Forum > Rolemaster
The problems with the "flesh golem"
rdanhenry:
I am reposting this, since it is otherwise buried in my comments on the PDF release of Treasure Law. It addresses an issue that has bothered me for a very long time, though perhaps I am the only one who cares. In the hope that perhaps I am not, I am calling this to general attention. Perhaps if there is some additional support for my position, the necessary changes can yet be made:
As a D&Dism, the flesh golem as fantasy Frankenstein's monster does not meet the long-standing Rolemaster definition of a golem “Unlike constructs, golems are composed of a single piece of a particular substance” (C&T, p. 34), as "flesh" is not a substance, but a mix of muscle, bone, tendon, and other tissues, and a body has many distinct parts rather than constituting a "single piece", if this language is to be meaningful. Removing this definition from Treasure Law does not fix this issue, nor will doing so in Creature Law. For some line must be drawn to separate construct and golem, and if one sets aside this anomaly, it is clear that constructs are fully articulated forms, for which magic is required only to power the movement, whereas the solid stuff of golems is mobile only by a miraculous flexibility provided along with motive power.
If it were up to me, I'd move the "flesh golem" to the Cultivated Creatures and probably rename it "artificial man" for clarity, but between constructs and golems, it would make far more sense as a “flesh construct”, as it is like the inorganic constructs in being equipped with joints and machinery for mobility and requires only motivating power from magic to employ them.
The construction of stitched-together corpses is a pure Hollywoodism in itself. In the novel, V. Frankenstein does spend time exhuming and studying the dead, but that was how artists and doctors learned anatomy at the time. Vat growth as seen in creature cultivation is just as plausible when going to the novel. When looking at it thematically, making "the Creature" a golem is contrary to the stands of both novel and movies, as Frankenstein's creation is seen as unholy, a tampering, a trespass. It is the very opposite of the sacred act of creating a Golem via Channeling.
Frankly, the stitched-together version offers the possibility of some future expansion to cover such creations more fully, with various variations, and its own spell list and creature type ("Assemblages"?). To force in this special case now is not only awkward (and IMO unnecessary), but cuts off a promising comprehensive alternative.
What Crafting skill would one even use for the “flesh golem”? Culinary? That is the only one that includes dealing with flesh.
pawsplay:
I'm comfortable calling "flesh" one substance, if clay can be. But rather than Crafting, it seems like all the representations I've seen emphasize either embalming or medicine.
Hurin:
Would it be possible to note that the 'Flesh Golem' is actually a construct, and works according to construct rules, even though colloquially most people think of it as a golem?
Spectre771:
It sounds like you are equating "flesh" with "skin only." The flesh could be easily equated with the "soft squishy parts of a once living organism." The skin/organs/muscles can be rendered :flame: (or blended) into a uniform mixture to be enchanted.
We never considered "flesh golem" to mean "only made up of skin" in our group. It was made of enchanted, once living organism material.
pastaav:
The classic Fleshgolem monster from fantasy is very different from Frankenstyle monsters. That there might be stiches needed to large enough pile of substance for the golem magic to work, does not mean it has the same movement of combat potential as an "artificial man".
Another classic golem are Sand golems and they are obviously created from lots of distinct materials so the definition in RMU need to be improved. Sand golems does not actually exist in previous editions of RM...but Flesh golems do. Why are we even talking abour D&D when previous editions of RM did have Flesh golems?
Having the situation that RMU rules/spells can not recreate monsters from previous editions because other games have done something similar would be dead stupid IMHO.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page