A well-utilized signature monster can drive a campaign for a long time.
The monster doesn’t necessarily need any exceptional abilities to be compelling.
For example, savage orcs move the adventures along in Middle Earth and skulking goblins jump start things in Golarian. There is something very basic in this approach, as the enduring popularity of zombie movies shows. Many players find appealing the idea of brightly shining heroes beating back hordes of brutes that are parodies of true men.
Not all monsters are outwardly monstrous. There is allure in exotic beauty and power, too. Good examples of this are the drow priestesses who scheme and plot in the Forgotten Realms or the gods and their agents who interfere in the affairs of mortals in Greek and Norse myths. Count among this archetype’s brethren inscrutable alien aberrations, arachnids and insects, and hosts of demonic and supernatural foes.
And of course, we have the dragon, and all its cold-blooded kin, such as dinosaurs and lizards. Mammals are repulsed and captivated by the reptilian and serpentine, and fire-breathing dragons are the apex of this expression. St. George, Chinese mythos and Dragonlance have all been expressions of this magnificence. And if you prefer your dragonkin more manageable, feel free to kick around some kobolds. (Really, I insist.)
Of course, the greatest monster is us, the human being. Depraved and duplicitous, short-sighted and greedy, some GMs prefer not to disguise evil, but hold up a mirror to it. But for the purposes of this article, we’ll set aside Homo sapiens sapiens.
Now that we’ve got these archetypes properly categorized, let’s crack open a monster book or two for some different monster descriptions that might be good campaign fodder.
Inhuman Horde
Fomorians are D&D Fourth Edition’s re-imagined hill giants, incorporating elements of Norse and Tolkienesque trolls by making them more industrious and intelligent. These hideous hulks emerge from their impenetrable mountain caves and attack remote settlements for slaves, breeding stock and to fill their cook pots. Their motives are standard for the brutish humanoid, except the fomorians have origins tied to fey realms, therefore, access to magic. In addition to being a substantial threat themselves, they are a good linking monster: fomorians can be masters of lesser monsters who direct their destruction and they can be servants and do the bidding of more powerful creatures.
Alien and Exotic
One of the things Paizo has done well with Pathfinder is mine real-world mythology and put a spin on it. Divs, the Slavic house spirits, are such an example. In Pathfinder, these become a host of befouled genie spirits who give their allegiance to the bestial fiend Ahriman, working to undermine civilization and torment humanity. There are dorus, the dark whisperers and corruptors of conscience; aghash, desert hags that are the embodiment of the evil eye; pairaka, temptresses who undermine the good; ghawwas, demons of the sea; shiras, bestial stalkers; sepids, warlords of slaughter and akvans, princes of destruction. Each div presents a different kind of challenge, ensuring a host of foes over a long campaign.
Dragon
Though designed for player characters, the dragon-inspired races of dracha and mojh of Monte Cook’s Arcana Evolved present an interesting challenge as adversaries. Each represents a component of the great dragons, dracha their physical might and power of flight, mojh their intellect and magic. They can serve as forerunners of a dragon invasion or servants of a threat that has not yet been revealed. Transformation from one form to another, including gender, is a theme the Arcana Evolved setting emphasizes, meaning evolved and transitional forms of dracha and mojh can be used to add variety to combat challenges. It also means psychological and societal issues related to transformation can be explored within a campaign.
I’m disappointed that you spend only a paragraph on the monsters that most resemble us– our fellow humans (or PC species)– quickly dismissing them. I’ve found, both as a GM and a player, that the most memorable villains are those who could be our neighbors.
Humans are great enemies. Dolores Umbridge from the Harry Potter series is a perfect example. How many people are more enraged by her actions than Voldemort?
If I write a hundred lines of “I will not tell lies.” do I get a pass?
I have often wondered if the Voldemort regime had persisted, would Dolores have come to realize her allegiance would have been betrayed and she, too, would become its victim? She wasn’t an inner circle member, not a true believer. She just wanted order, which is a very different thing than what Vold wanted, which was power (and revenge).
Which is one reason we hate her so much. She serves evil without realizing what that *really* implies.
I don’t disagree that humans are great adversaries. And they can be “monstrous.” But they aren’t, by definition, monsters, at least in the “Monster Manual” sense. I wanted simply to differentiate that the purpose of the article was to select some monsters that represent certain archetypes that could serve a campaign. Something other than orcs, devils/demons/drow and dragons.
Using humans as adversaries and imbuing them with “monster” characteristics is perhaps a theme worth exploring in a future article.
Okay, so “monsters” are creatures that look different, have different physiology, and may well think differently, too. That makes them a) surprising and b) harder to understand. Two important characteristics. But those two characteristics define the best human villains as well.
The most memorable villains I’ve created– and played against– are humans who are monstrous precisely because some elements of their personality are alien. They’ve got a special power that’s rare, motivation that’s difficult to fathom, and habits that are strange, terrifying, and quite often disgusting all at the same time.
One villain my wife created 10 years ago was based on her study of criminology and the… odd sexual appetites… of real-world serial murderers. If that villain had been some monster species the players probably would have shrugged it off as, “Oh, this species is just disgusting.” Making him human made him more terrifying and etched him into everyone’s minds. Ten years later half the players still get uncomfortable talking about him.
