D&D General The core monster lineup across all editions

[JEB]

Looking back at the original 15, some specific questions that come to mind...

• What niche did gnolls fill in earlier editions that wasn't filled by goblins, hobgoblins, ogres, or orcs? (In more recent editions it seems to be the "bloodthirsty" foe, but that identity seems to be a 21st century invention.)
• Red and white dragons are understandable (fire and ice), but why is acid (black dragons) the third pillar?
• Are gargoyles the fundamental "flying" foe?
• Gnolls and kobolds (in their D&D incarnation) don't really seem to have a clear Tolkien/mythology background like the other four humanoids. Is there some forebear I'm missing?

 

[Parmandur]

Gnolls and kobolds (in their D&D incarnation) don't really seem to have a clear Tolkien/mythology background like the other four humanoids. Is there some forebear I'm missing?

Kobold is literally just the German word for Goblin, and like "Bugbear" or "Drow" Gygax was keen in starting up every fairy/goblin synonym he could find.

Gnolls are inspired by Lord Dunsany:

How Nuth Would Have Practised His Art Upon the Gnoles

 

[JEB]

Kobold is literally just the German word for Goblin, and like "Bugbear" or "Drow" Gygax was keen in starting up every fairy/goblin synonym he could find.

Considering this was the entirety of their original description, I suppose "synonym for goblin" might be as far as Gygax thought, too:

Treat these monsters as if they were Goblins except that they will take from 1 - 3 hits (roll a six-sided die with a 1 or 3 equalling 1 hit, a 3 or 4 equalling 2 hits, etc.).

Gnolls are inspired by Lord Dunsany:

How Nuth Would Have Practised His Art Upon the Gnoles

Thanks for the link! I don't see anything about hyena theming or the like there, though...

Going again back to the original set:

A cross between Gnomes and Trolls (. . . perhaps, Lord Dunsany did not really make it all that clear) with +2 morale. Otherwise they are similar to Hobgoblins, although the Gnoll king and his bodyguard of from 1 - 4 will fight as Trolls but lack regenerative power.

Now I really wonder where the hyena theming came from. Or what niche they filled...

 

[Parmandur]

Considering this was the entirety of their original description, I suppose "synonym for goblin" might be as far as Gygax thought, too:



Thanks for the link! I don't see anything about hyena theming or the like there, though...

Going again back to the original set:

Now I really wonder where the hyena theming came from. Or what niche they filled...

They filled the niche of Hobgoblins who fought like Trolls: that is, a mechanical niche based on war gaming approaches.

 

[JEB]

They filled the niche of Hobgoblins who fought like Trolls: that is, a mechanical niche based on war gaming approaches.

Interesting idea! So the iconic core "humanoid" foes might only be as numerous as they are to fill wargaming niches? And that otherwise, we probably would have had fewer? So did Gygax basically sketch out a list of combat roles, and only filled in the gaps as needed with some research? (Sounds kinda 4e-esque, in fact.)

Likewise, this suggests how the mindset had changed by the time of Basic '81, when some of these creatures (like trolls) were no longer considered baseline foes, but ones for "experts" to face. They weren't designing it with wargamers in mind anymore.

 

[Parmandur]

Interesting idea! So the iconic core "humanoid" foes might only be as numerous as they are to fill wargaming niches? And that otherwise, we probably would have had fewer? So did Gygax basically sketch out a list of combat roles, and only filled in the gaps as needed with some research? (Sounds kinda 4e-esque, in fact.)

Likewise, this suggests how the mindset had changed by the time of Basic '81, when some of these creatures (like trolls) were no longer considered baseline foes, but ones for "experts" to face. They weren't designing it with wargamers in mind anymore.

I think ot is, first, a distinction of war gaming niches, but second, Gygax genuine enjoyment of mythological reference works and the thesaurus. Take the etymology of Bugbear from Wikipedia:

Its name is derived from the Middle English word "bugge" (a frightening thing), or perhaps the Old Welsh word bwg (evil spirit or goblin),[2] or Old Scots bogill (goblin), and cognates most probably English "bogeyman" and "bugaboo".

In medieval England, the bugbear was depicted as a creepy bear that lurked in the woods to scare children. It was described in this manner in The Buggbears,[2] an adaptation, with additions, from Antonio Francesco Grazzini’s La Spiritata (‘The Possessed [Woman]’, 1561).

Bugbear - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, reading through the Bestiary in my PDF copy of the White Box, and "...as described in CHAINMAIL" is a pretty constant refrain for the different types of Humaboids: I would wager that the differences largely rose out of creating mixed armies with different types and qualities of troops to simulate a Mordor-like force (Tolkien hints at a whole hierarchy of kinds of Goblinoids: Snaga, Uruk, Uruk-Hai, and so on).

 

[Parmandur]

OK, @JEB found the word from The Man himself below. It turns out that he wanted to have different humanoids to match PC Levels (which also explains how the Monsters were organized in the Whot Books, but I probably just skimmed past the explanation), and je claims that Gnolls were an original invention of Gnome-Troll hybrids he was novelizing...

Okay!

Here's the story:

I made up "gnoll" thinking of it as a cross between a gnome and a troll, and I think the name first appeared in a really bad novel I was writing, The Gnome Cache, part of which was serialized in DRAGON Magazine way back when.

I wanted to expand the humanoids list to match PC levels, so I altered the gnoll to fit into that list after hobgoblin and before bugbear.

The name is not drawn from any mythology, folklore, or authored work of fiction--although Dunsany's "gnole" is close. The description and stats are unique. IMO WotC could indeed claim it as unique to them.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Tonguez]

Interesting idea! So the iconic core "humanoid" foes might only be as numerous as they are to fill wargaming niches? And that otherwise, we probably would have had fewer? So did Gygax basically sketch out a list of combat roles, and only filled in the gaps as needed with some research? (Sounds kinda 4e-esque, in fact.)

Likewise, this suggests how the mindset had changed by the time of Basic '81, when some of these creatures (like trolls) were no longer considered baseline foes, but ones for "experts" to face. They weren't designing it with wargamers in mind anymore.

yeah you essentially have
1 Orc: Goblin (small orc) - Orc - Ogre (big orc)
(um what about Hobgoblin? err clever orc?)
2 Goblin: Goblin - Hobgoblin - Bugbear (big goblin)
3 Troll: Kobold (small troll) - Gnoll (medium troll) - Troll

 

[JEB]

Looking again at the 32 (the 15 that have been in every edition, plus the 17 added if Basic D&D doesn't count)...

• Why were green and blue dragons considered too "advanced" for Holmes Basic? Was five just considered too many dragons, but three just right?
• What's made dryads a staple of the AD&D lineage? And not, say, nymphs (which were in most editions but have yet to appear in 5e).
• Why is the efreet the most essential genie, and not the more obvious djinn?
• Why do fire and hill giants stand above the other three classic giants? Hill giants seem like your standard mythical giant, so that's easy, but why fire? (Also, aren't they redundant with efreet?
• Do minotaurs fill a humanoid niche not filled in the original 15?
• Ghouls, mummies, and vampires have a horror-fiction lineage that explains their presence, but why wraiths?