Ok. Somehow it never fully connected to me that the organization was sticking around, but that is alright. It is something I'm perfectly willing to work with. All that we need to do on that particular front is decide a little bit more how the Organization came about. It isn't something that would have sprung up by chance, since it would take a lot of effort on both sides to set up something that wouldn't fail within the first year or two. So we will just need to flesh out those details.

Two blood drinkers works just fine for me. So long as you mean creatures that must drink blood to survive, and drink little to nothing else. I'm trusting that a blood-craving won't be limited to only two?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by reversible creatures. You mean ones that don't necessarily stay on one side, within their same type? As in, a parent could go to the Daywalkers, and a child (cousin, brother, etc.) could go to the Nightwalkers? I'd rather not have any of those at all. If you mean something else by that, though, feel free to clarify.

Unfortunately, I am completely unfamiliar with the D&D system of categorization, for just about everything. I've never had anyone with which to play the game, so it was never something that I wound up doing. Because of that... I don't really have a base. If you want to choose something, I could probably be persuaded fairly easily. Otherwise,we could both just call it as we see it, and agree that we won't fight over what goes where. Or, if we do, it will be brief. But I don't think there should be any "neutral", mostly because I'm imaginignt he light and dark thing more as something racial and genetic (if genetics is a thing with these guys), than it is a species choice. Something that defines the Daywalkers and the Nightwalkers, and makes it impossible for them to switch sides. Which is part of the reason I don't think there should be any who can switch sides. The reason being, I'm not really ok with the idea that a personal choice, rather than something that "is", even if it has a lot of history backing it, would never have a single individual who decided to rebel and switch sides. Individuals do all sorts of wacky things. That would mean we would need a couple defining characteristics for each side, but it would also probably make it easier to sort things.

As far as the number of variations within a species... I don't think it is really necessary to define that. That is something that could easily change at the drop of a dime. But that does raise the question; How many humans are there in the world, and what is the ratio of humans to the supernatural? If there are a large number of supernatural species, that would mean that there is less for each type. I know what I'm trying to ask, but I can't seem to find the right words. Do you kind of get what I'm trying to say?

I am ok with any species cliches, so long as it isn't a hard and fast rule. Saying "all dwarves have beards," is like saying "all dogs have fur." Occasionally there is just an exception. Which is why I often drop a warrior monk elf and a fastidiously neat dwarf into the middle of a fantasy roleplay. Just to make a point.

My only major concern with plot is having our characters (or at least my character, I don't really get any say in yours) doing something because "it is the right thing to do." I don't mind if events do come up where they do do the right thing to do, but there needs to be a better motivation for it than that. :)

I'm fine with combining a lot of those elements. My only thought is, as soon as we start introducing different climates and different civilizations that live within those climates, we are also going to have to start thinking about the fact that not all of the supernatural species would live in each climate/area. And that is fine. It is just another layer of complication.

Umm... I'll definitely want to see the list, but I think we might want to get some of the other things I mentioned above sorted out first. Just because it might have a big impact on what winds up happening with these different species. So, later. But soon.