Monster Myths vs. RAW

[BardicDuelist]

Since there seem to be contridictions between some mythical monsters and their D&D representations, I thought a thread would help to debunk or clairify them, and to answer questions that people may have.

Can undead see invisibility?
NO. Explanation here. (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/undeadseethroughillusions.html)

Does a madusa's head still petrify after it is dead?
If somone has a RAW answer I would appreciate it.

[tainsouvra]

Does a madusa's head still petrify after it is dead? The D&D Medusa has a petrifying gaze-attack, so nope.

[BardicDuelist]

That is what I though, but is wasn't sure if gaze attacks still functioned when the creature was dead. I see why it doesn't though.

Are there any other things like this people can think of?

[CasESenSITItiVE]

the medusa in mythology was the creature's name, not the name of the species. Medusa is a gorgon as James is a human. wondering why the wizards wouldn't use the real name, i stumbled upon a different creature called a gorgon, and it was nothing like medusa. it was like a large stone elephant of some kind (albiet one that can still petrify). anybody know the story behind that?

[Xuincherguixe]

The story I heard is that for the Medusa, Gygax just messed up. And it was never corrected for some reason.

The Gorgon thing I have no idea.

Could be that TSR has some Discordians. But I think most of those people work for Steve Jackson Games.

[Dhavaer]

i stumbled upon a different creature called a gorgon, and it was nothing like medusa. it was like a large stone elephant of some kind (albiet one that can still petrify). anybody know the story behind that?

No, but Heroes of Might and Magic 3 has a gorgon with a more or less identical appearance.

[Tor the Fallen]

The D&D Medusa has a petrifying gaze-attack, so nope.

There's a feat somewhere called "Head's Up!" which allows you to use the gaze attack of a severed creatures head. Requires levels of arcane caster, I believe.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Dragon Mag features "Heads Up!". Retarded feat imho, though I can see use for it.

[kpenguin]

A hydra's head does not infinitely reproduce and its blood can't be used as a poison.

[skywalker]

I had a DM rule that a medusa's gaze did affect you after it was dead. Specifically, right after my character had beheaded the damned thing. I don't game with him anymore...

[tainsouvra]

No, but Heroes of Might and Magic 3 has a gorgon with a more or less identical appearance. They pretty blatantly copied it, though...that series does that, the most recent game even had to change some stuff during development to avoid copyright problems :smallwink:

[Iudex Fatarum]

What is the purpose of vampires having DR/silver? It is werewolves that have an alergy to silver and its not that their DR/silver its an actual alergy in most stories. Also why does it say nothing about vampires entering residences they are not invited into or own.

[Yuki Akuma]

What is the purpose of vampires having DR/silver? It is werewolves that have an alergy to silver and its not that their DR/silver its an actual alergy in most stories. Also why does it say nothing about vampires entering residences they are not invited into or own.

Because silver has a part in some of the myriad vampire legends. Really, vampires are weak to everything under the sun... You can stop one by throwing a sack of seeds at it!

[crazedloon]

What is the purpose of vampires having DR/silver? It is werewolves that have an alergy to silver and its not that their DR/silver its an actual alergy in most stories. Also why does it say nothing about vampires entering residences they are not invited into or own.

actualy in many vamp myths (not the movies like I assume you are basing this opinion off of) they are vulnerable to silver. And if I am not mistaken silver stakes were preferred for killing the creature back in the day the wooden ones were only used to keep it stuck to the ground.

Also there is rules for the no entry

They are utterly unable to enter a home or other building unless invited in by someone with the authority to do so. They may freely enter public places, since these are by definition open to all.

[Bender]

A chimera has the head of a lion, the body of a goat and the tail of a snake. So it has only one head, but is mostly depicted as having a goats head on the middle of his body as well. quite different from the image in the MM

A basilisk fits quite good with the oldest versions. Later it was depicted with birds feet and evolved into a cockatrice. Interesting...
btw: basilisks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basiliscus_plumifrons) really exist :smalleek:

[AslanCross]

Yeah, I found it totally strange that the Medusa is a separate creature from the Gorgon, and the Gorgon is a bull of some kind that breathes gas. Medusa was the name of an individual Gorgon.

