lykia (Lycia)] sent him [Bellerophon] away with orders to kill the Khimaira (Chimera) none might approach; a thing of immortal make, not human, lion-fronted and snake behind, a goat in the middle, and snorting out the breath of the terrible flame of bright fire. He killed the Khimaira, obeying the portents of the immortals." (Iliad, 6. 179 ff, via https://www.theoi.com/Ther/Khimaira.html) 

We have a definite article and this entity is the result of immortals dicking around. Though the classical sources do also describe monsters as a species (centaurs were like this, but so are the sirens, maticores, and harpies), a lot of monsters are one of a kind. There is just the one Sphinx (a child of the Chimera of Lycia), the one Cerberus (one of her brothers), the one Lernean Hydra (one of her sisters). 

Now, personally I already like this a lot better. Sure the implied lay-out of the heads is a bit awkward, but in practice these will get a lot less in each other's way than the LBB version (imagine that goat head trying to gore something without accidentally poking the eye out of one of the other heads…). Also, I find this monster a bit silly, so it being a weird one off feels more appropriate to me. The use of conflicting sexual dimorphisms is also interesting to me. All depictions give the lion head manes, a masculine feature, but the goat middle has udders. Combine this with the fact she birthed other monsters (the Sphinx and Nemean Lion according to Hesiod Theogony 319 ff), and we also have clear feminine features. As a cis guy it is probably not my place to suggest this, but Chimera as a trans or intersex icon seems potentially fruitful. Then again, that might be well trodden ground that my vanilla ass is simply unaware of. 

The one thing I find lacking in this interpretation is that it is one and done. You get to throw in your one Chimera, and if players have dealt with/ignored it you are done. It makes the chimera less a monster you can use to stock your world, and more an NPC that influences part of the world. That isn’t bad, but it is less flexible, and not what I had in mind for this ‘qualitative X’ project. 

3. Monster names as broad categorizations

I’ve seen this for other monsters as well, but the chimera seems to be the one where this understanding of monsters is applied most often. My assumption is that this is based on the legacy the mythical creature from classical literature has in modern genetics (which take the term to mean “an animal comprised of two or more genetically distinct cell populations derived from two or more zygotes” (Brenner’s Encyclopedia of Genetics, Volume 1, p.516)). In short: a chimera is any hybrid creature. This interpretation is where one gets the random chimera tables from. Roll for front-head, for middle-head, for tail-head, and finally for breath attack, resulting in e.g. the Bull + poison-spitting-Wolf + Swan chimera. 

Though I am sympathetic to this understanding of the chimera, it presents a problem for my ‘qualitative X’ series: How the hell am I supposed to write this up in the same style? Such conformity to an arbitrary format shouldn’t have to constrict me, but I really feel like it does. More damning though, if any combination of real world animals into a fantastical entity is a chimera, then centaurs, pegasi, gryphons, etc. are all also chimera. This understanding of the term makes it sort of useless for this bestiary project, which makes me less eager to use it. 

4. Monsters as the result of human actions

Dan from the blog throne of salt has probably written the definitive post on this interpretation of ‘monster’, but modern genetics gives us an interesting angle for chimeras that fits this conceptualization as well:  

“Chimeras are experimentally produced by the transplantation of cells or tissues between individuals, most often between embryos, although transfer between adults or between embryos and adults are also utilized.” (ibid).

This is the chimera as it is also presented to use in Full Metal Alchemist: humans fuse two or more different creatures into one. This makes chimeras something inherently horrific, a reference to animal experimentation of the worst kind. All the more monstrous because it is something we actually do. 

To me, this is the strongest contender for a qualitative chimera. It gives you the flexibility of a ‘species’, the messiness of the classical version, and the variety of the ‘category’ interpretation, without causing a bunch of taxonomical confusion about which monsters are and aren’t technically chimeras. An understanding of chimeras that is chimeric in and of itself; an unintentional but welcomed quality, I think.

Chimera:

Traits: 

• Unsettlingly large (like combined volume of original creatures), variable speed (like largest creature used), artificial (like bread). 

