Why are gargoyles monstrous humanoids?

[hymer]

Does anyone have any knowledge about this surprising choice? Or just ideas?
For those in doubt, I'm wondering why they aren't constructs. That would seem to fit their shtick and their history better.

[Fouredged Sword]

They breed and can bleed. Constructs are made.

Now, I could totally see them as a specialized form of golem, but 3.5 went in a more demon rock monster direction. They only LOOK like they are made of rock.

[Joe the Rat]

That's the way they've always been in D&D: winged ugly ambush predators that only look like stone.

There's no reason why you couldn't make a Medium-sized stone construct with flight and a claw/claw/gore attack routine, just to mess with your players...

[mevans7]

Going to have to go with Joe on this one. The way I understand it, they are simply not made of stone like a construct would be, and therefore have all the vitals and weaknesses of a humanoid.

[Sith_Happens]

It's obvious why they aren't Constructs, I think the better question is why they aren't Magical Beasts.

[Ravens_cry]

It's obvious why they aren't Constructs, I think the better question is why they aren't Magical Beasts.
Because they are a little too, well, humanoid for that. I think in Basic D&D they were some kind of construct like thing though.

[Deadline]

It's obvious why they aren't Constructs, I think the better question is why they aren't Magical Beasts.

Probably because they conform to the humanoid shape.

[Red Fel]

It's obvious why they aren't Constructs, I think the better question is why they aren't Magical Beasts.

In most cases, I think, Magical Beasts are Animal-like creatures that are more-than-animal. They have slightly more intelligence than Animals, and are often supernatural in some way, like Blink Dogs with their Dimension Door, Giant Eagles with their extra-high Int and Tolkien-isms, and Owlbears with their crimes against nature.

A Gargoyle isn't a stranger-than-normal animal. It's a big, monstrous, stupid, winged person who's very good at staying still. It's more like a Humanoid than like an Animal.

[Xaktsaroth]

It's obvious why they aren't Constructs, I think the better question is why they aren't Magical Beasts.

Well, they have a humanoid form, i.e - 2 arms, a torso, 2 legs, a head, etc...

Magical Beasts tend to be creatures without a humanoid shape, but I'm sure someone will quote this and link to an example I'm just not remembering. :P

[Fouredged Sword]

They are bipedal, so monstrous humanoids.

They do make great minions for a cleric with the earth domain though. No upkeep and a good fly speed makes for a great guard.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Interestingly, the origin of the gargoyle in folklore involves a dragon legend.

[Ravens_cry]

Interestingly, the origin of the gargoyle in folklore involves a dragon legend.
Oh? Do tell? This isn't sarcasm, I am genuinely interested.:smallsmile:

[Gemini476]

Because they are a little too, well, humanoid for that. I think in Basic D&D they were some kind of construct like thing though.


Gargoyles are magical constructs, created by
wizards for various tasks — especially as guards
for treasure chambers and other sites. Many
thousands have been created over the centuries;
most of them eventually escape or outlive their
masters and leave to form their own groups.
As pictured in medieval architecture, they are
humanoid creatures with horns, claws, fangs,
and batlike wings; they are considered hideous-
looking beasts. Their skin often looks exactly like
stone and they are often mistaken for statues.
Gargoyles are very cunning, at least semi-
intelligent, and incredibly patient. Never need-
ing food or drink, they can sit and watch a site
literally for years.
Because of the purposes for which they were
created, gargoyles tend to be very territorial crea-
tures. If not still commanded by a wizard, they
will normally choose a place (such as a ruined
building, a cave complex, or a mountain) and
defend it from all intruders, attacking nearly
anything that encroaches on their territory.
Gargoyles can only be hit with magic or magic-
al weapons and are not affected by sleep or
charm spells.The DM should not use gargoyles
unless the player characters have at least one
magical weapon.

175 XP, Treasure Type C if you wonder.

Incidentally, all constructs in BECMI are magically created. No Modrons or Inevitables here, no sirree.

[Red Fel]

Well, they have a humanoid form, i.e - 2 arms, a torso, 2 legs, a head, etc...

Magical Beasts tend to be creatures without a humanoid shape, but I'm sure someone will quote this and link to an example I'm just not remembering. :P

By your request (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/grayRender.htm).

[Crake]

By your request (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/grayRender.htm).

I think to get upgraded to monstrous humanoid, they also need to have at least a decent average intelligence. The gray render with it's 3 intelligence would probably drop to magical beast due to just that, it relies more on it's beastial nature than critical thinking of any kind.

[Fouredged Sword]

Grey renders are magical beasts due to their low int. "Humanoid" monsters with 3-4 int tend to be labled as magical beasts.

A monstrous humanoid is more human than beast. A magical beast is more beast than human.

[Ravens_cry]

175 XP, Treasure Type C if you wonder.

Incidentally, all constructs in BECMI are magically created. No Modrons or Inevitables here, no sirree.
Nice to know I was right.

