D&D 2E Looking back at the Monstrous Compendia: the MC appendices, Monstrous Manual, and more!

[delericho]

Absolutely. Just musings. And wouldn't it have been nice to have all such monsters in MC3 and the dinosaurs pulled out for an MC4 Lost World Appendix? Sabre-tooths, Tarzan, great apes, axebeaks, Pellucidar? What's not to like? But perhaps too late for that (sabre-tooths in MC1) and too much hassle for TSR at the time - and then there was the planned release of the BD&D Hollow World a year later, of course. Still, not quite the same imho.

That sounds like it could be a cool product, though like many of the volumes it may have struggled to fill the pages with interesting monsters.

That said, the MC product line is fascinating largely because it is so flawed, and I'm not sure a rearrangement like the one you suggest really touches on the fundamental issues of the line. (Or, to put it another way, there are things I would suggest to try to 'fix' the line, and a "Lost World Appendix" wouldn't be high on the list - there are bigger fish to fry.)

 

[ilgatto]

That sounds like it could be a cool product, though like many of the volumes it may have struggled to fill the pages with interesting monsters.

That said, the MC product line is fascinating largely because it is so flawed, and I'm not sure a rearrangement like the one you suggest really touches on the fundamental issues of the line. (Or, to put it another way, there are things I would suggest to try to 'fix' the line, and a "Lost World Appendix" wouldn't be high on the list - there are bigger fish to fry.)

Heh, definitely. And I'm not mentioning MC7 and MC9 in this regard - and certainly not MC8. Come to think of it, the latter may well explain why I would like a Lost World Appendix (because, um, dinosaurs).

By the by, a quick www search didn't lead to me finding my supposed source, although there is this on greyhawkonline, which says, under "Notes":

"The ingundi is twice referred to as the "incubus" in Greyhawk Adventures, pages 28 and 29, suggesting an earlier name for the creature dropped at some point during the book's development."

 

[JEB]

and the clockwork horrors went on to the 4th MC Annual and then to 3e's MMII (don't know if they made it past 3e).

Yep, they came back in 4E (reimagined as demonic constructs) and in 5E (reimagined as basically just robots). But 3E is the last appearance of the original style, yeah.

Which is a bit of a shame, really, for there were lots of weird and wonderful monsters by Ed Greenwood available at the time - the magebane, xantravar, scythetail, and quezzer from Dragon 140; the lock lurker, lybbarde, metalmaster, and serplar from Dragon 139; the xaver from Dragon 94; the dyll from Dragon 55; the lyhtlyx from Dragon 43; and, first but not least, the curst from The Dragon 30, to name but a few. Would've made MC3 a lot more interesting imho.

A lot of them did return in the Monstrous Compendium Annuals, fortunately.

 

[Orius]

Incubus in the description for ingundi is something I'd write off as a typo. At most it's possible Ward might have been looking to add incubi to the game as a logical extension of the succubus, but TSR's reaction to the Satanic Panic and attempts to seem more family friendly cased them to retool it into yet another reptilian humanoid. But we would need more proof to back it up, because TSR did make a number of editing errors in the past. And the incubus does make an appearance in next one.

 

[the Jester]

And the incubus does make an appearance in next one.

The next MC?

 

[ilgatto]

Incubus in the description for ingundi is something I'd write off as a typo. At most it's possible Ward might have been looking to add incubi to the game as a logical extension of the succubus, but TSR's reaction to the Satanic Panic and attempts to seem more family friendly cased them to retool it into yet another reptilian humanoid. But we would need more proof to back it up, because TSR did make a number of editing errors in the past. And the incubus does make an appearance in next one.

Well, it isn't in MC4 as far as I know, although it does appear in MC8.

As it does, rather intriguingly, in the index on page 157 of Monster Manual II, with page 156 stating that:

"The index includes all official creatures (as of December, 1982) published in this volume as well as MONSTER MANUAL I and FIEND FOLIO."

The plot thickens!

Oh, and there's one in Dragon 54, too.

And one in White Dwarf 25, and one in White Dwarf 48, but I suppose these don't count.

Perhaps we should summon @Echohawk?

 

[Echohawk]

Perhaps we should summon @Echohawk?​

poof

The first mention I can find of the incubus in D&D lore seems to be in the original Deities & Demigods, which notes (in the description of Merlin's parentage) that an incubus is a succubus shape-changed into male form). A year later came the already-mentioned Dragon #54 monster entry which also positions it as a male succubus. Not helping the case is a letter in Dragon #74 which is critical of the male oriented nature of D&D that asks where all the incubi are. Kim Mohan's reply frustratingly uses as an excuse the fact that incubi are not technically "in the AD&D world". The next incubus mentions are that cryptic reference in the Monster Manual II's index and then again in the D&D pronunciation guide in Dragon #93. Neither of those explains what an incubus is.

Then we have the ingundi entry in Greyhawk Adventures. I have a hard time believing that that creature was originally a new version of the incubus. I can't rule it out, but it had already been established more than once that incubi were male succubi, so reimagining them as lizards seems like a stretch. My money is on the typo theory.​

 

[Voadam]

Then we have the ingundi entry in Greyhawk Adventures. I have a hard time believing that that creature was originally a new version of the incubus. I can't rule it out, but it had already been established more than once that incubi were male succubi, so reimagining them as lizards seems like a stretch. My money is on the typo theory.

I could see it going in development from a straight incubus to the decision to be a not-incubus with the lizard aspects coming in after the decision to be not an incubus.

The core of the ingundi mechanically is a telepathic shapeshifter with a charm power and modest claw and bite. This is not inconsistent with a variant lesser 1e succubus.

 

[ilgatto]

I could see it going in development from a straight incubus to the decision to be a not-incubus with the lizard aspects coming in after the decision to be not an incubus.

The core of the ingundi mechanically is a telepathic shapeshifter with a charm power and modest claw and bite. This is not inconsistent with a variant lesser 1e succubus.

That has always been my thinking as well. However, my problem here has always been that the ingundi perhaps differs too much from the MM1 succubus and the one in Eldritch Wizardry (listed in between the type IV and the type V, by the way!) - the difference in Hit Dice being a main concern. Another seed of doubt would be the trouble the editors of GHA went through if they were intent on disguising what the ingundi once may have been. Perhaps most of them would have decided that a change in the way it looks and adding the illusory looks would do the job? Gut feeling, though.

poof

The first mention I can find of the incubus in D&D lore seems to be in the original Deities & Demigods, which notes (in the description of Merlin's parentage) that an incubus is a succubus shape-changed into male form). A year later came the already-mentioned Dragon #54 monster entry which also positions it as a male succubus. Not helping the case is a letter in Dragon #74 which is critical of the male oriented nature of D&D that asks where all the incubi are. Kim Mohan's reply frustratingly uses as an excuse the fact that incubi are not technically "in the AD&D world". The next incubus mentions are that cryptic reference in the Monster Manual II's index and then again in the D&D pronunciation guide in Dragon #93. Neither of those explains what an incubus is.

Then we have the ingundi entry in Greyhawk Adventures. I have a hard time believing that that creature was originally a new version of the incubus. I can't rule it out, but it had already been established more than once that incubi were male succubi, so reimagining them as lizards seems like a stretch. My money is on the typo theory.​

Much appreciated, good Sir!

Missed the interesting fact of the DDG mentioning the incubus when I did my write-up. If anything, it could at least suggest that Jim Ward was aware of an "incubus" when he edited Greyhawk Adventures.

Edited for clarity.

 

[Orius]

The next MC?

Um yeah.

So incubus being a succubus variant does have roots in 1e, which makes this seem more likely a typo.