Strengths: 

• Numen Spew: Can projectile vomit excess magical energy, burning living creatures on contact. 
• Magical Resistance: Created by magic, they are resistant to being directly affected by spell effects, other than dispelling magic. 

Weaknesses: 

• Arcane Fusion: Anything that dispels magic destroys the chimera, leaving behind the mangled remains of whichever creatures were used in its creation. 
• Conflicting Instincts: As the sum of its parts, its initial reaction is in accordance with animals used to create it. When these reactions conflict, it trips over itself trying to do all at once. 

Ecology:

• Experimental Existence: The result of magically combining two or more other creatures, destroying both to create something new. 
• Sterile Singularity: By their very nature, chimeras are singular entities. They cannot reproduce, nor can similar copies be recreated. 
• Magic Hoarder: Perhaps because it feels kinship with other creations of magic, they are known to seek out and hoard magical items. 

Two qualitative centaurs

Two interpretations of a monster this time, fitting its dual nature I suppose.

Look, I think these primitive/savage sub-human creatures are often very boring. The Little Brown Books (LBB) are unfortunately no exception to this:

‘At worst these creatures are semi-intelligent, and therefore Centaurs will always carry some form of weapon: 50% of a group will carry clubs (equal to Morning Stars), 25% will carry lance-like spears, and the balance will be armed with bows (composite bow, foot-type). In Melee the Centaur will attack twice, once as a man and once as a medium horse. Centaurs will be found in hidden glens. It is there that both their females and young are and where their treasure is hidden. In the lair (glen) will be found from 1-6 additional males, females equal in number to twice the total number of males, and young equal to the number of males. Females are not generally armed and wiII not fight, and the young are also non-combatant, except in life-and-death situations.’ (Monsters and Treasure p.15)

Amount encountered: 2-20 (assuming 2d10, so 11 on average); AC: 5, Movement: 18; HD: 4; In Lair: 5%; treasure type A (i.e. an assortment of copper, silver, gold, gems and jewelry, and maps and magic items). (ibid. p.4 and p.22)

At worst we have some derogatory ‘primitive’ peoples (living in glens, fighting mostly with clubs, suggestion of either harems or a sexist ‘hunter-gatherer’ division of labour). But even a more charitable reading, which leans into the lack of a description of glen-life and interprets the staying behind of women in a more empowering way, it is just so boring. They are people with horse legs and it is implied they are somewhat primitive. Medium cavalry, except they can’t dismount and are thus presumably hindered in all the ways horses are. Yawn.

There is good reason for this. Centaurs in the western imagination are based primarily on the way they are depicted in ancient Greek and Latin sources, in which they are clearly a metaphor for barbarism, if not a straight up depiction of horseback-riding nomadic peoples as seen by the ancient Greeks: 

“We are also told that they [i.e. the centaurs] demanded of Peirithoos (Pirithous), on the ground of kinship, their share of their father's kingdom, and that when Peirithoos would not yield it to them they made war on both him and the Lapithes (Lapiths). At a later time, the account goes on to say, when they had made up their differences, Peirithoos married Hippodameia, the daughter of Boutes (Butes), and invited both Theseus and the Kentauroi to the wedding. The Kentauroi, however, becoming drunken assaulted the female guests and lay with them by violence, whereupon both Theseus and the Lapithes, incensed by such a display of lawlessness, slew not a few of them and drove the rest out of the city. Because of this the Kentauroi gathered all their forces, made a campaign against the Lapithes, and slew many of them, the survivors fleeing into Mount Pholoe in Arkadia (Arcadia) and ultimately escaping from there to Cape Malea, where they made their home. And the Kentauroi, elated by these successes, made Mt Pholoe the base of their operations, plundering the Greeks who passed by, and slew many of their neighbours.” (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 4, 69, 4 via https://www.theoi.com/Georgikos/KentauroiThessalioi.html)

They are warmongering, entitled, and rude; they drink irresponsibly, don’t respect the laws of hospitality, and are unable to control their lust. Unlike us. In one of his fragments Theognis even claims the centaurs are ‘eaters of raw flesh’ (Fragments 541, via ibid.). Yuk. 
However, rather than lean into the barbarism, making the centaurs truly monstrous, the LBB instead gives us primitive horse people. A wasted opportunity in my opinion. 



