1
Rolemaster / Re: The problems with the "flesh golem"
« Last post by cdcooley on Today at 02:14:34 PM »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.
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.