Does anyone have a copy of a second edition
AD&D Monstrous Manual (or
Compendium) handy? I ask because I just noticed today, seemingly for the first time, that
Greyhawk, the
Monster Manual, Holmes, and Moldvay all perpetuate the misspelling "doppleganger" rather than the correct "doppelganger." I can tell, from looking at the online D20 SRD, that the misspelling had been corrected by the WotC era, but what I don't know is if that's the first time the monster's name has been spelled correctly or if it had been corrected prior to that point during 2e.
Just checked mine and it is spelled "Doppleganger". Hope that helps!
ReplyDeleteMonstrous Manual says Doppleganger.
ReplyDeleteMonstrous Compendium (1989) - Doppleganger
ReplyDeletePerhaps they corrected it after Marvel comics introduced a character with the name Doppleganger and probably trademarked the misspelling.
ReplyDeleteThe misspelling always bugged me, so when they appeared in my games I always wrote doppelganger. Of course that's not correct either; it should really be doppelgänger, with an umlaut.
ReplyDeleteHaving never looked at anything after 2e for more than five minutes, I didn't know it had ever been "fixed". And for some reason that bugs me too. After all this time, it feels like doppelgänger refers to the supernatural "second self" of folklore, while doppleganger is the name of the (rather different) D&D monster.
I dunno, maybe I'm just crotchety today.
You could also write it as "doppelgaenger" if you can't find the umlauts on your keyboard ;)
DeleteAs for the misspelling itself, I presume it's written more like how the (english-speaking) reader would pronounce it.
gamers are never crotchety and fickle
ReplyDeleteWell on that note, I'll have to be crotchety! Doppleganger never bugged me, for as ClawCarver pointed out, it didn't bear much resemblance (pun intended) to the German folklore... but my peeve is with "Monstrous Manual." [I have both my Monster Manual and my Monster Manual 2, (and had to look at copyright dates) because I apparently never went to 2nd edition for that.] Why "Monstrous?" That's an adjective and it's modifying "Manual," so I would expect the book to be (in the words of Ren Hoek) 'Repulsively Titanic!" The Monster Manual, on the other hand, was a manual about monsters. Oy!
ReplyDeleteI'd never thought about it but you're absolutely right. Gah! Now I'm doubly crotchety - or should that be minimy?
DeleteTo be scrupulously fair to 2nd Edition, one of the lesser used meanings of "monstrous" is "full of monsters" or (as the online Webster's dictionary puts it) "teeming with monsters". That seems to be the meaning they intended.
DeleteWonder if it was an intentional misspelling and attempted correction or just something they blundered into?
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall something similar happening with the huecuva/heucuva: started off spelled one way in the original Fiend Folio but somehow got changed to the other spelling and "made official" in a later work, quite possibly accidentally.
^ Quite likely a blunder. There are quite a few silly misspellings in Original D&D. (Not that I caught onto this one before today.)
DeleteRules Cyclopedia ca. 1991 has Doppleganger, if you're curious.
ReplyDeleteI have the black hardback edition of the Monstrous Manual and it's "doppleganger" in there.
ReplyDeletedont get it. the correct is doppelganger?
ReplyDeleteThat's right.
DeleteOMG!!!
Deleteall my life... :(
oh well, too late to change ;)