Awful Monster Names

[Venger]

Similarly, it was years before I realized that the name of that inevitable is “kolyarut” (my rough non-IPA mental pronunciation being KOL-ya-rut) rather than “kolaryut” (which I imagined to be roughly ko-LA-ree-yut)

your... non india pale ale mental pronunciation?

I used to do the same thing with kolyarut.

[Luccan]

your... non india pale ale mental pronunciation?

I used to do the same thing with kolyarut.

International Phonetic Alphabet

I'd need to check I've got the right pronunciation, but I don't actually find kolyarut that hard to think of a pronunciation for. KOL-ya-rut actually seems more natural to me than the other one.

[Jay R]

The worst example I can come up with is "dinosaur", which means "terrible lizard", for a creature related to birds, not lizards.

Aren't they kinda related to both?

If you go back far enough, but they are much more closely related to birds. Birds, reptiles, and dinosaurs are all in the clade Sauria. But Sauria breaks down into the clades

Lepidosauromorpha (which includes snakes and lizards)
and Archosauromorpha (birds, dinosaurs, crocodiles, and turtles).

Which includes Archosauriformes (birds, dinosaurs, and crocodiles),

which includes Avemetatarsalia,

which includes Dinosauromorpha,

which includes Dinosauriformes,

which includes dinosauria (both birds and dinosaurs).

Specific examples include Ankylosaurus, Apatosaurus, Brontosaurus, Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus Rex, etc.

And what's so bad about those names?

They all include "saur" or "saurus", which means "lizard".

(Also, weren't Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus, actually, the same animal?)

For decades, they were believed to be separate species in the same genus. In 2015, a paper concluded that they belong to separate genuses, so the name "brontosaurus" is back for the second one. [This is not universally accepted at this time.]

In any event, a name for a monster becomes more awful, not less, if it represents a genus classification error as well as a clade classification error.

[Venger]

Please stop. No one cares, and D&D did not invent the word "dinosaur."

content:

bonetree (dragon compendium) it evokes the image of a designer whose pages are overdue scrawling something in crayon across his section at the last minute. "it's a tree made of bones. a... bone tree!"

[ShurikVch]

For decades, they were believed to be separate species in the same genus. In 2015, a paper concluded that they belong to separate genuses, so the name "brontosaurus" is back for the second one. [This is not universally accepted at this time.]

FYI, bird's origin from dinosaurs still isn't universally accepted too

If you go back far enough, but they are much more closely related to birds. Birds, reptiles, and dinosaurs are all in the clade Sauria. But Sauria breaks down into the clades

Lepidosauromorpha (which includes snakes and lizards)
and Archosauromorpha (birds, dinosaurs, crocodiles, and turtles).

Which includes Archosauriformes (birds, dinosaurs, and crocodiles),

which includes Avemetatarsalia,

which includes Dinosauromorpha,

which includes Dinosauriformes,

which includes dinosauria (both birds and dinosaurs).

Please correct me if I'm wrong: does it really says Aves class is belonging to the Sauria clade, which in turn, is part of Reptile class?
Or, in short - does it really says birds are reptiles?

[hamishspence]

FYI, bird's origin from dinosaurs still isn't universally accepted too

"The Earth is roughly spherical" isn't universally accepted either. But it's accepted by the vast majority - since the "it's flat" view produces far more problems as compared with the observational evidence.

[Thurbane]

[Jay R]

Please correct me if I'm wrong: does it really says Aves class is belonging to the Sauria clade, which in turn, is part of Reptile class?
Or, in short - does it really says birds are reptiles?

Not quite. It says that aves is contained in reptilia, but it specifically adds, "(included in cladistic analyses, but excluded in traditional taxonomy)". So in cladistic analysis, the category of reptilia is not what "reptile" means in traditional taxonomy.

Please stop. No one cares, and D&D did not invent the word "dinosaur."

Clearly somebody cares, since further questions are being asked.

And even starting with the OP, the thread has not been limited to names invented by writers of D&D. We've talked about lycanthropes, rocs, gorgons, etc.

Just skip the posts that don't interest you; you have no authority to stop people from being interested in other things than your current interests.

[ShurikVch]

"The Earth is roughly spherical" isn't universally accepted either. But it's accepted by the vast majority - since the "it's flat" view produces far more problems as compared with the observational evidence.

Do you aware it's a false analogy?
Because it's relatively easy to prove the sphericity of Earth, but currently there are no indisputable proofs of birds' origin from dinosaurs.

Applying your words to the latter subject:

• Which "vast majority" accepted it, if variants of theory from The Origin of Birds were the most popular for the whole XX century (and I even seen article, dated by 2009, which said essentially the same). So, when that "acceptance", exactly, happened?
• Which "problems" causing theories of parallel evolution for birds and dinosaurs (or - of origin from something other than dinosaurs)?

