Weird monsters Thread

[tbok1992]

This is a thread about weird D&D creatures, whether they be fixtures of the many D&D Stupid Monsters Lists or so strange they are awesome. Celebrating 'em, overanalyzing them, creating new backstories or fluff for them, whatever you want, this is the thread for it.

To start off, I kind of wonder why nobody ever mentions that the Nerra, at least their 3e Fiend Folio iteration, are very likely based off of a creation of Jorge Luis Borges, specifically The Fish in the Mirror from The Book of Imaginary Beings. The similarities of "Beings from a mirror world who want to conquer ours" are unmistakable.

This would make it the second D&D creature originally invented by Borges, the first being the classic Peryton. And yes, I know it technically "is" a Greek creature, but given that the earliest source we currently have for it is Borges' own Book of Imaginary Beings, all his "references" were "conveniently" either lost or destroyed, and that Borges loved him his metafiction, I think we can safely say it was Borges' own creation.

Also, anybody think that they need to make a more neutral variant on the Ghanadaun from 2e as a PC race? BEcause I'd love the idea of a partially-ooze PC race. And darnit, I want my own Googirl PC!

[Totally Guy]

Anyone ever read Isle of the Unknown?

[Jay R]

It's been this way in D&D since 1974, but color-coded dragons, or dragons that breathe anything but fire, still seem weird to me.

[JustIgnoreMe]

To start off, I kind of wonder why nobody ever mentions that the Nerra, at least their 3e Fiend Folio iteration, are very likely based off of a creation of Jorge Luis Borges, specifically The Fish in the Mirror from The Book of Imaginary Beings. The similarities of "Beings from a mirror world who want to conquer ours" are unmistakable.

This would make it the second D&D creature originally invented by Borges, the first being the classic Peryton. And yes, I know it technically "is" a Greek creature, but given that the earliest source we currently have for it is Borges' own Book of Imaginary Beings, all his "references" were "conveniently" either lost or destroyed, and that Borges loved him his metafiction, I think we can safely say it was Borges' own creation.

Except according to the current Wikipedia article there's a winged stag carved on a fountain at Linlithgow Palace, built during the reign of James V of Scotland (1513-1543). No idea what they'd've named such a creature, but they certainly carved one. Borge may have made it up for his book, but whether he knew it or not someone else had made it up first.

[tbok1992]

Except according to the current Wikipedia article there's a winged stag carved on a fountain at Linlithgow Palace, built during the reign of James V of Scotland (1513-1543). No idea what they'd've named such a creature, but they certainly carved one. Borge may have made it up for his book, but whether he knew it or not someone else had made it up first.

Ah.But I am pretty sure Borges came up with the name and backstory for the Pertyon, even if the concept of "Winged deer" had been done before.

Also, one of my favorite weird monsters has to be The Shrieking Terror:

Something about that design just works so well, like some lost creature from those old Ugly Stickers cards. I know the backstory says it was a crazy wizard's cross between a Hydra and a Vargoulle, but I prefer to think of it as the progenitor of the Vargoulle race, slipping through from the Far Realm to "Beautify" the Prime Material Plane by turning humanoids into creatures near its own image.

[awa]

to be fair poison gas breathing dragons have a long history

personally Ive always felt beholders eye beams seem kinda weird. To me eye beams seems more like a super hero thing then a fantasy thing. Note its not eyes used as a weapon that bothers me its the beam part.

also that shrieking terror looks awesome

[TuggyNE]

personally Ive always felt beholders eye beams seem kinda weird. To me eye beams seems more like a super hero thing then a fantasy thing. Note its not eyes used as a weapon that bothers me its the beam part.

Eye beam of create food and water is the most best.Yes, I know that's not a thing anymore, but I don't care :D

[Yora]

Of all the freaky 1st Edition D&D monsters, beholders are pretty much the only ones that somehow made it to become established parts of the game. In 1st Ed. they were just weird monsters like pretty much every other one.
Standard Mimics are still around, but that's it.

[Doorhandle]

Ah.But I am pretty sure Borges came up with the name and backstory for the Pertyon, even if the concept of "Winged deer" had been done before.

Also, one of my favorite weird monsters has to be The Shrieking Terror:

Something about that design just works so well, like some lost creature from those old Ugly Stickers cards. I know the backstory says it was a crazy wizard's cross between a Hydra and a Vargoulle, but I prefer to think of it as the progenitor of the Vargoulle race, slipping through from the Far Realm to "Beautify" the Prime Material Plane by turning humanoids into creatures near its own image.