These classical centaurs get featured in one other source I find fascinating: Dante’s Divine comedy, specifically in Inferno:

“Between that awful river and the steep cliffs we had descended we saw Centaurs galloping in a long line. As they did in our world, so here they were armed with bows and arrows as they hunted. ‘[…] There are thousands of them on this circle. They gallop around shooting any soul who dares to emerge from that bloody river above the level of his guilt.’” (Divine comedy, Inferno, Canto 13, via https://dantecomedy.com/welcome/inferno/inferno-canto-12/inferno-canto-12/)

Now, to be fair, these centaurs are still in literal hell as a punishment for their sinful lives. But, rather than boiling in the river Phlegethon they serve as guardians, ensuring the wicked get their just punishment. To repent for their sins they are condemned to serve the divine into perpetuity. This opens up a different interpretation of the centaur, not as a savage barbarian, but instead a repentant enforcer of justice: a paladin. To me, the interesting part of the paladin is less so the 'smite' ability, and more the concept of the oath, so that is what I will focus on. 

These are the two angles through which I want to adapt centaurs: As barbarous monsters who plunder and pillage, and as reformed criminals sworn to a holy cause.

Centaur (barbarous):

Traits: 

• Large (like mounted horse), fast (like horse), strong (as a span of oxen).

Strengths: 

• Frenzied Bloodlust: Once excited enters a ravenous frenzy in which they don’t feel pain or fatigue, but can’t stop fighting or pursuing their enemies. 
• Shameless Liars: Will say whatever they need to in order to create an opening to attack or to survive, no matter how debasing. 

Weaknesses: 

• Rash: Quick to jump to conclusions and into action, making them relatively easy to lure into traps.
• Hollow Words: They’ll reference family, parents, children solely because it causes others to take mercy on them, but when pressed they have no idea what these concepts actually refer to. 

Ecology:

• Group Hunters: They never go anywhere alone due to a lack of trust of one another, and the fact it increases the success rates of their hunts. 
• True Antropovores: All they consume is raw human flesh. It is unclear if it is all they can stomach or it is simply what they are best at attaining.

Aside: Human-animal hybrid monsters. 

How do we make sense of these without them being stand-ins for horrible views on cultures deemed inferior from a perspective of superiorty? I think the centaur as barbarian works best if it is a straight-up monster. Not ‘human but less advanced’ but in some way completely inhumane. To achieve this let us take a lesson from the anime Frieren. In this show demons are human-like in appearance and capable of speech that sounds convincingly human. They passed the Turing-test. However, the show stresses that their ability for speech doesn’t mean you can reason with them. Rather, as a predator who preys on humans, they developed speech for the sole reason to make it easier to kill and consume, or as the show often puts it: Demons can speak, but only do so to deceive. So too will I treat the barbarous interpretation of the centaur. 

Centaur (repentant)

Traits: 

• Large (like mounted horse), fast (like horse), devout (as saint). 

Strengths: 

• Sharpshooters: Able to hit anything in their range, as long as they have line of sight of their target. 
• Relentless hunters: While in the process of bringing someone to justice, they cannot cease their effort until they have completed this task. 

Weaknesses: 

• Avengers only: Only allowed to act on their own accord in order to punish a crime they witnessed first hand. They’ll let you die in the streets, but at least they’ll slay your killer. 
• Oath Bound: Forced to obey the divine oath that gave them their equine bodies. Have to obey all orders of representatives of the faith. 

Ecology:

• Repentant Sinners: Candidates get recruited from among sinners by criteria opaque to anyone but representatives of the faith. 
• Strict Hierarchy: Always beholden to someone above them, which is why they are never seen alone. Their minimum group-size consists of a commander and a disciple. 

