The Harbinger of Ferocity

The difference between animal and monster

I see the nature of monsters being more varied than the nature of monsters. For example, while animals act solely off instinct with very little deviation, the term monster in my mind infers it has something beyond that. A monster might just be a malicious animal, one that knowingly acts with cruelty, but that is what sets it apart. A monster might also just be a beast or being with extraordinary capability beyond the accepted norm, but viewed rightfully or wrongly as frightening or fearsome.

A zoanthrope could be just as much a monster as it isn't. Just because it has the capacity to tear a man apart, and many chose to do so, does not mean they all are "monsters". Are they monstrous? That I would agree on by virtue of their ability, regardless if they can exercise it or not, but it again does not qualify the exceptions as monsters just by that standard.

I bring this back around by citing my example of exceptional ability beyond the norm. Would a dragon be any less a dragon if it were just a flying lizard that could breathe fire? Still very much a "dragon" even if it had nothing but animal intellect and instinct. Why? Because the qualities it expresses greatly surpass the accepted normalcy. Does that rightfully make it a monster in our example? No, not really, but the perception is different.

This goes even deeper still when we start talking about legitimately intelligent monsters; people. Regular people are perfectly able to "devolve" into monsters based upon our past, current or even future standards. Why? Because they again either give the perception of, or worse yet, carry out heinous, grievous, horrific or brutal acts. Things considered too bad for human or animal standards. They go above and beyond the expectations of regular disdainfulness.

This might be wrongly placed, even positive things could be considered "monstrous" because of the perception of the persons involved. To give an anecdote relating to roleplaying, as appropriate to our forums here, I once was playing a human character alongside others. What they did not know, in our roleplay barring the Game Master's knowledge present, was that my character was endowed with psychic powers, specifically those relating to psychometabolism and alteration. When we finally found ourselves in a bad spot otherwise beyond hope, I had my character carry them out.

Whereas most the people were just shocked, one person out of character was adamant that what happened was "evil" and "monstrous" and that my character was no longer a person. Granted this translated into their character's behavior as well, but just the thought in reality that I would do or enjoy such a thing, even in fiction, was "wrong". That the concept made the character and me, by virtue, something less than human.

Short of this, there is not much I can add to how I determine the differences. In truth, I almost explicitly play "monstrous" beings or those animalistic and savage.

Cara's Originally Titled OoC Hangout Thread ♥ (Still)

As much as I can be I suppose, @Carantathraiel. I will be spending it in the cold again, but what is another year at this rate? It is suitably fitting though, in its own fashion. I am doing well personally though, having spent much of my time recently reflecting.

The Manacles of Destruction - Loosely Based Dungeons and Dragons 3.5

While I can understand their difficulties, the concept apappls in both directions. The sooner they are to post and respond the sooner others can and rightfully should. Disappointing to see more vanish, but such is the way things go here.

Expect my work to be done in the morning.

Cara's Originally Titled OoC Hangout Thread ♥ (Still)

As it should be, @Carantathraiel! I am pleased you had such an experience with their work and that it was personalized to you. That's always a wonderful surprise.

That Character you have always wanted to play

This archetype is not a new concept, not by a long shot really, but it is one that I had seen lacking at tables for years. Now, I say this in particular because of the approach that seems to be initially given here with overtly aiming at a tabletop game, but I mean in general. If I have to write or roll a character, this is going to be my approach.

I prefer the more savage things in life, where nature is both equally a beautiful and terrifying thing to behold; I get along better with big cats than I do with people, for example. I explicitly write my characters off that method of thought to varying degrees no matter what, some more human than others, but one archetype for the life of me I cannot get a group at an actual table to go with is the "knight of the wild". It is not a complicated effort either - we are not talking wizard or cleric levels of spellcasting prowess, we are talking about a druid-paladin type that is not outright horrible at doing its job. There's the issue of roleplaying and rollplaying, with the latter being the one that up until recently was a losing battle for me; the game mechanics just did not mesh and the authors hadn't put much stock in the concept, ever.

I wrote a class to deal with it, play tested it many times over, had some people with real system mastery and optimization look it over, let some of the roleplay-only types iron out what they thought did or didn't make sense, employed it a few more times in tests and... still cannot find anyone to use it. For lack of better description, it was the Oath of the Ancients paladin before that was even a thing, but who am I to complain? Ideologically and thematically they are virtually identical, despite edition differences, and that's what I want to portray as a character above much else.

Changing topics very slightly roleplaying, especially written, is the easy aspect from my experience or at least easier than convincing Dungeon Masters I do not know that I am not some munchkin and that my work is well researched. I can just write how and why characters can do what they do, I can get into that persona and identity, I can portray it better than the dice and or rules want to participate with it. No issues there merging and melding those into being elaborate or what I think are interesting. For how similar my characters might be, some vein stained red, I believe them all very different.

D&D 5e - Hoard of the Dragon Queen

I look forward to that, @Hekazu.

𝕋ℍ𝔼 𝕊𝔸𝔾𝔸 𝕆𝔽 𝕍𝕀ℕ𝔻𝔼ℝ𝕍𝔸𝕃𝕃

Hopefully we will have more posts come this evening, holidays or not drawing closer.

The Manacles of Destruction - Loosely Based Dungeons and Dragons 3.5

If you do not post on behalf of the spellthief by this evening when I am awake again, @ELGainsborough, I will just assume her character for the time being. From there, I will give her post then that of the animal companion and we will press on from the sound of it. Once we have an opportunity, I will surrender her character to just up and exit - that way you do not need to play three characters and Dungeon Master and so we can make room for what will hopefully be more active people.

The Manacles of Destruction - Loosely Based Dungeons and Dragons 3.5

@ELGainsborough, I think it would be in our best interest to carry on for the time being, with or without @Yamazaki's response and just assuming their character. You still have my pledge.

D&D 5e - Hoard of the Dragon Queen

@Hekazu, will you be leading us to the event or how do you wish to handle that? If not, I'll just assume following our halfling friend leads us to where we should be story wise.