Frank / K Mephit

[Judging__Eagle]

Hmmm....

In all of this, did anyone else come up with the idea that between the: Leonal/Human features, patient nature, dedication to guardianship of locations or objects and middle eastern flavour that Cherubim and Lammasu are probably different names for similar ideas?

Nevermind, angelfromanotherpin's post mentions "lamas, the lion with a man's head".

These guys are just what D&D Lammasu are based on, case closed.

All that I had to do was shoot at the bulls eye, then the dominos fell over like a house of cards; checkmate.

[Username17]

Cherub is actually a Jewish interpretation of the word Shedu. There were guardian Cherubim around the Arc and they were essentially the same as the guardian beasts on Assyrian temples. Keep in mind that this dates back to when the Israelites had secondary altars to Astoreth (who is essentially Isis) in the main temple that were lower and lesser to the altar to YHWH.

So yeah, the mystical beasts in Sumeria, Assyria, Egypt, and Israel have a continuum. The reason D&D writes up different monster stats for the Cherub and the Shedu is the same reason that it writes up different monster stats for the Medusa, the Gorgon, and the Catoblepas. Part desire to sell more monster books, part severe lack of historical context on the part of the authors.

---

As to where the got off deciding that Cherubim should be anthro-lions who enjoy long vigorous runs and deep romantic conversation and shit - I have no idea. I seriously felt like I was reading a dating add for the Guardinals in the Angelic Furry Herald.

-Username17

[Judging__Eagle]

Part desire to sell more monster books, partly no historical context on the part of the authors.

Fixed.

Well, at least I know I wasn't the only one wondering what the source of that weird description was.

I wanted to both stop reading and find out what it was all getting to. All it got me to was: D&D writers have the dumb.

Which I already knew. :/

[Captain_Bleach]

1196323438[/unixtime]]...part severe lack of historical context on the part of the authors...

Most game designers aren't anthropologists or historians, so what they don't know, they just make up.

[tzor]

I think it is important to note that most of the "classic" monsters came not from studued research but from the popular myth/genre of the day. The rest came from plain old fashioned whimsey.

Consider, if you will, the evolution of the rust monster, created from a cheap plastic dinosaur mini whose original maker probably didn't do any research either.

And if you think that's bad, consider the mother of all monster guides, the three volume set of "All the World's Monsters." It included such gems as

The wandering monster/minstrel eye
The garlic bread golem

[Surgo]

All it got me to was: D&D writers have the dumb.

It's not all so bad, though. Consider Illithids as an example. Illithids are pretty cool, right? (Well, at least I think so.) Maybe it's not as common, but you still have some really awesome bastardized monsters.

[virgil]

I wonder what it would be like if aberrations weren't so intimiately tied to the Lovecraftian mythos (illithids literally being mini-Cthulhu without wings). Hell, I'd settle for some kind of aberration that wasn't maliciously against 'normal' reality and constantly attempting to garner power for its evil little purposes.

People keep trying to apply the Lovecraftian mindset where the aberrations are alien and foreign to normal thought and above such concepts as good or evil. But from reading Lords of Madness and such, they fall flat on their face and only give us very mortal, self-centered, & base creatures. They're ogres with extra tentacles, for all their posturing.

[Prak]

Yeah, but that's actually a very common theme... The Gods are supposedly above mortal concepts of good and evil and mortal frality, at least in some mythologies, yet in every single pantheon, though the Greeks and Norse are most known for it, the gods come off as mortals with more power.

I think the fact that aberrations are supposedly alien and foreign, yet when confronted and familiarized are found to be human is actually an interesting thing, but then I tend towards modernism with a post modern attitude...

There's also the fact that aberrations are supposed to be "beyond human imagining" and they are being created by humans...

oh, and mind flayers are actually wingless starspawn of cthulhu, which themselve are mini-cthulhu...

[Koumei]

1196371286[/unixtime]]Hell, I'd settle for some kind of aberration that wasn't maliciously against 'normal' reality and constantly attempting to garner power for its evil little purposes.

There's one Aberration that turns into a swarm and helps people, I think.

Yeah, one.

[Catharz]

1196387063[/unixtime]]There's one Aberration that turns into a swarm and helps people, I think.

Yeah, one.

It's also really a type of fey. The "aberration" type on the sheet is a typo which caused it to be accidentally shoved into LoM as an afterthought.

[JonSetanta]

One fix for the variations between name and D&D beast:
Alternate Form.
Call it Cherub, Shedu, Lammasu, w/e... the shapes are merely physical variations. The individual beings would vary in ability, but all would have the capability of mixing up their body parts.

[Surgo]

Hell, I'd settle for some kind of aberration that wasn't maliciously against 'normal' reality and constantly attempting to garner power for its evil little purposes.

The Elan, if you've seen the 3.5 psionics handbook.

[JonSetanta]

Lords of Madness also has (craptastic) feats that alter a base character into a semi-aberration.

[Captain_Bleach]

1196396397[/unixtime]]Lords of Madness also has (craptastic) feats that alter a base character into a semi-aberration.

Yarrgh, bein' a squid-faced abomination is not all it's cracked up to be.

[JonSetanta]

Well, I did like the one that gives 2 back tentacles.
But it requires 2 other Aberration feats, and that's the catch... since the rest blow ass.

[CalibronXXX]

There's the one that increases your natural reach. That one's not too bad.