Do we need more non-combatant monsters?

[kenjib]

Sometimes it's not the evil rampaging monsters that catch my attention, but the good and non-combatant neutral ones. The evil ones are automatically set up in opposition to the PCs, although granted there is plenty of room for playing with these assumptions.

However, the good and non-combatant neutral creatures can provide very interesting roles that evil monsters can't play as well. For example, in the Monster Manual II there is the Corollax. This bird really reminded me of the Clark Ashton Smith story "The Voyage of King Eurovan."

http://www.eldritchdark.com/wri/short/voyageofkingeuvoran.html

The goal in this story is not to slay the beastie, and that's what makes it so interesting. It's about obsession, myth, quest, pride, and adventure. These things do not rely on an evil opponent, as the story is totally about the protagonist and his voyage of discovery (or ruin), not about his enemies.

A creature like the Galeb Duhr has a lot of potential in that it can provide an entire society to become immersed in and interact with in interesting ways. I think that creatures like this can create more complex situations than evil ones, since killing them should never be an attractive and easy solution or fallback plan like it is with anything deadly evil.

We've got things like those mentioned above as well as treants, myconids, most of the fey, weirds, and others, but the emphasis of monster books is still weighted pretty heavily toward evil psychopaths and rampaging neutrals. Do you think there should be more creatures not oriented toward combat?

This actually extends to evil creatures not intended for combat as well. Why aren't there evil creatures with immense power, but who simply can not at all stand up to a combat encounter? The CR system seems to discourage this.

Are monsters too combat oriented in design? What would people think if a monster book came out filled entirely with creatures who try to avoid combat situations, but encourage interesting role play encounters instead?

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, I like monsters with a weird twist too. I agree that the CR system doesn't really handle weak-combat but very powerful otherwise monsters well- for example, there's a thread floating around asking about the CR of a one HD fey who can cast Shamblers 1/day. Hm, tricky!

I like weird monsters that aren't about a simple fight. I've always found some of the most interesting encounters to be the ones where you can't kill the monster (for fear of angering your patron, coming under a curse, or whathaveyou).

A while back I posted an interesting one... the dreaming screamer. I think it's a pretty good example of a weird, non-combat oriented monster.

 

[Crothian]

Do we need more non-combatant monsters?

I wasn't aware we had any to begin with. Of course we need some, and we needed them like 2 years ago.

 

[nopantsyet]

In my current campaign I've used the Galeb Duhr and the Alaghi as non-combatant encounters that have worked extremely well.

The Galeb Duhr freaked them out at first, but after a lengthy conversation in which he took treant time to say very little, they were able to glean a bit of useful information.

The Alaghi were a tribe that sprung up spontaneously at a very significant site. The party (all from a barbarian tribe) were split as to whether they were sentient or not, except for the one who could speak broken common--he was considered "barely sentient." But it was fun to have them wake up surrounded by a dozen wookies with javelins who then escorted them in silence to the village.

 

[KingOfChaos]

Any monster can be non-combative..why would you need to create one specifically to BE non-combative? I have a pacifist Bugbear in one of my adventuring groups that absolutely abhors violence of any kind.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

I think the problem for many DMs is that their party won't wait long enough to find out that a bugbear is pacifist. The swords are out and the fireball's already winging its way to the bugbear before it has time to say "We are all brothers...(erk)!"

However, I do agree that if handled properly there's no reason that any monster can be used for a non-combat encounter. One of my favourite npc's was an ogre druid. So that the party wouldn't just try to ice him on sight I made sure that he turned up in the middle of a major fight. When the ogre called lightning down on the bullette that had already badly mauled the party, they were more amenable to talking.

 

[jgbrowning]

I think the problem for many DMs is that their party won't wait long enough to find out that a bugbear is pacifist. The swords are out and the fireball's already winging its way to the bugbear before it has time to say "We are all brothers...(erk)!"

Man, this makes me wonder if i'm a bugbear....

joe b.

 

[LostSoul]

Off the top of my head, the Sucubus and the Aboleth make good non-confrontational monsters.

 

[jdavis]

There is always room for variety in creatures. I think some creatures get a bad wrap as is. We had a village of Lizardmen that the characters had to go talk to to get some information, they went to great strides to find out how to go about talking to lizardmen with out offending them and what a Lizardman might want in trade. It went over pretty well, the Lizardmen wanted to trade a map for the party halfling (good eating) but they settled for metal speartips and beads. We also had a run in with a treant that was very informative.