Agreed. It IS a cool thing.

...now cross breed it with a beholder.

[Togath]

I've alway been fond of flumphs, escpecially their pf incarnation, as it seems like a fun twist from normal to have a lovecraftian looking non-evil race.

[KillianHawkeye]

This is a thread about weird D&D creatures, whether they be fixtures of the many D&D Stupid Monsters Lists or so strange they are awesome. Celebrating 'em, overanalyzing them, creating new backstories or fluff for them, whatever you want, this is the thread for it.

If you want weird creatures, look to your avatar. Wolf in Sheep's Clothing? Who the hell thought of a monster that pretends to be a tree stump with a rabbit standing on it?? Crazy.

[Doorhandle]

Well, they're more awesome than weird, but the Tane from pathfinder would work. Excluding the things taken from Lewis Carroll (like the bandersnatch) that are pretty weird in of themselves, the other 2 tane are pretty odd: A FAST, explosive walking tree with lightning for sap (Sard), and a mutated fey bear/snake thing that looks like it walked out of a heavy metal album cover(Thrasfyr.)

The mothman is pretty cool: A creature that acts as an agent of fate, ensuring all dooms come to pass, that looks in no small manner like a kamen rider.

Jyoti are also frikkin' weird: Bird people form the positive plain of energy that are NEUTRAL: Freakishly xenophobic, unable to respect or worship any deites, and have an irrational hatred of the sceaduinar. The sceaduinar themselves are also odd: negative-energy natives, crystalline in nature, who hate life and unlife with with equal passion. They believe the jyoti stole their ability to create, pushing them into the unwanted role of mindless destruction.

[Darthteej]

The gravbeast, which eventually made it into the Monster Manual II. No idea where they got it from, but I've always wanted to have my party fight one.

On the note of the MMII, there's also my favorite monstrous humanoid EVER-yakfolk. Neutral evil anthropomorphism yaks that use mind control to enslave humans and dwarves, can violently hijack your body as if you were a magic jar, and apparently have some ancient deal with genies that lets them summon them and do what they want.

EDIT: Turns out they came from Al-Qadiem.

[Ravens_cry]

I like the owl bear, though I reject the fluff they are a wizards experiment gone wrong, or right. Rather, I see them as being a natural creature that got named what they are because of resemblances, a common human trait.
I never thought of them as a joke when they have massive claws on arms that could knock your head clean off and a beak that could snip your head off like shears.
I mean, look at the thing!

Spoiler

Show

[hamishspence]

I like the owl bear, though I reject the fluff they are a wizards experiment gone wrong, or right. Rather, I see them as being a natural creature that got named what they are because of resemblances, a common human trait.

Yup. It wouldn't be hard to fluff them as evolved dinosaurs, or something along those lines.

[Yora]

There are way too many monsters described as escaped experiments. Like carrion crawlers and Chuuls.

[Ravens_cry]

Yup. It wouldn't be hard to fluff them as evolved dinosaurs, or something along those lines.

Strictly speaking, that's the default fluff of *any* bird.

There are way too many monsters described as escaped experiments. Like carrion crawlers and Chuuls.

Yeah. Sometimes it fits, but generally it is a pretty lazy explanation.

[North_Ranger]

I've alway been fond of flumphs, escpecially their pf incarnation, as it seems like a fun twist from normal to have a lovecraftian looking non-evil race.

Gotta say I agree with you about the Pathfinder incarnation of flumphs, along with the treatment they gave the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, adherers and various other monsters. Misfit Monsters redeemed is easily one of my favourite PF books

Me, I had trouble accepting the concept of 4th Edition angels... celestial agents no more, they pretty much looked like invisible flaming ghosts in heavy armor. The design just did not appeal to me... along with a whole crapload of other things in 4e, but that's a rant for another thread.

[Jay R]

Neither the owlbear nor almost any other monster can exist without a completely new approach to the evolution (or other creation) of species. To start with, owlbears, hippogriffs, pegasi and many others make hash with the division into birds, mammals, etc.

I once created a world that was identical to ours until 1066. When the light from the supernova that reached earth that year (from the Crab Nebula), it brought the first manna, and magic was first possible. But all the legends of wizards and magical creatures existed, just as they did in our world.