The Chimera's goat head in the middle of its back was the firebreathing one.

The Erinyes in classical mythology were not female fallen angels, but instead were beings of vengeance. They were also known as the Furies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furies
(By all intents the original Erinyes seem to be more of Lawful Neutral than Lawful Evil.)

[Josh the Aspie]

From what I recall, in some versions of the legend of Jason and the Argonaughts, Jason is forced to face a large metal bull, which was called the gorgon, which had a great fire in it's belly. He then used this bull to plow the field which he sew with dragon's teeth, from which sprang the Myrmidon warriors.

Said Gorgon somewhat fits with the description of the Gorgon in the MM. Since there are two different "Gorgon" races in mythology, and one is commonly known by a mis-nomer of "Medusa", it makes sense to name that creature "medusa". This is similar to how the Frankenstein monster is not named Frankenstein, but rather that is the name of it's creator.

[Bender]

troglodytes are completely of. They are primitive humans. In fact, the Latin name for a chimpanzee is Troglodytes Pan.

I also miss the lionlike appearance of the manticore and the scorpion tail. It's spikes should also be paralysing. (firefox's spellingchecker wants to change 'manticore' with 'romantic' :smallconfused:)

[Jack Mann]

From what I recall, in some versions of the legend of Jason and the Argonaughts, Jason is forced to face a large metal bull, which was called the gorgon, which had a great fire in it's belly. He then used this bull to plow the field which he sew with dragon's teeth, from which sprang the Myrmidon warriors.

In Greek legend, these bulls (the number varies from story to story, but it's generally two or more) are known as the Khalkotauroi. The name change apparently owes itself to a medieval bestiary, the source Gary Gygax used to create the monster for D&D.


troglodytes are completely of. They are primitive humans. In fact, the Latin name for a chimpanzee is Troglodytes Pan.

Troglodyte also means refers to wrens. I do not believe wrens are primitive humans. No, I don't think feathered cloaks would do the trick. No, not even if they were really small. No, I don't think it's a plot by the government to deny the poor their right to cheap liquor.

Actually, troglodyte just means cave dweller. It's most often used to describe primitive humans, but also other things. It's used to describe chimpanzees not because they are primitive humans (obviously, they are not), but because of the mistaken assumption that they lived primarily in caves. Wrens like dark, enclosed spaces. The humanoid monster you speak of lives primarily underground.

[Swooper]

Interesting. I'd like to point out that since 2nd Edition, there have not been official stats for a Cyclops in D&D. I've had some of my best adventures with those mentally- and depth-perception-challenged oaves. Where are they!? :smallmad:

[Evil DM Mark3]

Silver has been held by several relegions as somehow pure. (As opoesed to gold that was a sign of greed, although other relegions held gold as pure) It is not so much the case that wherewolves are alergic to it but that EVERYTHING EVIL is vulnerable to it. This has carried over untill today when many churches still use silver chalaces in communion.

[Dan_Hemmens]

To be honest it might be quicker to compile a list of D&D monsters which *do* resemble their fictional or mythic counterparts.

D&D elves aren't much like tolkeins elves, or like the mythical elves on which they were based. And I don't remember ever hearing about a dragon that breathed lightning.

[Bosaxon]

Interesting. I'd like to point out that since 2nd Edition, there have not been official stats for a Cyclops in D&D. I've had some of my best adventures with those mentally- and depth-perception-challenged oaves. Where are they!? :smallmad:

Not sure if it's been updated to 3.5, but you can find the Cyclops on page 132 of deities and demigods.

[Jayabalard]

Silver holds power over the creatures of the night (werewolves, vampires, etc) because it's it is lunar (associated with the moon), as opposed to Gold which is solar (associated with the sun).

