Forum > Rolemaster
The problems with the "flesh golem"
cdcooley:
I would say that bringing up D&D is valid in this case because that's where the RM Flesh Golem originated. The fact that this is described as "an issue that has bothered me for a very long time" means we're not just talking about something new to RMU, but a long-standing issue that could possibly be addressed by RMU.
A Golem is made by animating normally inert materials without a need to do more than creating the rough shape of what you want it to be. There's no need for internal structure, organs, etc. which is very different than the idea behind the Frankenstein monster. Interestingly even the Wood Golem is assumed to be carved from a single tree trunk. A Sand Golem doesn't bother me because it's not that far removed from Clay which is the classic material from which you would make a Golem.
Personally, I wouldn't classify Dr. Frankenstein's creation as a Golem. That monster would either be a construct or undead. We're talking about reanimating a collection of parts from once-living creatures that more-or-less work the way they originally did and are just being powered through magic.
pastaav:
I don't agree that D&D defines what an Flesh golems means. Flesh golems as an animated pile of body parts stitched together and moving only due to golem magic is a common fantasy trope that exists in everything from live action movies to books. I have never encountered any Flesh golem while playing D&D, but have encountered Flesh golems in everything from RM to animes.
The weird thing about D&D is in fact that they insist on putting the Flesh golem classification on Frakenstein monsters despite the obvious differences to a golem. I suspect the background is that D&D recieved criticism about lacking rules for creating Frankenstain's monsters and the designer solved the issue by claiming their golem rules covered the Frankenstain case.
The same problem does not exist in RM, in Construct companion we have Golem creation on page 45 and Amalgam creation on page 89. Making it so that RMU cannot recreate the Flesh golem from previous editions because D&D have used the same monster name for other names is stupid. Considering that Nicholas wrote Construct Companion I think it is a given that RMU should stay compatible with previous editions so it is possible to make an updated Construct Companion for RMU.
Spectre771:
I brought this topic up as a sidebar at our last gaming session. We all agreed (with nearly no debate) a "Frankenstein monster" is not a golem but closer to undead or animated dead. Flesh golem is like a clay golem; a mound of fleshy stuff collected, homogenized, and molded similar to clay. Then we went back to gaming. One of our group is a lifelong D&D player who started RM with us a few years ago. The other have been playing RM and D&D in equal parts, I am long time RM player who started playing D&D a few years ago. There was a decent blend of experiences in gaming and with game systems present.
(For whatever this little blurb is worth...)
rdanhenry:
--- Quote from: Spectre771 on April 28, 2024, 04:33:07 AM ---Flesh golem is like a clay golem; a mound of fleshy stuff collected, homogenized, and molded similar to clay.
--- End quote ---
This is contrary to the original flesh golem of the Monster Manual (before that, the Golem was a singular entity in a particular story, made of clay), the illustrations of which showed the seams where it was sewn together. C&T offers little on appearance, but says that the flesh golem can "appear as human", something not possible for a puree of the various tissues. The current Treasure Law text specifies that to make such a golem one needs "enough fresh body parts to create a whole form", strongly implying that these must be fit together as a normal body, since a puree would hardly care about such things.
rdanhenry:
--- Quote from: pastaav on April 28, 2024, 03:05:20 AM ---The same problem does not exist in RM, in Construct companion we have Golem creation on page 45 and Amalgam creation on page 89.
--- End quote ---
You didn't check Construct Companion very carefully.
Describing Amalgams on p. 14:
--- Quote ---These Amalgams are sometimes erroneously called Flesh Golems.
--- End quote ---
Describing Golems on p. 13:
--- Quote ---"Flesh Golems" are not in fact Golems as they are not composed of a single piece of material. Instead "flesh golems" are Amalgams
--- End quote ---
Construct Companion agrees with me that flesh golems were miscategorized.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page