Are gargoyles mamals?

[luguvalium]

I would think not.

I only ask because because in ITL p146 under Mammal Poison, it states "All the humanoid races described in this book, except the Reptile Men, are mammals."

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by luguvalium

I would think not.

I only ask because because in ITL p146 under Mammal Poison, it states "All the humanoid races described in this book, except the Reptile Men, are mammals."

Their description on p.79 says they have a silicon metabolism, which rules out their being a member of any Terran taxonomic group (arguably including Life).

You could maybe rule Mammal Poison works on them anyway if it matters. For all you know it's lethal to anything with a silicon metabolism.

[hcobb]

Stone beetles eat humans and humans use some Silicon in their metabolism and structure, so it may be a matter of degree.

[phiwum]

Seems strange to think that gargoyles are mammals to any real degree. I'd rule that the description of mammal poison accidentally omitted gargoyles.

[Axly Suregrip]

I would not let mammal poison be used on gargoyles. For me, gargoyles are not mammals.

[phiwum]

I could kinda see gargoyles giving live birth, but I'm having trouble imagining breastfeeding. But I am a man with limited imagination.

[luguvalium]

Obviously an expedition to the Gargoyle Mountains is needed to settle these questions.

[Anaraxes]

I'd say it's up to the GM. You can re-rule anything to fit your vision of the creatures. So, mammal affected by poison (the poison rule forgot to mention them), mammal not affected by poison (RAW is correct; gargoyles are just special that way), not-mammal not affected by poison (the poison rule shouldn't have said "humanoids" when they meant "mammals", a term that the rules would have to then define somewhere), or even so boldly as to say not-mammal affected by Mammal Poison (because gargoyles are just special that way, despite the rule not mentioning them in the first place).

Careful spelunking through the 80s text might show whether gargoyles came along later than Mammal Poison, so a possible editorial error when gargoyles got tossed into "Humanoids" and the poison definition wasn't revised. But that seems like an academic question for the Scholars' Guild.

Personally, I'd go with gargoyles are humanoid non-mammals, kind of like Reptile Men, and so not affected by Mammal Poison. Put a note about the change/errata in your houserules so the whole table knows before the question comes up.

[JohnPaulB]

"A Primer on the Enigmatic Gargoyle" by Greg Miller in Hexagram #5 says:

No master naturalist has ever witnessed a Gargoyle live birth. Some suspect Gargoyles may lay eggs, but none have ever been found. (In some kingdoms, substantial rewards still remain for anyone who can produce a Gargoyle egg or fledgling.) Strangely, no Gargoyle children have ever been seen or are even mentioned in folklore.

The Elyntia City Library has several different versions of this tome. One does suggest a mammal-like up-bringing, but that was an ancient text that is in some disrepute. Also some birds or fish can lactate, so perhaps the reverse: maybe some live-birthing animal doesn't need to feed milk to its young; they suck mud from the get-go.

Two of the versions of that tome suggest that mammal poisons do not work on Gargoyles due to their silicon structure. But perhaps that is not definitive. Maybe it takes triple the amount of mammal poison. Perhaps it makes them drunk or just fatigues them? It probably takes an acid of some sort to affect them like a poison. But then again, just treat it like an acid to begin with.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by phiwum

I could kinda see gargoyles giving live birth, but I'm having trouble imagining breastfeeding. But I am a man with limited imagination.

Is there any art of female gargoyles with breasts?

Having large breasts in females only does tend to make the case for mammalian more convincing, and lots of fantasy art adds large breasts to female anything-at-all.