A qualitative Black Pudding

 Next monster by alphabetical order of the Little Brown Books is the black pudding:

‘Another member of the clean-up crew and nuisance monster, Black Puddings are not affected by cold, it is spread into smaller ones by chops or lightening bolts, but is killed by fire. Black Puddings dissolve wood, corrode metaI at a reasonably fast rate, have no effect on stone, and cause three dice of damage to exposed flesh. If an armored character runs through a Black Pudding the monster's corrosive power will eat away the foot and leg protection of the armor so that it will fall-away next turn. Black Puddings can pass through fairly small openings, and they can travel as easily on ceilings as on floors.’ (Monsters and Treasure p.19)

Amount encountered: 1; AC 6; Movement: 6; HD: 10; Never in a lair; Never has treasure (Ibid. p.4)

Information I find notable:

• The LBB give us not only the functions of black puddings in their interactions with the environment (what it does and does not corrode, how it interacts with certain elements, how it moves), but also its function in the dungeon: ‘clean-up crew’ (its in-world ecological niche) and ‘nuisance monster’ (a suggestion for the referee for when and where to use it). 
• We get some idea of what it looks like based on the description of what happens when an armoured character runs ‘through’ a black pudding (suggesting a literal pudding-like consistency and a height of about the knees of an average human). 
• It is always encountered alone, which is interesting given that it is a scavenger. Rats and vultures congregate around a source of food, but the pudding is always alone. This makes it seem to me that black puddings can merge with each other, which makes sense to me given that they can be split.
• I am surprised by how mobile it is. I expected the hole-squeezing and it makes sense to me that it can move on ceilings, but it is way faster than I would have thought. The fact that it can keep pace with a dwarf (even while on the ceiling) is disgustingly terrifying. 
• This version of the pudding is also extremely hardy. Ten Hit Dice puts it in the same ballpark as Balrogs, Efreet, some Giants, and some Dragons. That is crazy for a ‘nuisance monster’. Its mediocre Armour Class means it will be hit more often, but it is still way more durable than I thought it would be.
• Nowhere does it say that black puddings are not intelligent. Might mean nothing on the whole, but given that it was spelled out for the Basilisk it is surprising to me. Especially because (at least to my knowledge) this is a D&D original.

All in all, it's giving this:


 

‘This’ being a plasmodial slime mold, a single cellular organism that can merge with others of its kind, split apart, is surprisingly good at finding optimal solutions for problems, and is definitely part of nature’s ‘clean-up crew’. 
Considering the black pudding as a slime mold has some advantages as it allows us to take the rest of a slime mold’s qualities and apply them to black puddings to give them a bit of extra flair. 
For example, slime molds can survive prolonged periods of dehydration and malnourishment. Just add water to turn the grey shriveled film into a horrifying black goop. 
Their lifecycle is also quite interesting. The way they produce spores once they run out of food could be wonderful dungeon dressing, a classic hazard, and/or a warning to the players that this has relatively recently seen pudding activity. 
Finally, slime molds leave behind a residue which tells them where they have been. This too could be a fun way to indicate the presence of a black pudding and give you something to present to players when ‘tracks’ are rolled on an overloaded encounter dice. Additionally, as this is a way for the pudding to know where it has been (and where there probably won’t be any new food), it can also communicate relative safety from the pudding to savvy players. (source for info on slime molds)

So this is what I ended up with:

Black Pudding: 

Traits: 

• wide (like carpet), amorphous (like water balloon), crawling (like spider). 

Strengths: 

• Corrosive Touch: Contact will dissolve most metals and all organic matter. Residue needs to be washed off to prevent effect lingers after contact. 
• Splitting: Attacks that would cause cutting or cleaving instead cause it to split in two independent puddings of appropriate size. 
• Antifreeze: Able to withstand even extreme cold. 
• Cunning: Adapt at coming up with optimal ways to safely secure food, including approaching from above, hiding in hollows, pretending to be ordinary muck in shallow puddles, prioritizing torchbearers, etc. 

Weaknesses: 

• Flammable: Is only truly hurt by fire. Once set ablaze it will attempt to split in two and flee. 
• Food motivated: All it cares about is nourishment, making it relatively easy to manipulate. 

Ecology:

• One and Only: When two meet they will merge into a single, bigger specimen.  
• Draft Migration: Once it has grown to sufficient size it will find a drafty area of the dungeon and create spores. The temporary forests that grow this way are both a hazard and a source of food for others in the dungeon.