[Gemini476]

I think to get upgraded to monstrous humanoid, they also need to have at least a decent average intelligence. The gray render with it's 3 intelligence would probably drop to magical beast due to just that, it relies more on it's beastial nature than critical thinking of any kind.

Gargoyles have Int 6, and are the Monstrous Humanoids with the lowest Intelligence that I could find on the SRD.
MM2 has the Boggle, a Monstrous Humanoid with Int 5.
MM3 has a Cave Troll with Int 3, but that's a Giant.
MM4 has the Whitespawn Hordeling, a Monstrous Humanoid with Int 4.

Do note that a creature with an average Int of 3 would have a -8 racial modifier - even the Whitespawn up there only has a -6. That's pretty big!

Also, does this mean that a Whitespawn Hordeling with a template that gives -2 Intelligence no longer is a Monstrous Humanoid, since it's average Intelligence is 3?

[Fouredged Sword]

The line between magical beast and monstrous humanoid isn't cut and dried. It's like the divide between human and giant, with some humanoids being as big as some giants.

Generally More bestial mind/body: magical beast - > monstrous humanoid - > Humanoid.

[Sith_Happens]

*suddenly realizes I've never actually looked at the D&D gargoyle art*

*looks at it*

...Never mind, then.

[sumkidy]

*Contains exorbitant fluff*
I'd like to think it's because either:


They are monstrous humanoids merely POSING as statues, etc. They may replace the statues found on cathedrals and the like. One I suppose could compare them to something between the stonefish and a hungry pigeon.
Or perhaps, over time, the statues themselves gain more than a semblance of life, and become true beings. Given they are normally found on things like cathedrals, perhaps that transition over time, bolstered/affected by the place of worship and the reverential fear with which they are looked upon grants them true life, intelligence, personality, and the like.

[hymer]

Thanks for all the replies, guys. Though I still don't really see why a construct that reproduces over time is any weirder than a monstrous humanoid that doesn't need to eat or breathe. I think it's about as likely that gargoyles bleed (if indeed they do) because they're monstrous humanoids as the other way around.
As long as we're suggesting alternative types, why not aberration? Their anatomy must be pretty weird.
The gargoyle is pretty weird in more ways, by the way. It has, as noted, the earth subtype. Looking up the earth subtype, there's a description of about three different things that may characterize such a creature - none of which apply to the gargoyle.

[lunar2]

lamias are magical beasts, despite being essentially centaurs with lion bodies instead of horse bodies. that always confused me more than gargoyles. why are lamias magical beasts, and centaurs monstrous humanoids, when they are essentially the same thing?

[Ravens_cry]

lamias are magical beasts, despite being essentially centaurs with lion bodies instead of horse bodies. that always confused me more than gargoyles. why are lamias magical beasts, and centaurs monstrous humanoids, when they are essentially the same thing?
Because D&D is a silly place.

[Urpriest]

Thanks for all the replies, guys. Though I still don't really see why a construct that reproduces over time is any weirder than a monstrous humanoid that doesn't need to eat or breathe. I think it's about as likely that gargoyles bleed (if indeed they do) because they're monstrous humanoids as the other way around.
As long as we're suggesting alternative types, why not aberration? Their anatomy must be pretty weird.
The gargoyle is pretty weird in more ways, by the way. It has, as noted, the earth subtype. Looking up the earth subtype, there's a description of about three different things that may characterize such a creature - none of which apply to the gargoyle.

D&D gargoyles happen to have a particularly weird, non-Construct-like fluff. They didn't have to, but that's what someone down the line went with.


lamias are magical beasts, despite being essentially centaurs with lion bodies instead of horse bodies. that always confused me more than gargoyles. why are lamias magical beasts, and centaurs monstrous humanoids, when they are essentially the same thing?

They're more "magical", essentially, while Centaurs are more "savage". It's definitely a weird line, don't get me wrong.

I was always confused about why Nagas are Aberrations, rather than Magical Beasts like Lamias, Sphinxes, and Lammasu.

[Psyren]

Gargoyles are fleshy on the inside and are subject to things that constructs are not, that's all.


175 XP, Treasure Type C if you wonder.

Incidentally, all constructs in BECMI are magically created. No Modrons or Inevitables here, no sirree.

In Pathfinder, Inevitables and similar beings are outsiders with an ability called "Constructed (Ex)" to account for the robotic bits. I think that's the more straightforward way of handling them.

[Kol Korran]

I wondered why they weren't constructs as well, regarding their real world history and religious connotation. I tried to "refluff/ remake" them in my misunderstood monsters project. This rendition of gargoyles was one of the most favored.

Part 1 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4351479&postcount=8)
part 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4351489&postcount=9)

(The entire project, small as it is, can be accessed through my sig)