Interesting Monster Psychology

I stumbled across this:

Human Mental Characteristics

It comes from a larger article about what may or may not be innate in children when they're born. What I find interesting about it is that the list leads to some interesting thoughts about how to play opponents as a DM.

Here are some things that come to mind, for example:

Evolved from animals: Humans have survival instincts based upon needs. Things like pain, hunger, lust, etc., are biological imperatives. I like the idea that outsiders don't evolve -- but they are strongly telepathic or at least empathic. The only way they can experience vitality is by causing strong positive or negative emotions in "more base" creatures. How does that change motivations?

Central decision making: Animals go in one direction at a time -- but what about ettins? How does an ettin make decisions? What if ettins are really extremely intelligent, but are handicapped by a lack of central decision making? I like the idea of an ettin sage that has lost a head. He is brilliant, but morbidly depressed by the loss of part of himself.

Incompleteness of appearance: Humans don't take everything in -- we extrapolate based on limited information. What if dragons really do see everything? That would explain an immunity to invisibility. It also would suggest a Holmes-like ability to take the details of a person's ability and extrapolate it into details about the person. "I know you've been through Hambrytown...your sword is barely worn and bears the stamp of their smith, and your clothes are stained with the reed-grass that grows by the river there. Did YOU know that your wizard isn't really an elf?"

Earlier in the article is a list of characteristics of the world called "What the World Is Like." Differences in environment can change your perspective.

Appearance and reality: Humans learn to extrapolate from past experience, because objects have consistent traits. What about githzerai? They live in Limbo, where it would be foolish to make assumptions. A human opponent might believe you will use the same tactic repeatedly out of habit, but that thought would never even occur to a githzerai. That makes them cautious and difficult to surprise or fool.

Natural kinds: All things have natural kinds, i.e., you know what I mean when I say "tree" or "lemon." It's hard to imagine a mindset where that isn't the case, but what about changing what's "natural?" Maybe a dryad thinks of trees in terms of age rather than species or location? She knows intuitively how to get to the oldest trees in the forest, but couldn't recognize a map even if it had every tree drawn individually.

These types of thoughts appeal to me as a way to add a little touch of the alien to a player's experience, and it gets rid of some of the "humans with rubber foreheads" aspects of fantasy.

I thought the paper was interesting Murph, though some of the assumptive conclusions were specious at best, and not based upon data and actual research, but upon theoretical speculation.

I also thought the section of the paper on What Abilities could Usefully be Innate was interesting, especially regarding some of the more specific points addressed.

I liked the general linkage of ideas to the development of a potentially viable structure for the possible expansion of "AI types," but like you I think these kinds of speculation are equally, if not far more valuably addressed, in regards to "biological systems of cross reference."

That is this kind of speculation is more productively applied to the creation of prodigies, chimeras, and in the potential creation of Chumerals (humans with possible animal alleles and genetic trait or functional capabilities).

I thought you made a very good short analysis and examination of how such potential variances in perceptive capability might well affect "abnormal psychologies," (that is to say that if you took a man and gave him the senses of animals, in addition to his own, he would very likely develop an abnormal psychology - abnormal originally meant "beyond normal," not, sub-normal) and the progression of both new modes of sensation and de-limitations of perception.

And based on my own experiments with the development of parallel intelligence in animals and of variances in perception in certain chimeras I am right there with your basic conclusions, change the operational form and structure and you change the manner and methods of behavior.

So as far as I'm concerned, if you had a creature like a dragon, who despite being intelligent in a generally human manner, that is if it were possessed of an intelligence which in many ways was parallel to or even identical to a human being, because of differences in morphology, and sensory and perceptual capability, you would produce a creature that is in many other respects wholly alien as far as human beings are concerned.

That is to say you might have a "reasoning dragon," but the way in which that dragon went about perceiving, addressing, thinking about, and sensing the world would produce an entirely "alien mode of reason."

You might be able to talk to a dragon through a shared language, but you could never be one or think like one, and of course the reverse would also be true. Despite a shared language or method of communication the dragon would have an entirely different set of "referencing frames" by which to perceive and react to the world.

This line of reasoning also brings up the idea of how would language structures vary among different types of intelligence which are based on different methods of sensory perception? Indeed what might langue even consist of or be considered in relation to sensory capacities that are widely at variance with human methods of sensing the world? And as you implied what would be considered "information and data" by such creatures in comparison to what we consider information and data?

