Monsters Upon the Coast, part 1 (A-G)
Recently I've been reading more and more about each of the monsters from Wolves Upon the Coast, so I decided to compile my thoughts and opinions on each of them. I would like to make it clear off the bat that, despite my using some pretty harsh words at times, I do genuinely enjoy most of these creatures and think Volume 2 Monsters & is a wicked idea for an RPG book.
This analysis was done mostly by reading the books, then Ctrl + Fing the names of each monster and verifying individually every single named mention of them in all of them, in isolation; compiling personal notes, sitting on them, and then condensing them down into this. This post is the first half.
If you are a player of mine, or someone who intends to play in a game of Wolves shortly, I do not think you will profit from this post. I will discuss very candidly and assume you are baseline familiar with the world of Wolves, as well as V2M&. More relevant to my players, I will discuss some of my intentions and where I would or intend to take these monsters to, which might dampen the surprise. Proceed consciously.
Bandits - A classic and obvious entry that is used in a classic and obvious way. I enjoy pretty much all of the keyed encounters on account of them being real people. No notes.
Basilisks - One of the animalistic monsters, thus less interesting but useful. They are very much written like loose wild animals.
Black Pudding - I didn't know black puddings were supposed to be this scary, probably because I assumed they would be named something less stupid than "pudding". I do not generally like slimes and oozes like this, they're the most videogamey monster, but I quite like all of the black puddings in Wolves, they're always portrayed as extremely dangerous and cataclysmic events. My only beef with them is aesthetics, really; I do not think a slow blob of black tar following you around is that interesting looking. I think I might swap it for a hydra instead.
Centaurs - Another classic monster used classically, though with the added rub that they hate horses. I have nothing against them, but they're not my favourite, and I don't have any good ideas on how to change them, so I am fine with just leaving them as is.
Chimeras - Only two of them in the map and they don't feel similar to one another at all. My idea of a chimera is the monster that Bellerophon kills, which was never very detailed. It's told in the Iliad very briefly and just says it was "a bane to many men" and what it looked like. Gearing, however, seems to treat his pair of chimeras as not only intelligent but dangerously cunning, which is an interesting twist. Honestly, I think the chimera is a much more interesting monster for that than the Manticore, but we'll get to it.
Cockatrice - Another animalistic monster deployed classically. I quite like its description in the monster manual - "useless wings purloined from bats / stretched wide to embrace the world" makes it seem like it aspires to kingship and greatness, but that's about as cool as they ever get.
Doppelgangers - Gearing's interpretation of them is closer to the Hashashin than they are to a foklorical monster: a "blasphemous cult of unspeakable rites and child sacrifice" which seems to teach its followers the Alter Self spell to be cast once a day. Very interesting connection, I really like them.
Dragons - There are 3 on the map, and they're all named individuals, which on the one hand I quite appreciate. Bheithir and Sruthkin are very classic in their presentation, they're just massive lizards that will get angry if you wake them up. The interesting one is Ghaalung, which helped humans overthrow the giants in the past and seems to have a paternalistic attitude towards us. It wants respect and adoration, and it can serve as a sage, which is way more interesting than "potential combat encounter or snake you shouldn't prod".
Druids - I think D&D fans and knowers can sometimes become unaware of just how specific and unknown to the broader world a concept only found in D&D can be, and druids are a good encapsulation of that. Much like the Gothrog we'll see later, there's a lot that seems to be assumed with the druids but isn't explained directly, as it assumes the reader has enough familiarity and exposure to what a druid is to know that instinctively.
Unfortunately, I don't, and these guys seem like entirely unlikeable assholes who keep fucking themselves and those around them over due to messing with stuff they shouldn't. Yet if you actually trace the implied history of Wovles and read their description in the monster manual ("road breaker, fort burner, legate eater, the woods are deeper than maps and dreams and empires") it makes them almost sound like almost sympathetic symbols of resistance. They're the ones who resisted the Romans, who are universally portrayed as monstrous, yet whenever I read about them I get a feeling in the back of my head that maybe the Romans were right in trying to get rid of these guys. There are stipulations in case you would like to aid them in their goals, but I can't fathom why anyone would do it if not for just being very shortsighted, gullible, and amoral.
Anyway, there are two main circles of druids: one in Ruislip and one in Albann, and it's implied there were more in Pyorra. The ones in Ruislip are fanatics who would love nothing more than to make a Holocaust of the Christians in Albann and Ruislip, if given the power. The most persecution we get from them is one line in Blulach that says members of the cult are burned in the public square if found out.
The ones in Albann are entirely insane and villainous. They worship an eldritch creature named Onthloug, and if this is found out by the druids of Ruislip, they'll go after them to kill them for it. It is also implied this has been going on for quite a while, as there are idols to Onthloug stashed away in the dungeon that used to be the former kingdom of Hwicce, thus implying the queen was also under their thumb. Their ultimate goal is hard to tell, as they just seem to want more and more human sacrifices to their deity; another one of them wants to attack a monastery that is clearly unprepared to defend itself.
