Random observation of the day.. looks like Holmes Basic was the first appearance of Gnolls in their hyena man, Monster Manual form.
In OD&D's "Monster & Treasure" booklet, the description reads:
"GNOLLS: A cross between Gnomes and Trolls (. . . perhaps, Lord Dunsany did not really make it all that clear) with +2 morale. Otherwise they are similar to Hobgoblins, although the Gnoll king and his bodyguard of from 1 - 4 will fight as Trolls but lack regenerative power."
Nothing in Greyhawk, Blackmoor or Eldritch Wizardry alters or updates that description. By contrast, in Holmes, the entry for Gnolls reads:
"Gnolls are low-intelligence beings like hyena-men.."
Wonder what precipitated the change? Maybe worries about copyright challenges from the Dunsany estate after the legal issues TSR had with the Tolkien estate?
UPDATE: Checked Zach's blog entries on the original Holmes manuscript, and the Gnoll was not originally included by Holmes himself. The Gnoll was missing from the first edition of Holmes Basic but was added in the 2nd edition, so the changed description must have come from TSR if not Gygax himself. http://zenopusarchives.blogspot.com/2014/03/part-25-horrors-are-naturals-for.html
Don't think so - Dunsany's descriptions of Gnoles are vague enough that they fit either description equally poorly.
ReplyDeleteLord Dunsany's creature was spelled gnole, as in How Nuth Would Have Practised His Art upon the Gnoles:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gutenberg.org/files/7477/7477-h/7477-h.htm#HOW_NUTH_WOULD_HAVE_PRACTISED_HIS_ART_UPON_THE_GNOLES
Roger Giner-Sorolla
ReplyDeleteYep, Dunsany's description is pretty vague. But it's a pretty significant change from magical gnome-troll hybrids to hyena men, so I imagine there was a reason for it (whether it was spurred by copyright concerns or just random creative urge).
The original OD&D creature entry for the Gnoll explicitly references Dunsany. Removing the Dunsany reference in the description itself and altering the nature of the creature could well have come from concerns (founded or unfounded) that more legal hassles might come from keeping the original version.
Andy C Your observation is correct, because even though the entry for Gnolls is missing from the first edition rulebook, Tom Wham's picture of the Gnolls is present, and they look very similar in detail to Sutherland's illustration in the Monster Manual. One of them must have seen the other's drawing.
ReplyDeleteInteresting.. I wonder if the new look for gnolls might have been the result of an illustration by David Sutherland as the original Monster Manual was being developed. The first edition of Holmes Basic was late 1977n and the second edition was January 1978; the first edition of the Monster Manual was released in December 1977. So the design process for both Holmes Basic and the MM would have been concurrent.
ReplyDeleteThe unanswerable question would be did the description change as a result of an illustration idea by Sutherland, or did Sutherland's illustration in the MM merely reflect a re-imagining of the gnoll which had already taken place?
From the Mouth of Gygax: http://gnollish_clan.livejournal.com/46335.html
ReplyDeletetl;dr: Gary came up with "cross between gnomes and trolls" as a joke before his gnolls appeared in D&D. Gary intentionally misspelled "gnole," but not to avoid stepping on Dunsany's estate. Gary changed them to be hyena-like humanoids, but not hyena-men. Also, Gary's kobolds are not reptilian.
Tony, that's a great link! Also of interest in there, it being the first time I've Gary explicitly say it: "To correspond with the 8 levels of fighters in the original D&D game I decided upon eight levels of humanoids--kobolds, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls, bugbears, ogres, trolls. Giants were a class unto themselves." Cool.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone read Margaret St. Clair's (writing as Idris Seabright) 1951 story, "The Man Who Sold Rope to the Gnoles"? I've not read it, and wonder if there is an online version available.
ReplyDeleteI've read Lord Dunsany's short story "How Nuth Would Have Practiced His Art Upon the Gnoles", and not really gained much from it, aside from the assumption that Dunsany's gnoles were much more ghoulish and creepy than even most goblinoids appear in D&D/AD&D.
However, I believe that traditional goblins & bogeys are more supernatural, sometimes having one or more attributes of the undead than their D&D/AD&D counterparts. It almost seems to me that Dunsany's gnoles could have been (D&D/AD&D) wights, albeit with more social intelligence (family/clan social structure, etc.).
Anthologized in The Best of Margaret St. Clair by Academy Chicago Publishers, 1985.
ReplyDeleteAs it turns out, Margaret St. Clair's "The Man Who Sold Rope to the Gnoles" is available for reading here: http://d-infinity.net/fiction/man-who-sold-rope-gnoles
ReplyDeleteInteresting about the gnoles being fond of emeralds.. I may have to make that a coveted item of treasure for D&D gnolls as a nod to their literary forebears.