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: If we could please return the thread to Awful Monster Names, not cladistics.

[Venger]

ineffable horror: when the gm had to stay up late last night doing his taxes and didn't write anything down in his notes, he whips out words like this to avoid describing the monster you and your pals are going to kill next.

[The Viscount]

Please stop. No one cares, and D&D did not invent the word "dinosaur."

content:

bonetree (dragon compendium) it evokes the image of a designer whose pages are overdue scrawling something in crayon across his section at the last minute. "it's a tree made of bones. a... bone tree!"

On a similar theme I'll raise you the dark tree. "We need to communicate that this tree is evil somehow. It's... darker than a normal tree."
"That's it! Call it the dark tree!"
The picture is certainly very fitting for that name.

Spoiler: That little frowny face

Show

[Venger]

The tree is angry the artist didn't finish coloring in his background

[DrMotives]

I don't think it's canon, but I like to assume that darkwood the material comes from a darktree the monster. So all that expensive lightweight wood was got by some brave hunter-lumberjack person.

[Venger]

I guess that's why firbolg is always wearing a plaid, red shirt

[Troacctid]

Firbolg is a pretty bad name too.

[Venger]

like the gorgon, it's the name of an extant mythical figure, so I can't blame D&D for the name itself, but as far as I know in Irish legend, the firbolgs weren't giants.

much like with kolyarut, no matter how many times I saw it written down, I always ended up saying "firlbog" out loud.

[Thurbane]

One I missed in my A-K section:

Camelopardel (Sa): Stupid monster has stupid name. Fitting I guess. Looks like a cross between a giraffe and panther. It creates mini sandstorms, and can re-hydrate folks by licking them. Who thought there was a niche missing that this needed to fill? I guess being NG and somewhat intelligent, it's there to help out folks who get lost in the desert and are dying of thirst. But still, stupid monster is stupid. I wonder if it's friends with the Senmurv?

Oh, and yanno, it totally looks like a good creature that's going to help the party:

[Mike Miller]

And the "X" on it's chest marks its weak spot?

[Venger]

And the "X" on it's chest marks its weak spot?

That's the compartment where he keeps all his snacks.

[Luccan]

Ok, here's one:

The Athach. It looks like someone misspelled "attach" to get its name, which I would actually accept were its abilities centered around attaching to things, but instead it's a Huge bruiser with an ok poison and a third arm it doesn't seem to use for anything. I'm actually more in favor of descriptive names because if someone says "You know, an athach" I'll probably just say bless you. At least if it was named "Threearm Greenboy" I'd know what they meant. Also, I know this isn't what the thread is about, but a quick side note to say I wish more monster manual art gave a better representation of scale. The thing is 18 ft tall, but from the picture you'd think it was a mutant orc.

[Venger]

Ok, here's one:

The Athach. It looks like someone misspelled "attach" to get its name, which I would actually accept were its abilities centered around attaching to things, but instead it's a Huge bruiser with an ok poison and a third arm it doesn't seem to use for anything. I'm actually more in favor of descriptive names because if someone says "You know, an athach" I'll probably just say bless you. At least if it was named "Threearm Greenboy" I'd know what they meant. Also, I know this isn't what the thread is about, but a quick side note to say I wish more monster manual art gave a better representation of scale. The thing is 18 ft tall, but from the picture you'd think it was a mutant orc.

Excellent choice. I had a similar thought process about the athach. It's also a form of very inconsequential gotchaism. "You thought he was a giant? Surprise! He's an aberration!" though there are few effects where this mistake would matter to the pcs.

Also I guess the only thing separating giants from aberrations is not having 2 arms.

I'm also in favor of descriptive names, as discussed at length in the non-awful names thread. They're good and that's the whole reason we even invented language to give stuff names in the first place.

"Threearm Greenboy" sounds like the dolan version of Theon Greyjoy from game of thrones.

I also dislike the lack of scale. Many creatures will be standing in a white void or with one foot on a rock to hide the artist's inability to draw perspective. One that always blindsides me is the gravorg, a cute, catlike creature. He's large. I used to think the chimera was much bigger than it was since I mistook the skull by it for an impressionistically drawn sheep.

Do you wonder of all athach have right hands as the central hand? Or maybe the men have rights and the women have lefts? Do they shake central hands in the process of courtship?

keeper (fiend folio) a name so generic, everyone at your table is probably each imagining something different, and yet I doubt any of them is thinking of a grey-skinned airman with giant horse feet, backwards elbows, holding a pair of hair dryers.