With the druids, I'm ultimately left wondering about these clashing tones because it seems like the writing implies that they are good, to some extent. They're against the empire, that has got to count for something, right? Except they seem to be very ornery and willing to kill at the drop of a hat, and they don't seem to be persecuted with enough vigour for this vitriol to seem justified. The monasteries and Christian rulers we get almost never mention a specific hate towards the druids, and in real life, the Romans never got to Ireland, which Ruislip seems to be the clear parallel to. To me, it seems like Wolves is doing the same thing it does when it uses "Norse" and "Atlantean" in its fantasy world: presenting you shorthand with the understanding that you already know what it means, or that you'll fill in the gaps with your real world knowledge, but I don't really know what it means, and my real-world knowledge of what druids were actually like historically is useless. In real life, these druids are only similar to the magicians that sometimes turn up in hagiographies for Irish saints, which were clearly made up as propaganda or turned to stock characters after centuries of distance, and I would like to believe that there is more than cardboard under these guys.
The most unfortunate thing is that I don't really know what to do with them. I would like to remove them or ignore them as much as possible, but they're the core of the drama in Ruislip, and I don't want to deal with it. Thankfully, I think I'll have quite a bit of time to think about it, as it doesn't seem like my players will be going that way any time soon.
Dryads - I cautiously like them as presented, but I find them repetitive. It seems like most of the dryad encounters are very similar to one another, which can no doubt be enjoyable in an RPG since we thrive on repetition, but I do kinda wish there was more of a discussion on how you have these small goddesses walking around and fighting the fallen druids yet they apparently see no contradiction with that and their own beliefs. Perhaps the Wolves dryads are something other than goddesses, but it's another case of it letting your assumptions guide you.
The Elementals - Are fine. The Earth Elemental's text in the monster book is pure fire, and it's interesting that there are other kinds of elementals spread over the books - the Moon and Quicksilver Elementals, for instance. Personally, I've always struggled in making Elementals something other than wandering automata as they're presented here, but I'm not opposed to the idea.
Elves - There's about four different encounters with Elves: two attack immediately for their own reasons, the other two are starving without really understanding it. They are a very different interpretation of Elves, not really fairies (it doesn't seem like they have much in the way of magic) but not really pointy eared men either. They are such non-entities that they feel a bit detached from the rest of the world, I can't say I'm very interested in this interpretation.
Interestingly, there seems to be some sort of connection between Elves and the natural world, as they seem to become angry if you kill a deer and one group gets angry if you use a human language close to them. I can't say I understand this connection.
Ennts - Very very interesting! Gearing effectively communicates how extremely old these tree-men are, and how they often don't seem to care for human affairs.
Gargoyles - Making them men is an interesting spin, though not much is done with them. The most interesting encounter related to gargoyles is that one guy wants to become one, thus revealing that they become this out of their own volition. But I like them! Generally I don't really care for living statues and such but putting a guy in there who wants water is pretty cool.
Gelatinous Cube - There is a single one in the entire map. This entry feels more like an homage to the D&D heritage than anything else. As I said, I have no love for this kind of monster, but it's so unobtrusive that I can't muster a strong opinion.
Ghouls - I'm a big fan of them; I think the author must enjoy Pickman's Model, because these ghouls in their encounters are relatively calm and collected. Hungry and untrustworthy people who will eventually betray you, yes, but people nonetheless.
Giant Animals - This one is a sleeper hit for me. I enjoy giant animals as a matter of course, but the idea that giant animals are maneaters that have learned to feed on stories and seek immortality is fascinating. As well as the guidelines for building such a creature.
Giants - Fascinating. I had to read every single entry about the giants to finally understand that they require art to survive, hence "the only art left to them is self-mutilation". They are also said to have been the overlords of humanity once upon a time, which is par for the course for Western European folklore, but there are also implications (from the gnolls in Faroe) that human culture is a Giantish aberration. They also seem to survive under the sea and are still assholes down there, which implies an interesting connection between them and the Merfolk. I would be totally fine if the Wolves timeline stopped at them instead of continuing on about Atlantis and the like. There is a certain melancholy to their plight, even if everything points towards them having deserved their fate.
Gnolls - My favourite monster from Wolves. Masked men who wage eternal war, have bodies controlled by their superiors, and are still out there pursuing agendas from centuries past. Every single one of their encounters is dripping with interesting themes and vibes, and their goals are always strange. I love it.
Goblins - Goblins-as-children is an interesting idea. I'm not opposed to it, they feel a lot like gremlins sometimes, perhaps one of the few monsters in Wolves that might not seek to kill you forever.
Golems - There aren't many of them but they're all extremely classical. It is noteworthy, however, that the text explicitly makes reference towards its Jewish origins ("the word inscribed to animate clay") yet there are no Jews anywhere in Wolves, despite there being Christians.
Gothrogs - I had to google this one to find out it refers to a Balrog from Lord of the Rings, apparently D&D changed their name. There are only two of them, I can't really make out what their designs are, but they seem to be very one-dimensionally evil conquerors. I can't say I find them interesting.
Green Slime - There are two encounters with this creature and both are different from one another. One is a massive slime imprisoned which, if freed, will destroy an entire kingdom, and the other seems to just be lurking in a dungeon to mess with the players. I think it's fine for the function it exerts, but like I said, I would prefer it not to be a shapeless bundle of green nothing. That's the least interesting kind of monster to me.
Griffons - Standard type griffon. I really like that a single griffon in Ruislip is a massive issue and extremely transformative in the environment. The other griffons are less interesting.
Go to part 2.