A quick google got me a list of movies where silver was effective in repelling a vampire:
Successful in: Dracula (1979), From Dusk to Dawn (1996), Dracula (1997), Vampires (1998), Blade (1998), Blade 2 (2002), Vampire Hunter D (2001)

Not Successful in: none listed

Not Used in: Nosferatu, Dracula (1931), Dracula (1958), Interview with a Vampire (1994),

Re: Manticore: As far as I'm concerned, the image in my mind for a manticore will always be the one from the cover of A spell for Chameleon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PiersAnthony_ASpellForChameleon.jpg). I've revamped it in pretty much every game I've use a Manticore in to make it more like that.

Re: Gorgon vs Medusa: I generally toss out the MM gorgon, call the MM medusa a gorgon instead, and make Medusa a specific, named gorgon (BBEG).

Re: Undead seeing through invisibility. Regardless of what RAW says, people are going to create game worlds based on what makes sense to them. Certainly, invisibility is often not useful against undead and creatures of shadow in many works of fiction either because of the senses of undead or the way that invisibility works, and if people use those works as a basis for their game world (as is often the case), they may have undead that can see through illusions and invisibility, RAW be damned.

I'm not really sure of the purpose of this thread... it seems to be implying that people should disregard the myths that the creatures are based on and play them strictly by RAW. Since the vast majority of people (80% from the polls I've seen) play using some sort of house rules, I see nothing wrong with a GM deciding to go with what's in the myths for a creature (or just straight homebrewing them) rather than the RAW.

[MrNexx]

The gorgon of D&D more closely the ones of medieval beastiaries, not the Gorgon-who-was-Medusa.

[Citizen Joe]

Goblins, hobgoblins and bugbears were mythical spirits.
Kobolds were basically the germanic (In think) version of goblins.

[Fhaolan]

I agree with Dan_Hemmens, it'd be faster to compile a list of D&D creatures that match the myths.

However, to stay with the theme: There are two kinds of mythical Trolls: the Giant kind who live under bridges and the Dwarf kind who are so hot that their touch burns. Both have been known to turn to stone in daylight... sometimes.

Dwarves, Kobolds, Svarts, and the one kind of Troll, are all sufficiently similar in myth to be called the same. Sometimes they are mixed in with Brownies, Gnomes, Goblins, etc.

The problem is that there is no authoritative source for what a 'mythical' creature was like. They're mythical. Which means they can do, be, or seem as whatever the storyteller needs it to be for the story at hand. Every story will have a different version, names that seem similar will be confused with each other, different regions will have variations, always keep in mind mistranslations between languages, and in general myth is the ultimate game of telephone. Whatever you put it will be unrecognizable from what you get out.

[Bender]

Looking up dnd monsters on wikipedia is really interesting. There is even a city in France named after the Tarasque: Tarascon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarascon)

oh, and btw: the dnd tarrasque has almost nothing to do with the mythical one...

[Chronos]

I'm not really sure of the purpose of this thread... it seems to be implying that people should disregard the myths that the creatures are based on and play them strictly by RAW.There's absolutely nothing wrong with departing from RAW or playing by house rules. But when you do it, you should know you're doing it. If nothing else, this will cut down on the inevitable conflicts when two players disagree on how to interpret something (especially if one of them is the DM).

[Emperor Demonking]

I remember their was a dragon article about monsters that originate from lesser known legends. I think the Tarasque when involved with a french woman.

[Fhaolan]

The Tarasque was one of many named dragon monsters, like the Gargouille. Supposedly 'gargoyles' were named in rememberance of that water-spouting dragon.

These creatures were not species with multiple individuals, but unique one-off monsters. As the regions the myths came from were converted to Christanity, there was some effort made to relate them all to one another and to declare them all the descendant of the Leviathan, which may or may not be the same creature as Rahab or Tiamat. Just to make it more unclear. :smallsmile:

[BardicDuelist]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with departing from RAW or playing by house rules. But when you do it, you should know you're doing it. If nothing else, this will cut down on the inevitable conflicts when two players disagree on how to interpret something (especially if one of them is the DM).