A veritable plethora of information and data is available in any given background at any given point in time, but how much is detected by men in comparison to other creatures, and what would that mean? A dog can sense when a man is anxious, but what valid conclusions can the dog draw from that perception, rightly or wrongly, about what is true or not in their real environment?

And if a dragon (I am using a dragon as an easy subject matter example, it could be any "exotic creature or being") possessed microscopic or telescopic vision, or possessed an entirely unknown sensory organ or structure (imagine it's entire skin, rather than being merely a protective organ or structural casing, were also an organ of vibrational sensation, tactile sensitivity, or a giant chemical receptor, maybe even an absorptive solar energy collecting and storage organ like in many lizards) then what would it consider information? The rays of the sun or the chemical decomposition of a corpse from 500 miles away might very well be considered viable information sources to it, in comparison to us.

And if that were true would not dragons be able to read their environment for "records, ideas, and innovative inspiration" in the same way we can read a book. Or read the age of a tree or stone as a real historical record in the same way that we can read scripted accounts of the Peloponnesian War left for us by an ancient Greek historian? and how much of what the dragon reads is "real and objectively true" and how much is merely the personal "interpretation of the dragon?" That is to say that just because dragons can see into the infra-red spectrum or can see telescopically, how true and valid are the conclusions of their "super-senses?" (A lot of people unfortunately and wrongly decide that superior capabilities or intellect necessarily render a truer understanding of the universe. That is however very, very far from true. It may in some cases lead to a better understanding of things, it may also lead to radical misinterpretations and radical misunderstandings of the way in which things really operate. Neither superior capabilities nor superior intelligence automatically renders superior conclusions.)

Well, since subjects like this interest me I could go on for some time like this, but I've other work to do.

Thanks for the article and your own analysis.
See ya.

Jack,

You've gone for a deeper analysis than me. Mostly, I was appreciating the potential for adding flavor. From a more academic standpoint, I thought the paper lacked rigor in a number of ways. That actually makes it better as an RPG resource, in my opinion.

Most folks aren't very good at conceptualizing different mental frames of reference. We anthropomorphisize our pets. We act as if children are little adults. Every once in a while, some idiot walks into a cage in a zoo expecting that a full-grown tiger is going to like having its chin scratched like Tabby back home.

Speculative fiction at least attempts to present cases. Robert Sawyer does his take on different types of virtual immortality in The Terminal Experiment, and looks at an alternate humanity in his series starting with Hominids. Vernor Vinge has works talking about artificial and group consciousness. Card turned his later Ender books into a philosophical discussion about relating to alien minds.

Actually, the best example of explorers projecting their expectations on alien beings is Russell's The Sparrow. Some folks will find it to be nightmare fuel, but it's worth a read. A clever DM could run a really intersting campaign if they came up with an alternative way to mimic this level of misunderstanding in the players. That would definitely establish the DM's credentials as a rat-bastard.

Less imaginative authors usually either resort to the humans in rubber masks trope, or go with Lovecraft's unknowable Elder Gods, either of which makes things easy but less interesting. Alternatively, you can play lip service to the concept with exploring it in detail. Halderman's Forever War ended supposedly when the unknowable became understandable when humans became clones, but the details are never discussed. Similarly, the big bads in Pohl's Gateway universe relax when they see the protagonists evolving into machine-based virtual life, but few details are given.

Anybody interested in how humans tick, so to speak, should pick up a copy of Pinker's How the Mind Works. From a more socio-mythical perspective, I enjoyed Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World.

Language, as you mentioned, is an entirely different topic...worthy of its own thread, perhaps.

Every once in a while, some idiot walks into a cage in a zoo expecting that a full-grown tiger is going to like having its chin scratched like Tabby back home.

Click to expand...

Ain't it the truth.

Anybody interested in how humans tick, so to speak, should pick up a copy of Pinker's How the Mind Works.

Click to expand...

I re-read that a few months ago. Steven always has some interesting speculations, including some interesting speculations about language and perception.