The presence of magic enabled new creatures to be created, out of the imaginations of the people - which is why so many of them look like medieval monsters of heraldry, legend and myth.

The presence of magic makes the results of physical laws less certain, which makes science (which is the use of observation and experiment) less successful at discovering physical laws, so the level of technology has not gone much beyond the level of 1066.

[tbok1992]

I like the owl bear, though I reject the fluff they are a wizards experiment gone wrong, or right. Rather, I see them as being a natural creature that got named what they are because of resemblances, a common human trait.
I never thought of them as a joke when they have massive claws on arms that could knock your head clean off and a beak that could snip your head off like shears.
I mean, look at the thing!

Spoiler

Show

But the owlbear is pretty much the most iconic "An insane wizard did it" monsters. Making it not that would make it way less interesting.

[Ravens_cry]

But the owlbear is pretty much the most iconic "An insane wizard did it" monsters. Making it not that would make it way less interesting.

Iconic? Eh, I don't know. Famous? Sure, but nothing about it says to me 'This creature could not exist any other way'. Unlike, say, the spider-horse or the duckbunny.

[Togath]

Neither the owlbear nor almost any other monster can exist without a completely new approach to the evolution (or other creation) of species. To start with, owlbears, hippogriffs, pegasi and many others make hash with the division into birds, mammals, etc.

I once created a world that was identical to ours until 1066. When the light from the supernova that reached earth that year (from the Crab Nebula), it brought the first manna, and magic was first possible. But all the legends of wizards and magical creatures existed, just as they did in our world.

The presence of magic enabled new creatures to be created, out of the imaginations of the people - which is why so many of them look like medieval monsters of heraldry, legend and myth.

The presence of magic makes the results of physical laws less certain, which makes science (which is the use of observation and experiment) less successful at discovering physical laws, so the level of technology has not gone much beyond the level of 1066.

Why is the owlbear impossible?, I understand the other two, but it's a bi-pedal bird with claws, so not that different from a dinosaur(other then using it's front claws rather then rear ones)

[Ravens_cry]

Why is the owlbear impossible?, I understand the other two, but it's a bi-pedal bird with claws, so not that different from a dinosaur(other then using it's front claws rather then rear ones)

Well, the bipedal stance is a bit different and most dinosaurs lacked strong upper limbs, but I don't see it as evolutionarily being impossible, just not a path went down on Earth.
It's not like the thousands of pound filers with (comparatively) itty bitty wings.

[Yora]

Neither the owlbear nor almost any other monster can exist without a completely new approach to the evolution (or other creation) of species. To start with, owlbears, hippogriffs, pegasi and many others make hash with the division into birds, mammals, etc.

Evolution works just the same, you only have to branch out at a point before the division into the animals of present day Earth. Since they are fictional worlds, six or eight limbed variants of the normal four limbed one could have evolved early on and confined to a sleeping gene that reactivates in several only distantly related creatures.
And a platypus is not related to ducks, but only has evolved a skull feature that looks like one found in ducks. An owlbear could simply be a feathered dinosaur that split off around the time that reptiles and birds diverged, simply being the only species of its class that survived to the present day.

[Paragon468]

The Roving Mauler. No more needs to be said.

[awa]

yeah nothing about the owl bear requires a wizard did it and honestly it doesn't feel like something a wizard would make except for giggles. Its basically just a bear with some feathers it doesn't really have any abilities that imply an owl abilities.

[Yora]

The Roving Mauler. No more needs to be said.

That one is supposed to violate any logic and any theories of evolution and biology. Isn't it actually a spirit that takes a mind boggling shape and not an actual animal?

[Paragon468]

That one is supposed to violate any logic and any theories of evolution and biology. Isn't it actually a spirit that takes a mind boggling shape and not an actual animal?

Quite honestly, I'm not even sure. I've never used them or encountered them, I just know that their biology makes no sense at all.

[THEChanger]

They are, apparently, Magical Beasts with the Extraplanar subtype. What this means for their nature as spirits or naturally evolved critters is not a subject I am knowledgable enough with to make the call on.

[Jay R]

Why is the owlbear impossible?, I understand the other two, but it's a bi-pedal bird with claws, so not that different from a dinosaur(other then using it's front claws rather then rear ones)

Because it's a mammal/bird, like all the other examples, just like I said.