This was more or less the point. I use house rules so much that I have to create a list when a new player comes to play with us, but I figured that this would help to settle arguments on this board where RAW is more important (since it is consistant with everyone who plays, unlike house rules), and to avoid misconceptions.

[AdversusVeritas]

Gorgon is pretty much Greek for "horrific." In early Greek myth, there was only one Gorgon. In later Greek myth (Hesiod), the Gorgons were three daughters of a sea god. The bull-like creatures called gorgons are from Medieval bestiaries.

I seriously doubt that Gygax made Medusa into a race by mistake. He knows his stuff. He was probably just treating the myth of the Medusa as liberally as he was other myths.

And no, according to the RAW, a medusa's head does not continue to petrify people. Its petrifying gaze is listed in the MM as a supernatural ability, which means it takes a standard action to use. A dead medusa can't take any standard actions. That said, house rule it however you want.

[AdversusVeritas]

Can undead see invisibility?
NO. Explanation here. (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/undeadseethroughillusions.html)This really isn't a RAW vs. mythology question. There aren't exactly many legends that include both the undead and magically invisible heroes. It is, however, a good RAW question that I've seen a lot of DMs get wrong. Normally an undead creature cannot see an invisible character. An undead creature with the lifesense can, but I think it takes a standard action to activate.

[horseboy]

Gorgon is pretty much Greek for "horrific." In early Greek myth, there was only one Gorgon. In later Greek myth (Hesiod), the Gorgons were three daughters of a sea god. The bull-like creatures called gorgons are from Medieval bestiaries.

I seriously doubt that Gygax made Medusa into a race by mistake. He knows his stuff. He was probably just treating the myth of the Medusa as liberally as he was other myths.


Much like Pegasus was a Proper name and not the name of the species.

[Jack Mann]

In defense of D&D monsters:

With mythology, creatures change from story to story. The attributes of a monster may change wildly from one telling to the next. This means that there rarely is a "right" version. And then, fantasy stories often change them even more.

Ultimately, monsters are whatever the story demands. So, if these versions work better for the stories the creators of D&D wanted to tell, more power to them.

And more power to anyone who wants to change them to their own favorite version, too.

[RandomNPC]

I remember their was a dragon article about monsters that originate from lesser known legends. I think the Tarasque when involved with a french woman.

thats dirty.


ok yes, there is a small town in france named after it, and the legend says a woman cut its head off. (without a vorpal sword) according to Dragon magazine.

[AdversusVeritas]

Much like Pegasus was a Proper name and not the name of the species.Bingo, Medusa, Pegasus, Leviathan, Hydra, etc. were all originally singular creatures. I think Gygax knew this, he was just taking liberty with the stories for his setting.


In defense of D&D monsters:

With mythology, creatures change from story to story. The attributes of a monster may change wildly from one telling to the next. This means that there rarely is a "right" version. And then, fantasy stories often change them even more.

Ultimately, monsters are whatever the story demands. So, if these versions work better for the stories the creators of D&D wanted to tell, more power to them.

And more power to anyone who wants to change them to their own favorite version, too.Amen! Myths change. Hesiod’s Gorgons were not the same thing as Homer’s Gorgons. Why should Gygax’s be the same as Hesiod’s, or yours the same as Gygax’s?


ok yes, there is a small town in france named after it, and the legend says a woman cut its head off. (without a vorpal sword) according to Dragon magazine.That’s the first I’ve heard about that. The town is Tarascon, and the woman in the story is Saint Martha. Supposedly her prayers made the Tarasque docile so that it would no longer harm a living thing, but the townspeople were terrified when it followed her home and they killed it.

I don’t know where Dragon got the story that Saint Martha killed the Tarasque herself. Sure, myths change, but Dragon’s version completely inverts the moral of the story. I mean, that's like changing the story of Jesus and the adultress so that he stones her himself.