Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BOZ" data-source="post: 199058" data-attributes="member: 1241">narwhale - narwhal?i knew this one would come up, but i was too tired to write a disclaimer.&nbsp; so here goes.the narwhal/ is an animal that exists today.&nbsp; its horn, in times long ago, was brought back from the wild and used as &quot;evidence&quot; that unicorns existed.&nbsp; i'd say that yes, you could pass off a horn as a unicorn horn, to someone not familiar enough to identify it properly (and many people with good alignments will be irate with you over this).but here's the problem!&nbsp; i looked this up, because i wanted to see if the D&amp;D narwhale was the same as the real narwhal (notice, no E at the end).&nbsp; they are very very close, but not entirely.&nbsp; the narwhal does not actually have a horn - that long protrusion is actually a tooth!&nbsp; i checked several websites to make sure, and yes that &quot;horn&quot; is actually the animal's left tooth.the D&amp;D narwhale, if you look at the picture in the MM2, has a horn right in the middle of its head.&nbsp; it's quite clear, just like a unicorn horn, and the entry says nothing about it being a tooth.&nbsp; since it seems mister gygax wanted his narwhale to be more uncicorn-like than the real narwhal, i see it as a different creature.&nbsp; so, since according to the MM only historical animals can be &quot;Animal&quot; type, i made this one a Beast since it was just different enough.let's have a bit of discussion on this one.&nbsp; i'm willing to alter it if the consensus is that it should be an animal instead of a beast.&nbsp; opinions?&nbsp; i'm listening.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="BOZ, post: 199058, member: 1241"] [b]narwhale - narwhal?[/b] i knew this one would come up, but i was too tired to write a disclaimer. so here goes. the [b][i]narwhal[/i][/b][i]/[/i] is an animal that exists today. its horn, in times long ago, was brought back from the wild and used as "evidence" that unicorns existed. i'd say that yes, you could pass off a horn as a unicorn horn, to someone not familiar enough to identify it properly (and many people with good alignments will be irate with you over this). but here's the problem! i looked this up, because i wanted to see if the D&D narwhale was the same as the real narwhal (notice, no E at the end). they are very very close, but not entirely. the narwhal does not actually have a horn - that long protrusion is actually a tooth! i checked several websites to make sure, and yes that "horn" is actually the animal's left tooth. the D&D narwhale, if you look at the picture in the MM2, has a [b]horn[b] right in the middle of its head. it's quite clear, just like a unicorn horn, and the entry says nothing about it being a tooth. since it seems mister gygax wanted his narwhale to be more uncicorn-like than the real narwhal, i see it as a different creature. so, since according to the MM only historical animals can be "Animal" type, i made this one a Beast since it was just different enough. let's have a bit of discussion on this one. i'm willing to alter it if the consensus is that it should be an animal instead of a beast. opinions? i'm listening. :)[/b][/b] [/QUOTE]

Verification