There was a National Geographic article I read on the ayahuasca experience that seemed pretty interesting from this angle. Shamanistic religious experience is filled with altered states, geometric patterns, devils and angels, fire and light, etc. Reminded me a little bit of The Maxx and the "Nameless City on the Many-Named Sea" setting concept that floated by these boards a while ago. What if this was the "feywild"? What would creatures who distort space and time and who meld the psychological with the physical so that taking a journey is a process of self-discovery think like? Why would they have a difference between "emotion" and "action" when emotions are tangible to them, when traumatic experiences have bodies and interact with you, when you can be physically grabbed by a creature and forced to feel something....

LSD experiences or most hallucinagenic experiences might be described similarly.

Muuuh. The psychology major in me wants to ruminate long and thorough on all of this, but I'm too tired at the moment. Damn you, meaty topic while I are sleepy.

A real simple thought that occurs:

We have a certain concept of time. While there is a relativeness (An hour can be a long time or a short time, depending on what you're doing), we all understand the significance of an hour, a day, a month, and a year in roughly the same level of distance. But an Elf, Lich or Dragon may have completely different expectations as to time. "Yes, I'll get right on it; you'll have it in the next decade. What? You are in such a rush."

The first, most important sense to humans is Sight, the second is Sound. Other species would have their priorities different. A talking canine, for instance, may describe things in terms of scent ("Which enemy?" "The ink one.") Another with hearing as priority would use descriptions based on the sound of your breathing or footsteps ("Your contact will be quite deer-like." "Huh?" "... he's stealthy.") If these types are your enemies, you could confuse them - it doesn't matter, for instance, if your mage wears robes, but if he treats his robes with the same polish as the warrior treats his armor, the monster might think they "smell" identical and think they're both warriors.

Those were some interesting conjectures KM and Rechan.

Not only for gaming but also for real life. KM gave me an idea for a psychologically based non-lethal weapons system. Rechan gave me an idea for a new type of adaptive camouflaging system not built on manipulation of environmental correspondence but built entirely on exploiting sensory misdirection (that is you would be able to see something is there but not process or understand what it is you were looking at, one thing would appear as another based upon human visual recognition patterns - the immediate effect would only last until the target thought carefully about what he is perceiving, but then again the effect could be both adaptive and cyclical).

As for gaming applications it seems to me that Rechan is really onto something about projecting "sensory confusion" against enemy types depending on their physiology and biology.

Also I can imagine a Magical System like this exploiting sensory confusion by developing magics specifically designed to capitalize on various sensory reliance functions. Of course it is easy to imagine Rechan's example of perceptual confusion but also imagine a type of magical glamor which makes you (party members appear as if you actually stood ten feet form your actual position and that such magics did not rely upon complicated illusions but upon very simple and low powered means of confusing innate sensory capabilties of your monster opponents.

Also using the adaptive camouflage idea Rechan made me think of, one could develop a cycled approach to sensory confusion which included a number of different tricks being "rotated or cycled through" during the course of any given encounter.

Not to go off on a tangent, but...

[sblock=Tangent]I've seen "sensory camo" in a few places, or at least in one specific situation:

Using pheremones to disguise yourself as an insect.

Ants, for instance, use scent a lot. Ants follow scent trails of other ants to find food. Guards in anthills smell an intruder and go 'oh, you're an ant, move along'. So, if you smelled like an ant, you could walk right in.

Also, a few predators will roll in the dung of their prey, in order to mask their scent AND smell like their prey. Lions do it. This is also the instinct that makes dogs roll in feces.

The trick to sensory camo is that you're going to have to tailor it to combat certain species, in very specific circumstances. What works on those humanoid wolves may not work on those humanoid bugs. The same way that wearing an orange vest in the woods doesn't hide you from people.[/sblock]

DreadPirateMurphy said:

What if dragons really do see everything? That would explain an immunity to invisibility. It also would suggest a Holmes-like ability to take the details of a person's ability and extrapolate it into details about the person. "I know you've been through Hambrytown...your sword is barely worn and bears the stamp of their smith, and your clothes are stained with the reed-grass that grows by the river there. Did YOU know that your wizard isn't really an elf?"

Click to expand...

Hyper-perception? I love this as an angle on dragon uniqueness. Hopefully my improvisational skills won't let me down but I can see this being a big hit with my players.

I like the thoughts on dragons. It fits well with their perspective on the Draconic Prophecy in Eberron, and why they are best suited to perceive it.