 

A qualitative Basilisk

 

I’ve been meaning to do qualitative versions of the monsters from the Little Brown Books (LBB), but have been putting it off for almost three years. The idea was inspired by a community project that never went anywhere on a discord server I no longer frequent. For it, I wrote a gryphon and a centaur, but my perfectionist brain wants to get through these alphabetically (as if I will ever get around to doing all of them), so let's start with the basilisk:

‘Although this creature cannot fly, it has the power of turning to stone those whom it touches and those who meet its glance, but it in turn can be petrified by the reflection of its own eyes if the Iight is sufficient, and it looks at a good reflector. The Basilisk is not intelligent.’ (Monsters and Treasure p.10)

Amount encountered: 1 to 6; AC 4; Movement: 6; HD: 6+1; In Lair: 40%; treasure type: F (i.e. chance of silver, gold, gems/jewelry, and non-weapon magic). (Ibid. p.3 and p.22)

The LBB are delightfully vague about what a basilisk is. It is a monster, but so are ‘men’ when they are opponents. Instead it focuses more on what a basilisk can and cannot do:

It cannot fly (one assumes in reference to the cocatrice discussed directly before the basilisk). It can petrify by touch (any?) and eye contact (even with itself). It is unintelligent. More often than not it lives in groups (which it cannot make eye contact with and might not be able to touch at all), is decently armoured (the same as dwarfs), slowish (again, as dwarfs), on average can take a bit more punishment than a minotaur but less so than a troll, and spends about 9,5 hours a day at home (asleep?). 

What is interesting to me is how little this has to do with the basilisk as a historical entity. Compare the above to the description Pliny gives of the basilisk in Natural History book 8, chapter 33:

‘There is the same power also in the serpent called the basilisk. It is produced in the province of Cyrene, being not more than twelve fingers in length. It has a white spot on the head, strongly resembling a sort of a diadem. When it hisses, all the other serpents fly from it: and it does not advance its body, like the others, by a succession of folds, but moves along upright and erect upon the middle. It destroys all shrubs, not only by its contact, but those even that it has breathed upon; it burns up all the grass too, and breaks the stones, so tremendous is its noxious influence. It was formerly a general belief that if a man on horseback killed one of these animals with a spear, the poison would run up the weapon and kill, not only the rider, but the horse as well. To this dreadful monster the effluvium of the weasel is fatal, a thing that has been tried with success, for kings have often desired to see its body when killed; so true is it that it has pleased Nature that there should be nothing without its antidote. The animal is thrown into the hole of the basilisk, which is easily known from the soil around it being infected. The weasel destroys the basilisk by its odour, but dies itself in this struggle of nature against its own self.’

This is a tiny snake, so deadly it kills anything it touches, looks at or breathes upon, including the earth itself. Easy enough to stab to death, were it not for the fact that doing so will kill you in the process. The focus is again on how the creature functions, though more attention is given on how one can recognize whether a particular snake is or isn’t a basilisk. 

The basilisk from Natural History simply does not rhyme with what is described in the LBB, which means I have to make a choice: Which basilisk do I try to adapt: The petrifying beast, tough as minotaurs and trolls, or the small but deadly snake, an environmental catastrophe only difficult to kill because it would be hard to approach it without you or your weasel dying?

Let’s do both/neither in whatever distribution happens to strike my fancy: 

Basilisk: 

Traits: 

• Large (like bull), heavy (like elephant), lumbering (like fat pig). 

Strengths: 

• Petrifying gaze: Turns anything organic it gazes upon into stone, each material a corresponding mineral. 
• Stony hide: Requires heavy blows with hammers or picks to be damaged. 

Weaknesses: 

• Self-reflection: It turns to stone upon meeting its own gaze, and is blind to its own shortcomings.
• Cold-blooded: The colder it gets, the more sluggish it becomes. Also, severely lacking in empathy. 

Ecology:

• Picky eater: Though the nutritional value of all rock seems to be the same, they nonetheless pursue a varied diet, wreaking havoc in the process. 
• Sovereign of One: They are absolute rulers of their habitat, due to a total absence of any other living creatures. None has even met another of its kind. Hence their name: Tiny King. 