[Luccan]

Excellent choice. I had a similar thought process about the athach. It's also a form of very inconsequential gotchaism. "You thought he was a giant? Surprise! He's an aberration!" though there are few effects where this mistake would matter to the pcs.

Also I guess the only thing separating giants from aberrations is not having 2 arms.

I'm also in favor of descriptive names, as discussed at length in the non-awful names thread. They're good and that's the whole reason we even invented language to give stuff names in the first place.

"Threearm Greenboy" sounds like the dolan version of Theon Greyjoy from game of thrones.

I also dislike the lack of scale. Many creatures will be standing in a white void or with one foot on a rock to hide the artist's inability to draw perspective. One that always blindsides me is the gravorg, a cute, catlike creature. He's large. I used to think the chimera was much bigger than it was since I mistook the skull by it for an impressionistically drawn sheep.

Do you wonder of all athach have right hands as the central hand? Or maybe the men have rights and the women have lefts? Do they shake central hands in the process of courtship?

keeper (fiend folio) a name so generic, everyone at your table is probably each imagining something different, and yet I doubt any of them is thinking of a grey-skinned airman with giant horse feet, backwards elbows, holding a pair of hair dryers.

It appears (to me) to have two thumbs on its central hand, on opposite sides, making it a true central hand, rather than a right or left. Which actually seems more useless... especially given the palm seems to extend naturally towards the ground if held directly out and not tilted.

Also, yeah, that keeper art, that is... that is something. It's like a steampunk alien or something.

[Thurbane]

keeper (fiend folio) a name so generic, everyone at your table is probably each imagining something different, and yet I doubt any of them is thinking of a grey-skinned airman with giant horse feet, backwards elbows, holding a pair of hair dryers.

Such a weird monster. The image always makes me think of psychedelic 60s or 70s sci-fi art. Or maybe a baddie in a Beatles cartoon.

The hair dryers comment is spot on!

[The Viscount]

On the Camelopardel, I think I've always just glossed over the name because I assumed it read cameleopard, which was a term used in antiquity for a giraffe because it had spots like a leopard but was sort of camel-like otherwise. Then I slowed down and actually read the name and...what happened? This has to be where they jumped off from, but did somebody get drunk when naming it?

On the Athach, I agree with everything that's been said except for one respect: the scale. It may not be super prominent, but if you look at the sample athach's shoulders, you will see that they are covered by a garment made from an entire pig and cow. That at least gives you the idea that this is a big monster.

[No brains]

Please stop. No one cares, and D&D did not invent the word "dinosaur."

content:

bonetree (dragon compendium) it evokes the image of a designer whose pages are overdue scrawling something in crayon across his section at the last minute. "it's a tree made of bones. a... bone tree!"

Does a bone tree have boneleafs? Or are they two creatures with very similar names that have nothing to do with each other?

Also xvart sounds like a fart on a weird cushion.

[Venger]

Does a bone tree have boneleafs? Or are they two creatures with very similar names that have nothing to do with each other?

Also xvart sounds like a fart on a weird cushion.

you really have to ask at this point?

they're unrelated monsters

Tojanida(mm1) has a stupid name too. and he's goofy looking

[Requilac]

To be fair, i don’t know a whole lot about mythology, so when I hear someone say Salamander, Bugbear or Roc* I am getting a rather different mental imagine then what is intended. Hence why I thought it was a poor name. If only people who study mythology can make heads or tails of it, then it’s still a pretty poor choice for a name.

*am I supposed to pronounce that like “rock” or “roke”?

On a similar theme I'll raise you the dark tree. "We need to communicate that this tree is evil somehow. It's... darker than a normal tree."
"That's it! Call it the dark tree!"
The picture is certainly very fitting for that name.

Spoiler: That little frowny face

Show

This picture reminds me of a really edgy version of the Giving Tree.

[Venger]

it's pronounced rock

part 2: the taking tree

[Zaq]

Did the bzastra ever get a 3.x update? It’s a super cool old Planescape monster (intelligent symbiotic combinations of ring coral and special seaweed, each of which can survive separately but unintelligently), but it’s definitely a keyboard smash.

From the FF, we have the “terror bird!” It’s basically an ostrich with a taste for meat. And I mean, ostriches are pretty terrifying in real life, but not to an ECL 4 adventurer. These things aren’t particularly terrifying.

“Chronotyryn” is unnecessarily hard to say. “Chrono” is fine, but “tyryn”? Is that like “tyranny” that gets cut short? You have to read it a couple times to be sure you have it right—it almost tricks the eye worse than the tongue.

Does “aasimar” have discernible etymology? I kind of hate it anyway.