Do you think that the progression PC power in the various D&D games limits the long term usability of signature monsters like Orcs and Goblins? I know that both can make for fun scenarios at the beginning of an adventurer’s career, but they seem easy to outgrow. How would you keep them viable as the signature threat for longer?
I have a few solutions:
1) Level caps. E6 or some other cap (as per group or GM) works great to keep threats, well threatening. Even at 4th level a large group of orcs and goblins with some tactics can be a huge pain to defeat.
2) Time. 10th level characters can blow through an amry of orcs. But can they do it before their NPC ally is sacrificed as an offering to the orcs’ dark god? You can use the vast hordes more like terrain than true adversaries.
3) Fake the orcs. I ran a game where the base orc, with little training was actually an ogre mechanically (plus acid blood but that doesn’t matter here). Easy way to keep them more threatening, especially combined with the next step.
4) Add levels. The orc high chieftain was a 10th level character, while many advisers and other chieftains were between levels 6-and 8. After all, the orc warbands raid constantly and fight among each other too. Those orcs you see are probably among the best in the region. Give them a few levels. If the kingdom’s leader is a 12th level character, why shouldn’t the leader of an orc horde be nearly equal in strength (or greater with more constant fighting)?
Three is a good suggestion. Back in the bad old days, it’s how we would buff up all sorts of monsters, not just goblins and orcs.
It depends on your GMing style, but there might be reasons why the first two suggestions might not be a good match for many tables. I think you have to have a certain type of group to run E6 or capped style game. As for the second, putting a timer on player action can run you into a different set of problems that can derail an adventure. As a general rule, I find that timer-style adventures should be the exception or reserved for very experienced groups. But the proliferation of organized play, and the demands of that play style, might have laid the groundwork for more players to be used to it. Still, I would advise caution before making that a staple of a campaign.
What do you mean by “Timer-Style Play”? I meant time in a Burning Wheel, Intent and Task style. For example, the PCs want to race to the orc priests before they can sacrifice their friend. But a warband is between them and the priests.
They may make it to the NPC in time, after he is sacrificed but enough time to stop the ritual, after the ritual is complete, or not at all. You basically drift a margin of success mechanic.
Another option would be to use different systems. Savage Worlds lets you make really powerful characters, but a lowly goblin with a sling can still get extremely lucky and one-shot a PC. The mechanics keep things more dangerous. This may be why I like massive damage rules (plus it make combat go faster, yay speed!)
A D&D based option I just remembered is the Aid Another action. Sure it is boring, but a shield wall may only make 3 attacks against the fighter, with each attack being helped by many orcs for more accuracy. Same thing with ranged attackers, they fire a volley, maybe only one attack hits, but with enough orcs you can still threaten the PCs.
By “timer-style” I mean the PCs are basically on a clock. (It doesn’t have to be an actual clock.) Just a sequence of events that countdown so that players feel if they don’t hurry *all the time* they will *lose* the scenario. As a device to move a single encounter along (i.e. ticking time bomb), it’s OK, but as a longstanding campaign solution to the “monster problem” it seemed a stretch for any but experienced players. (A “24” style campaign approach, if you will.)
You know me, as a D&D style gamer, I can’t say I’m familiar with the Burning Wheel Intent and Task style reference. But it sounds similar. But again, the “drifting” degrees of success seems like a game condition that not all gaming tables are going to find satisfying. (Others might be just fine with a “some is better than none” result).
Changing systems: Always an option. It just depends on a table’s preferences.
I’ve used aid another often to “buff” monsters.
I use timer-style play frequently in my D&D game and it works pretty much as you’ve outlined, Razjah. I define the scenario to include a significant event that unfolds in real time. Your example of the orc priest and a sacrifice is very similar to the example I’d typically offer here.
Per Troy’s comment, the value of incorporating this “Beat the clock” element in the adventure isn’t just to make weak monsters tougher. It adds another layer to the story, forcing the players to think harder and make more complex decisions. It gives powerful parties the opportunity to use their powers in creative ways. It keeps players from getting bogged down or exploring rat holes. And, finally, it creates dramatic tension that makes the story more exciting. All those reasons combined are why I use it so frequently.
Strictly speaking, the later editions of D&D, either by applying templates or class levels, gave us goblinoids (especially bugbears) and orcs that could scale with PCs a goodly way. I don’t mean to imply those types of monsters can’t be used. I’m offering examples of other monsters that you might do the same thing with, select some monsters that do scale and can serve a campaign for a several levels.
Like a lot of things, though, even class levels/HD themselves don’t do the trick. You have to start loading up adversaries with magic. Then you run into story problems. You have to have plausible reasons why monstrous species have powerful magic. You can explain away one or two, but after a while those explanations start to erode the validity of the story you are telling.
Finding a way to imbue savage races with magic is why I think the choice of 4E formorians works. They have a fey background. Say “fey” and I think the players will accept a great deal of magic in dealing with them, despite them being brutish hulks.
It’s been a good conversation, guys. I’m off to GenCon. If you see a fat middle aged balding guy in a Xena shirt or dark Werecabbages shirt who looks confused as to where he’s headed, that’d be me. Stop to say hello — better yet — help with directions. (This gnome does not have an internal compass.)