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.