 

Magic Rocks: d6 Diseases of Metal, Rock and Soil

My submission for the RPG blog carnaval. This month's topic is Magic Rocks - stones, crystals, weird metals. 

First, we need to understand disease. Following the Arnold Kemp, what we call diseases are actually spirits. Suffering a disease is the same as being possessed, to be cured requires the spirit to leave voluntarily or be exorcised. 

Second, we need to understand that humans aren't special. Just like we have a spirit, so do other beings in the world. Moreover, just like a human is made up of different parts, each with their own spirit, societies made up of different humans have collective spirits. Ergo, not only trees, but forests have spirits, both boulders and mountains. It is spirits all the way up and down.

Given these two facts it should be obvious that not only humans get sick. Other living beings can become ill, but also forests, mountains, fields. What we will concern ourselves with here are the diseases of various metals and minerals. 

D6 diseases of metal, rock and soil:

1. Giltwither: Gold is oft deemed incorruptible. This is wrong, there is a spirit malign enough to sully even gold. Lead is the common name used for gold infected with Giltwither, a spirit so foul that exposure to lead quickly leads to horrible effects on most peoples health. Alchemists have spend many lifetimes attempting to cure Giltwither, but as of yet no known cure has been discovered. 
2. Ironrot: Also known as rust, ironrot is is a common water spirit. The easiest way to cure it is by removing the infected metal, similar to amputation of rotting limbs, though it is also possible to cause it to leave the iron through exorcism or bargaining. Ironrot can be warded off by most oils.
3. Glowstone: A condition which causes calcium rich minerals to emit a green glow, a pebble casting about as much light as a rushlight. Anything with bones and teeth that gets in sustained contact with the glow has these parts of their body become infected and start to glow green as well. Anything possessed with greenglow eventually crumbles into dust.  
4. Brittlemold: This nasty spirit has won wars and ruined economies. It infects rocks, though it has a preference for crystals. Affected minerals become incredibly brittle, which is why Brittlemold has at times been used deliberately to infect large stone fortifications. The disease progresses slowly, but is sometimes faster than starving a besieged town or castle. 
5. Saltcreep: Infects tilled soil, causing it to become as barren as salted earth. If not treated in time, the soil dies making it impossible for anything to grow from it. Flushing the soil with water is a possible treatment, though it is very labour intensive. Rituals for cure exist, but are prohibitively expensive.
6. Zombiesoil: One of the reasons we burn our dead, earth infected by Zombiesoil reanimates anything that once lived. Decaying plants turn into shambling mounds, putrified beasts into black puddings, and as one would expect from the name, corpses into zombies. An attempt has been made to eradicate the disease, making it relatively rare these days. 

AI and gaming: The fall and rise of amateurism

My submission for the RPG blog carnaval. This month's topic is Good morning, Dave: AI and gaming. 

 

There is a nice little comparison between two organisational structures made in the infamous first chapter of A thousand plateaus by Guattari and Deleuze. They use a lot of examples to illustrate this difference, the most famous one being that between tree-like and rhizome-like organisations. However, for the purposes of my argument I prefer the image of the difference between the fixed point and the line. 

Fixed points are goals, it is result oriented, and it is the way around which a big part of our life is structured. One needs to get specific grades to get a specific degree to get a specific job, make a specific amount of money, get a house, a spouse, etc. And the idea is that, once you have all of this, achieved these goal, got the desired result, that you are successful and thus should be happy. 

I suffer from this mode of thinking a lot. Though money isn't high on my priority list, I value my actions based almost completely on the result I achieved. The performance was fun because the singer managed to hit the note they didn't during rehearsal, the tournament was fun because I fought competently, a game was fun because the players told me they liked it and I didn't notice any skrewups I made while running it. 

Lines in comparison are, mathematically, unending. Lines are not so much the journey - as this still implies a starting point and goal, two fixed points we just happen to be at some point in between - but a directional movement we can follow. Experimentation is a nice concrete example of a line organisation, as there is change without some predefined goal this change is directed towards. 

