D&D is a game about killing monsters, so if the monsters don't already to conform to that role, then they either need to be changed to fit or omitted from the game.
Other games are not about killing monsters, so if you really want to give the creatures a fair shake, then you'd be better off dealing with them there. If you really want an accurate take on the wendigo (for example), then you shouldn't look for it in a game that assumes every problem can be fixed with a sword.
I’ve always been frustrated by the inordinate focus on violence in RPGs. Plenty of fantasy stories resolved encounters with non-violent solutions.
I’m not suggesting adding mental/social hit points or using a genuinely universal task resolution mechanic a la Risus, but I wish the rules had offered XP for any method of conflict resolution.
Well, if we're going to be pedants here, no, it is not creatively bankrupt to re-imagine monsters as something different from their lore. However, taking my pedant hat off and looking at the heart of what you're saying, I definitely agree that there is a lot of missed potential in the monster designs. But this isn't a product of them taking liberties with the lore. That's perfectly valid and expected, and is part of being creative. I think it's as you say here:
The issue is a lack of nuance and interesting originality. That's why I prefer playing in homebrew settings over the Forgotten Realms. It's steeped in so many garbled, overly-complicated magical elements that only exist to somehow justify and reconcile the thousands of contradictory cliche conventions that exist in every edition of the PHB and Monster Manual.
I wish monster manuals had organized monsters by their archetype and provides guidelines on customizing them. Right now fantasy games suffer a huge problem with monster bloat.
Nope. Rant away. You'll hear no complaints from me.
Understand though that as much as I admire your attempts to rectify the blandness of most D&D monster's ecologies, taxonomies, and lore, I still do not think there is one right answer here. I admire your thoughtfulness and your intention to entertain and give the setting more depth and more color, but however a DM wants to go about doing that, I'm OK with - even if it is pointedly ignoring folk-lore or doubling down in D&D's misunderstandings.
I wish monster manuals included references to the original myths, if any.
That’s what I loved about the recent monster book from Pendelhaven, since it compiles monster archetypes from myth and fairytales with sources and synopses of some common stories that feature them.
There is room for all these things to exist. Myth that exists as a loan word for bogey man that becomes its own thing, and a deep dive into the original idea. I think where these conversations lose me is we tend to create new rules, guidelines, etc that are very well intentioned but leave behind things that also have value. I expressed most of my thoughts on the other thread you started about this, but I think myth is difficult to pin down to one thing. Myths themselves evolve. And we should feel free to use them creatively ourselves. the D&D approach is one very functional, but still creative, approach to mythology. I think it isn't the only way, and it can be an issue if everyone is just aping that approach. At the same time, it would be a shame to lose that approach in the process of looking for other ways to explore mythology in gaming. Like I said, there is room for lots of approaches here.
I like to explore expanding on the monsters myself too. The minotaur always seemed a silly unnecessary multiplication to me until I read an ecology post on the hackslashmaster blog which gave helpful ideas like “the minotaur is a curse that traps you in a maze of your own making” among other ideas. I was so inspired I decided to write a blog series expounding on my ideas and references to other game books I read, which I still have yet to finish.
I think I remember you posting this at another site.
But basically I think you're missing a few things. Firstly, a lot of stuff is not taken from mythology directly, but from popular fiction or media. The lich, for instance, is from a Gardner Fox story. The Lamia from Clark Ashton Smith, I suspect (though more the greater one, not original), the Rakshasa from Kolchak: The Night Stalker. Some is completely made up, like the hippogriff, it used to be something that represented the impossible, because griffins hated horses. But then someone added that impossible creature to his story (Orlando Furioso) and it stuck.
Secondly, that myth itself is not fixed. If you look at mythology, sometimes real people are turned into gods, then into something else. From Irish mythology you have Lugh of the Long Arm, presumably once a real tribal leader that was deified, but who was turned into the leprechaun. A lot of creatures, like nympths, were actually lesser gods, tied to an area.
Lastly, as mentioned, D&D is a game. It's inspired by Tolkien idea that mythology, including monsters, were actual real flesh and blood beings that could kill and be killed. That necessitates making them more mundane, losing the mythological aspect if not always the supernatural.
As I said above, I wish that monster books referenced their sources, if any. I wish they organized by comparative mythology archetypes rather than individual monsters. I wish they were more creative in how the expounded on existing monsters, too.
But if killing is the game, then maybe that’s unnecessary.
Mine of the central pillars of the game I’m developing is the idea that making mythology flesh and blood doesn’t at all necessitate making them more mundane.
I think making things more mundane runs the risk of making them boring or silly. However, even in mythology you see myths become mundane. For example, there were a bazillion gods for every piece of land and sea. Tree nymphs, cloud nymphs, river gods, mountain rustic gods, hearth gods, etc. You could walk a dozen feet without stepping on a god.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all gamers are created equal; that they are endowed by Gygax with certain unalienable rights; that among these are books, dice, and the pedantic ranting about things that do not, and should not, matter to anyone else.
