OD&D Shadows versus AD&D Shadows

[geneweigel]

What the hell is the difference?



Seriously, whats your approach? Keep em lumped into undead for simplicity's sake or go the pure route?

I don't know I'm in favor of a Merritt-esque non-undead but its such an expectation for it to be "undead".

How about both?

Now thats an evil DM idea...

[Scott]

Both would be the preferred choice.

[geneweigel]

I think that its hard to exactly "pin" the OD&D shadow as Merritt's "shadow" because the OD&D ghost came first (ST 1975) as the tribute monster to that Merritt concept (that of a possessing "demon") but then the shadow (greyhawk 1976) being similarly "not undead per se" came as another aspect the Merritt concept that was literally named this time as another nonhuman malfactor but lacking the possess feature from the story. Then later, you could even turn demons in AD&D and then they all got scooped up in the undead. Ghosts were definitely said to be not true undead in OD&D and in AD&D were more modified than the shadow as being once directly mortal whereas the shadow kept his nonhuman origins somewhat as being from a manes from a mortal.

So how can a DM separate all that convincingly? One "system" can be said to prematurely naive and the other "system" can be said to be convolutingly homogenized if you take devil's advocate in harsh criticism against both in argument.

Create an entirely different source of all entities as well?

"I AM NOT THAT TYPE OF DEMON...FOOOLS!!!!"

Now thats cruelty...



But still, why not? Planar conditions could be reflections of current knowledge...apart from giving you a large headache to make your eyes bleed while fathoming this concept ( ), it could reinvigorate staled out campaign's jaded players who are suffering from "preconception boredom" that has become lost over the years.

Of course, saying that the world is changed is no stranger to my players but for traditional world campaigns it could slowly be injected with an adventure-based clues to unexpected things on the horizon...

[GT]

I'm not sure why Gary said "not undead per se" (assuming that he wrote that part... which I do); as I would say the shadows in CREEP SHADOW, CREEP definitely do fall under the heading of undead--they are the spirits of those who have been drained into that shadowy existence.

[geneweigel]

So are demons and we're right back to square one...



Seriously, theres all kinds of theories and strangeness in that book but the D&D angle encompasses a wide stretch and not just the contemporary modern events of the story.

So the "per se" is referring to that historical divergence in the story that they were demons long ago and their victims became undead shadows and the current antagonists.

[GT]

Well, theologically speaking: demons are fallen angels (or just plain evil gods ior spirits f you go back to Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian sources); whereas the Shdows of Merritt are created by an evil curse in Ys, which then allows them to drain mortals as well. I says that makes them a form of Undead for certs! There IS the later addition of Shadow Demons (in FF... ) ^__^

[geneweigel]

Nov 21, 2008 21:13:32 GMT -5 GT said:

Well, theologically speaking: demons are fallen angels (or just plain evil gods ior spirits f you go back to Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian sources); whereas the Shdows of Merritt are created by an evil curse in Ys, which then allows them to drain mortals as well. I says that makes them a form of Undead for certs! There IS the later addition of Shadow Demons (in FF... ) ^__^

Alright, but the take home message in the literal text has all kinds of theories which you know is the seminal stuff that bred the shadow, the succubus, and later the shadow demon, etc.

Heres an example:

"You believe that these creatures, these demons--actually
existed?"

"And still exist," said de Keradel. "Reproduce the exact
conditions under which those who had the ancient wisdom evoked these
beings--forces, presences, powers, call them what you will--and the
doors shall open and They come through. That Bright One the Egyptians
named Isis will stand before us as of old, challenging us to lift Her
veil. And that Dark Power stronger than She, whom the Egyptians named
Set and Typhon, but who had another name in the shrines of an older
and wiser race--It will make Itself manifest. Yes, Dr. Lowell, and
still others will come through the opened doors to teach us, to
counsel us, to aid and obey us--"

and here:

"I mean--shadows. Didn't I sing to you that she was Queen of
Shadows? She was a witch--and could make shadows do her bidding. All
sorts of shadows--shadows of the lovers she'd killed, demon shadows,
Incubi and Succubi nightmares--a specialist in shadows was the White
Dahut, according to the legend.

Theres all kinds of crap like that littered in the text. Which must be the source of the line "undead per se".

[GRWelsh]

It seemed Gary's OD&D conception of undead was that they had a link to the Negative Material Plane, and that shadows were not dead humans at all -- but rather creatures that drew their essence from a completely separate source: the Plane of Shadow. Maybe it was this distinction that kept shadows in a different 'category' in EGG's mind, at least until they were "brought into the fold" at the time the AD&D Monster Manual was published...

So,

1976 Greyhawk Supplement: shadows are not undead per se.
1977 AD&D Monster Manual: shadows are undead.

In the 1976 Eldritch Wizardry Supplement, shadows are included under the encounter table for Undead-types.

In Holmes Basic, 1977, shadows remain in the not-undead category, exactly the same as described in the Greyhawk Supplement.

And there you get the divergent paths that shadows took as undead or non-undead status in AD&D versus OD&D that became Basic D&D.

Maybe when EGG was writing the AD&D Monster Manual and started thinking about what exactly demons were, and where they came from, he decided to move shadows back into the Undead category, and also link them to demons. And so, there's this cycle now of: the dead who go to the Abyss or Gehenna become manes, who are essentially the souls of the Chaotic Evil people. And depending on the "greatness of their evil in material life" some are used to form shadows or ghasts.

[GT]

And there-in lies another point: the word "demon" as used by Merritt is often a generic term meaning "evil creature", and not as well-defined as demon in AD&D terms. I'm willing to bet that somewhere in "The Metal Monsters" Merritt refers to the metallic beings as "devils" even though they are nothing of the sort, as we understand the term in AD&D terms or even Judaeo/Christian/Muslim terms... (These same "metal monsters" being Gary's inspiration for the modrons!)

[GRWelsh]

Well, I think that's exactly right, Greg... this was all going on in the time period when EGG was defining the previously undefined. He was codifying into being what was drawn from an uncountable number of sources and fantasy writings... many of which had demons, goblins, shadows, etc. used according to broad and archaic usage. Up until then, they were all defined according to the needs of a particular story and/or with a nod to whatever myths or medieval folklore a given writer wanted to make use of at the time... So, if you look at the shadows of Merritt or Dunsany, or shades from Greek Mythology, or other sources... there could be many 'takes' on what those things were: a variation of dead spirits, or else some other entities entirely, of a magical or other-planar nature.

[GT]

Yet another version of a "shadow" can be found in the CAS story "The Double Shadow" (a story that also mentions liches, mummies, etc.); but this shadow is considerably different than the AD&D version--it is some sort of transformative being from the outer gulfs! ^__^