I wish I could think more in this line-like way, which ironically is a very point-like way to frame that desire. Children are great at lines. They can start drawing, not something in particular, just drawing. Or playing. Or singing. But from a young age only my achievements were celebrated, only my failures punished, there was only ever attention for points, good or bad. Insecurity made me at an realy age begin to cling to the point and abandon the line. 

And I don't think I am alone.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the coolest things about DIY rpgs is that the production quality of a lot of these projects are higher than the market leaders once they finally get released. There is better lay-out, writing and art in something like Electric Bastionland than the 5e 2014 Players Handbook. Which feels really unique to the hobby. Though I often don't love big budget movies or video games, their bigger budgets are often reflected in the production quality of the product. Good looking CGI and graphics and what not. 

These great works of the hobby, often made by just a few people, righfully get a lot of praise and attention. They are milestone achievements, points to strive towards for anyone aspiring to make and share somerhing themselves. 

Blogs have since I started undergone a similar development. The great posts are nominated for awards, published in nicely layed out booklets, or even get hardcovers dedicated to the best work of a single author. More goals to work towards. 

As a point thinker it felt like the bar for quality content in DIY rpgs was higher than it was for homebrew 5e stuff, and the longer I have hung around here the more that bar seems to have been raised. Or at least that is how it feels to me. 

And I don't think I am alone.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imagine, if you will, someone who thinks they have a good idea. They think others might think it is a good idea as well, so they want to share this result that they are proud of. But looking at the field in which they would like to share this idea they see things that look way better than anything they are able to make or commission. 

There might be some frustration here. This person might lament their lack of skill at designing or art, or their lack of capital both material and social. It might even feel unfair. Those with artistic skill have a leg up in the same way those with money and connections do. If only the playing field could be evened. 

I've seen this person. They exist. And they aren't alone. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This, I feel, is the context in which to place generative AI in rpgs. So often have I seen this technology be praised as the democratisation of creativity. Skill is no longer necessary, ideas will reign supreme. 

It seems to me that these people think they are creative, after all it is still their ideas the program is working from. Arguing about whether or not this counts as creativity or if the product is art is about as useful as discussions about when something counts as cooking and what is or isn't a sandwich. 

To me the main problem isn't with the tool itself, nor with the products created with it (though there are other reasons to critique the way most llms currently function as well as the impact mass produced slop has on our daily lives). The main problem I am interested in is the context, the obsession with points and the increasing unachievability of them that drives some to use tools such as these. 

If I had to give this problem a snappy name I would call it 'the fall of amateurism'. Amateuristic work is something that seems to be no longer tolerated. Even in more casual groups I see more and more that instead of a shitty picture of a character, people use something generated that looks 'better' than they can make themselves. 

But interestingly, in using generative tools like this while chasing these points, amateurism is also rising. Though work is less visibly amateuristic and, assuming these generative tools continue to improve, amateuristic work might become indistinguishable from genuine craft, outsourcing these skills makes one even less proficient in them. We can get an image or a piece of text that looks nicer than what we could have made without the use of generative AI, but we have no idea how it came about. The result is complete alienation from the product we 'made' this way. 

Bernard Stiegler call this loss of knowledge and skill through alienation of the product we make 'proleterasiation'. So lets say, with some tongue in cheek, that it is peasant amateurism that has fallen, but proletarian amateurism has risen through the increased use of generative AI. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I think this broader contextual issue with the use of AI is a shame. Alienation is miserable and performing labour while alienated from the product of that labour is unfulfilling. In our working lives we might necessarily have to expose ourselves to such conditions merely to survive, but it feels like such a waste to willingly endure that feeling during what should be a leisure activity. 

Though I have never used generative AI for rpg stuff (or much at all in general) I am very much a point thinker who fetishizes the greats. So I hope I will be able to stop chasing and celebrating points as much and instead try to enjoy the hobby as amateuristic craft: unabashedly shitty experiments, following a line to see where it goes. 

 

Posts my mind assocites with this topic:

This post from Dwiz about the OSR as DIY rpgs.

This post from Retired Adventurer, specifically the bit concerning the effect of expectations about what a game should be.