Topic: 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  (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.

[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]

Flesh golem is like a clay golem; a mound of fleshy stuff collected, homogenized, and molded similar to clay.

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]

The same problem does not exist in RM, in Construct companion we have Golem creation on page 45 and Amalgam creation on page 89.

You didn't check Construct Companion very carefully.

Describing Amalgams on p. 14:

These Amalgams are sometimes erroneously called Flesh Golems.

Describing Golems on p. 13:

"Flesh Golems" are not in fact Golems as they are not composed of a single piece of material. Instead "flesh golems" are Amalgams

Construct Companion agrees with me that flesh golems were miscategorized.

[pastaav]

Correct, I didn't recall the defintion on page 13. It is IMO an particulary weird deinition considering that the actual golem rules that I referred to in the same book does not follow the definition, but allows the golem magic to work on stuff like a pile of bones that are fused to together by the magic. It beats me why golem magic should be able to fuse bone together but not flesh.

To sum up, Creature & Monsters have actual Flesh golems, and my interpretations it is the pile of body parts that is animated by the golem magic. This is a classic fantasy horror trope that exists far beyond the area of roleplaying games (the Warcraft games and the flayed from Stranger Things are obvious examples that comes to mind).

In no way does the game get better if we enforce the arbitrary choice that golem magic must only work on certain substances like bone but not flesh. Adding a notice to the rules that says artifical men created from fresh body parts is a different kind of monster than golem would in IMHO sort any lasting issues. Changing the definition is a very simple solution that doesn't create any balance issues, so why not do it?