*ahem*
Sure, rant away.
But in addition to the excellent points raised above (it's a game; the sources are often fictional - not the straight ur-myth; and myths and references change over time- see, e.g., the vampire and the zombie), there's one additional point I'd like to bring in.
D&D (and other TTRPGs) often serve as a gateway drug (um) to history and myths. And there's value to that! Even if it isn't always correct.
I remember reading (and re-reading, and re-re-reading etc.) Deities and Demigods when it first was published. And I couldn't get enough of it. Was it wrong? Yes, of course!* But it made me want to learn more.
And so I did. I got more books at the library. Like, real books. And I learned.
Heck, one of the people I gamed with got his PhD and now teaches Medieval History at a university, so there's that.
Perfection is the enemy of the good, just as the Paladin is the enemy of the fun. It helps to remember that.
*And I don't just mean in the "assigning hit points to the sacred deities of other cultures" wrong.
At this point I don’t know what to say that I haven’t said already.
A very okay rant. To sum up. "Orcs Bill Bono called them Gob Stompers!" I may be misquoting the author. When I was school depending on the story, them thar fey persons who worked on shoes during the night shift were called elves, gnomes, fairies, and some times other things.
Question, How many of you have encounter different words which mean the same thang? Now I am off to get a Coke.
A lot of D&D monsters have names which are synonymous in real dictionaries. Particularly the words that originates from post-Christian Celtic folklore.
Oh, you have to watch that collegehumor video that contrasts Tolkuen elves and Christian elves! It is totally hilarious.
Yup, what he said.
In addition, do you know what I do when I find a monster a bit bland? I just add to it.
Sometimes I already know about the original bit of myth/inspiration source. Sometimes I go research it. And sometimes I just make something up (often on the fly)....
The original source is a great start, but sometimes it isn’t enough. I loved how the hackslashmaster blog devised a lot of really surreal ideas in its ecology series.
Yes. And remember that, when you break it down, frequently in mythology and lore, the protagonist is a fairly mundane person, and they are faced with powers beyond their ability to control. And frequently the solution to the problem does not come from the protagonist. In effect, the protagonist in a lot of mythology isn't so heavy on the agency. They are often handed a solution by some other power, or stumble upon it by accident, rather producing it themselves. Which is fine for a story, not so great for an RPG.
Try reading this book of Armenian fairytales and then tell these protagonists are “fairly mundane.” They most certainly are not!
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46944
No you're not. I always wished D&D was more accurate when borrowing monsters from folklore and mythology (even with the caveat that it's a natural trait of folklore to have many versions of everything), so that we actually learn something. I don't think there was ever any need to modify the nature of folklore/mythology creatures to make them suit the game.
Ditto.
I think there was an OSR book with “lion” in the title where the monsters were stated to have multiple versions due to folklore or something. I’d have to check again to be sure.
Anyway, this is probably no more obvious than in the case of trolls. They vary immensely by country:
http://humoncomics.com/trolls-from-four-countries
But it's not just monsters, and it's not just RPGs. JRRT took the Alfar (elves) and Dwarves of Norse myth and made them a bit more "human" and relatable. Now we have dozens of fantasy races in RPGs, and few really resemble the fairytale versions they are based on. Vampires of most RPGs have more in common with Hollywood movies than eastern European folklore (same for Werewolves, and just about any other monster).
The point is, RPGs need to work. They need to have characters and creatures that can be defined by stats and work within the rules. They need to use ideas that a modern rational person can conceptualize. So they adjust and tweak and remold. And I'm sure that 1000's of years ago, storytellers did the same thing, adjusting older stories and legends to new forms. So even "classic" versions of monsters may very well be alterations of even older creatures and tales. Things have always been adjusted to their time and audience.
I’m pretty sure there are monster books which use the premise of taking ideas directly from folklore. I think the vampire monster book “Out for Blood” used this premise. It even included obscure ones like the kalikantzari (or however it’s spelled), a Balkan goblin/imp that saws through the world tree except when take Christmas holiday to ride chickens and harass people.
Honestly, folklore is full of situations that would make great D&D encounters. It’s a tragedy they aren’t being exploited.
I can't say this is making too much out of nothing important. I will offer the amazingly bland (or trite) observation that different things trigger this kind of response in different people. For example, my brother the astrophysicist has a problem with Star Wars because of its egregious disregard of realistic physics (among other reasons). I refuse to get into any kind of discussion about 'alignments' (let alone fantasy religions!) that claim to have any meaning in real-world behavior or morality. I can't make myself watch movies such as "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" out of concern or respect for historical personages (that kind of thing as game background is one thing, making it the central focus is another - at least in my mind).
So the question "am I making too much of this?" has the answer you give it. A more useful question (to my thinking) is "does this really ruin my entertainment experience?" There's not really any right answer to that* - as long as you don't insist on ruining other people's experience; that is a very different issue.
*Except, of course, my favorite genres, to which nobody has any right to complain! 
Very sage advice.
