Community

So this is what a Greco-Roman Chimera looks like.


(Greek ceramic, Attic −500s)
 

(South Italian ceramic, −300s)


(Etruscan −400s)



So, if the D&D Chimera doesnt look or behave like the Greek Chimera, I dont see the point of referring to Greek (Hellenic) mythology.

Mythologically accurate names, need mythologically accurate descriptions. If changing or modifying the description, then change or modify the name too.

I wish that rather than being a linear scale, the polls looked a little more like this -

"That's not a good [kobold] at all."
"That's a reasonable interpretation of the way that [kobold]s have traditionally been presented in D&D, but I do not think that is how [kobold]s should be presented in Next."
"I like that [kobold]."

If you want, you have intermediate "That [kobold] is fine but not great" options, if that's useful.

The problem with all of these articles is that they start with the supposition that the highest goal is fidelity to how things have previously been presented, rather than cool, resonant creature designs. There are many, many places where those things overlap, but it's not universal. There are no shortage of places where D&D has made odd choices regarding monsters.

When they do summon up the courage to break from tradition a bit, there's usually special polls about that (the Pegasus being a celestial, for example.) I'd want way, way more of that.

What I think is the issue with the monster design as presented in these columns is that it's looking at the spirit of D&D on too local a level. One way to determine what a monster should look like in next is to look at the exact things that were done with it before, and port those forward as directly as possible. Another way is to look at what D&D is like as a whole, and to figure out what monster X would look like in that framework. I don't think that all of either way is best, but I think that we're generally erring far too hard on the side of "port 'er straight forward without any thought." When a monster has random characteristics just 'cause, that's a resonance hit. In some cases, those random characteristics are "worth it". They're deeply ingrained into the fabric of what's really important and/or are independantly extremely cool on their own, even if they're not resonant in broader fantasy. (A rarity, as the cooler parts of D&D have defined a lot of what goes on in broader fantasy.)

Anyway, I want to say that I think this article is an improvement over some we've seen in the past in its willingness to rework to some degree some not-so-amazing monster design rather than just importing it whole cloth. The monsters aren't the platonic ideal of perfect - they're paying some cost in good design to be faithful to the source - but they're a big improvement.

I am unaware of any male Sphinx in Greek mythology. There is only the female Sphinx.




(Female Sphinx, Greek, Attic −500s)






However, the Egyptian Sphinx is (usually) male, but is wingless.



(Male Sphinx, Egyptian −1100s)




  
The female Greek Sphinx is malevolent but moreso as the “liminal guardian” of a threshold (somewhat like the biblical Kruvim who guard the entrance to Paradise).

The male Egyptian Sphinx is benevolent, representing monarchy and associating with the sun. It seems appropriate to model the Androsphinx on the Egyptian one, thus also make it wingless.



By the way, the ram-headed and hawk-headed sphinxes are Egyptian.



A favorite speculation is, the Sphinx derives from an ancient zodiac, where the head represents the beginning of the new year, corresponding to the sign of Virgo, while the tail represents end of the old year, corresponding to Leo. As such, the Sphinx encompasses all time. It is difficult to demonstrate, but astrological and agricultural origins seem possible.

   

Here is the Greek Hydra, essentially a many-headed snake.




(Italian, Caere −500s)



The Hydra is a many-headed snake. As its name Hydra conveys, it is a water snake (compare hydro-), in other words a sea serpent.

It seems to relate to the iconography of many-headed snakes elsewhere in neighboring cultures, such as Canaanite Yam, who personifies the encircling Cosmic Ocean that wraps around the land disk of a flat earth. Notably, Yam personifies Chaos beyond the central Order. (Round because the horizon is round.) The heads appear to represent the salty seas that encroach into the land disk from the encircling Ocean.

The current Hdra is close.

The basic hydra should be killable if you chop off all its heads. This is to make fighting it fun. To makes the head chooping strategy viable, it should have resistance to any weapon that is not gold, silver, or deal fire damage.

This give parties these strategies.

1. The long fight. Attack the hydra wihout precious weapons and don't chop the heads.  
2. Golden fight. Attack the hydra with a golden or silver weapon to bypass resistance.
3. Head Chopper. Kill heads and hope to hack them faster than it regrows them.

Then have the Customization Option for that one immortal head.