Any worlds with monsters as monsters

[Umbran]

A "monster" is really a malformed creature. Malformation supposes a deviation from a base population... you cannot have a "race" of monsters because then they're not monsters. If "minotaur" is a race then the only "monstrous" minotaurs are those born without bull's heads, etc.

I reject the base premise, at least as far as mythology is concerned. A great many "monsters" in, say, Greek myth, are not members of species at all, but are one-off critters. The Minotaur is a good example of this, as is Pegasus, and several other Greek cthonic monsters.

 

[Korgoth]

I reject the base premise, at least as far as mythology is concerned. A great many "monsters" in, say, Greek myth, are not members of species at all, but are one-off critters. The Minotaur is a good example of this, as is Pegasus, and several other Greek cthonic monsters.

Isn't that what I was saying?

 

[Umbran]

Isn't that what I was saying?

Didn't seem like it to me.

"Malformation supposes a deviation from a base population..."

We describe many monsters as deviations of a base population. But that's not saying they are really deviations from that base population. They only look like it, and we are using the comparison for shorthand analogy to describe the physical form quickly.

Pegasus stands as a good example here - a horse with wings. But, actually, by bloodline Pegasus is not a horse, but a minor god, in the middle of a whole bunch of other creatures with deific and titanic blood that doesn't seem to lead to any set form - Pegasus' brother is a boar with wings*, not a horse. In Greek myth, cthonic monsters give birth to more cthonic monsters, each one is unique, not a deviation from a solid baseline.

In a different line: the archetypal unicorn is a horse with a horn, right? Except that really they aren't horses, they are more like deer, but there are some qualities of goats, too. And they are a species in their own right that breeds true, and doesn't arise from or interbreed with horses, goats, or deer. So, which is the base population - horse, deer, goats, or narwhals?

Now, in your game world you are free to say all monsters are deviations from baseline animals. I'm just saying that isn't generally true in mythology. Mythological monsters come from all over the place.



*or humanoid. But his son has three heads!

 

[Korgoth]

OK. We're not disagreeing at all; you just had an overly literal reading of my post. I started by trying to define the word "monster" to show how wrongly it is typically used in the context of D&D. A "monster" is not a race with a breeding population, regardless of whether it is fertile. Each is unique, because to be a "monster" is to be aberrant. Your examples are excellent examples of that principle.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Didn't seem like it to me.

Korgoth: "The implication of the word "monster" is that every monster is something more or less unique."

Umbran: "A great many "monsters" in, say, Greek myth, are not members of species at all, but are one-off critters."​

Seems very much like what Korgoth said.

 

[Umbran]

OK. We're not disagreeing at all; you just had an overly literal reading of my post. I started by trying to define the word "monster" to show how wrongly it is typically used in the context of D&D. A "monster" is not a race with a breeding population, regardless of whether it is fertile. Each is unique, because to be a "monster" is to be aberrant. Your examples are excellent examples of that principle.

I think we may have agree to disagree about whether I'm agreeing with you or not But I'll try one more time...

I disagree with your initial statement - that a "monster" is really a malformed creature, at least in mythology in general. Deformed creatures may be monsters, but not all monsters are malformed creatures, so to speak.

In the case of many of the Greek monsters, the very point is that the bloodline doesn't have a standard form to deviate from. You cannot malform when there is no set form. We may agree they are unique, but the malformation bit falls apart.

In the case of archetypal unicorns, and many variations of dragons, these are again not malformed versions of other beasts, nor are they unique one-offs. They are in fact species on their own. Same goes for Greek centaurs - they have odd origins, but are a race unto themselves.

 

[Korgoth]

I think we may have agree to disagree about whether I'm agreeing with you or not But I'll try one more time...

I disagree with your initial statement - that a "monster" is really a malformed creature, at least in mythology in general. Deformed creatures may be monsters, but not all monsters are malformed creatures, so to speak.

I wasn't initially talking about mythology. I was talking about the definition in the English language and particularly the parlance of pathology (i.e. "teratism"). I thought it best to start off by invoking what the word refers to in our own culture.

And the minotaur is malformed. Men and bulls are natural kinds ("substantial forms"). The minotaur is the neither of these things... it is a malformed creature that derives from an unnatural act.

Anyway, I think you're latching onto one little phrase rather than the intent of the whole post, which does not appear to substantially diverge from the point that you are advancing.

 

[Sunseeker]

While I understand the statement and your claim of what "monsters" implies, in a D&D sense, the term "monsters" is simply there to differentiate from "humanoids". Hence why we have "monstrous humanoids", which IMO is where your definition of "monster" would generally fall. "beasts" would also be suitable, and they exist as well. "Creatures" is too general, as it could apply to everyone.

And I would agree with some of your detractors, a "monster" is more a matter of perception than a true defition, anyone can be a monster, even with normal facial features. What you define as "monster" would more accurately be defined as "mutant". The best solution, IMO, is to apply "monster" as a super-type, to end up with something like:

"Monstrous Half-dragon humanoid"

Everything we need to know is covered. Base creature? Humanoid. Template? Half-dragon. Supertype? Monstrous. Not only is this humanoid a half dragon, but they're monstrous in some sense. Perhaps they are 20 feet tall, perhaps they are severly deformed. Perhaps they are cruel and evil. All of which are suitable defitions to qualify something as "monstrous".

 

[Umbran]

Anyway, I think you're latching onto one little phrase rather than the intent of the whole post, which does not appear to substantially diverge from the point that you are advancing.

Well, let's cut to this end point, as that seems to be the real issue.

To me, it seems your point was the monsters were unique critters, and you used the "malformed" definition as evidence.

I challenged the uniqueness first by questioning the malformation. But we've talked about that enough. Let's consider the second - you notice I keep mentioning the dragons and the unicorns, and recently the centaurs? Some of the most iconic fantasy beasties there, and they aren't unique!

My point - worlds where monsters are unique are not common, because in the inspirational material, the thesis doesn't hold.

 

[Korgoth]

Well, let's cut to this end point, as that seems to be the real issue.

To me, it seems your point was the monsters were unique critters, and you used the "malformed" definition as evidence.

I challenged the uniqueness first by questioning the malformation. But we've talked about that enough. Let's consider the second - you notice I keep mentioning the dragons and the unicorns, and recently the centaurs? Some of the most iconic fantasy beasties there, and they aren't unique!

My point - worlds where monsters are unique are not common, because in the inspirational material, the thesis doesn't hold.

That seems to be begging the question. Unicorns and centaurs aren't monsters. A dragon might or might not be, depending on its nature.