the Beast of Gévaudan (based on Brotherhood of the Wolf...sort of)
- Thread starter Uller
- Start date
Uller
Adventurer
This whole thread has got me thinking...
I read an interesting way to look at "miracles" a while ago and I think the same can also be applied to legends: When deciding what to believe and what not to believe, you must determine which is the more likely "miracle"...that the event happened or that the source got his information wrong?
So looking at this legend, we have to consider what is more likely with each "fact": Did the source get it wrong or did the event that lead to that fact actually happen as reported.
I don't have the time (or the desire) to go too indepth in this sort of analysis...but from the half-dozen or so accounts I've read, I think we can safely accept the following facts:
From 1764-1767, a significant number of people and animals were brutally killed in the French country-side either by an animal, several animals or humans dressed to look like animals. We'll collectively call these "creatures".
These creatures were or appeared to be similar to wolves.
Many hunters, soldiers and adventurers became involved in hunting the creature(s) and apparently succeeded (at least partially) in 1767.
That's about it. There are a lot of contradicting facts and I can't determine which sources are more believable. The large "wolf" is really the only common vein in the stories. But there seem to be enough accounts that point away from a wolf (some reports indicate human involvement) to even pull that into question.
So this gets me to thinking about D&D...how much misinformation do you present to your players? How often is the information presented wild rumors, exagerated eye-witness accounts or even deliberate lies?
Usually I'm pretty "honest" with my players. If I tell them that a massive "white wolf" was attacking herds of cattle, they can take it in good faith that they are going to be tracking down a winter wolf(now...I've been known to mislead about what that creature is doing or what is really behind it). But looking at this legend, accurate accounts from eye-witnesses are probably the exception. Accurate accounts from second hand sources are probably unheard of.
Another story that got me thinking about this is Old Faithful (the geyser in Yellowstone national park for those of you who aren't familliar with America). I was watching a show about its discovery on the History channel. The most interesting thing about it was that the geyser and all the other geothermal activity in the area was originally a legend. Scientists in the eastern United States couldn't believe that such a place could exist. It wasn't until an expedition was mounted and the area was surveyed, PHOTOGRAPHED and drawn by a professional artist that it was commonly accepted to truly exist.
This made me think that I should instill some sort of skeptism in my players. But how? Send them on wild goose chases? What fun would that be.
So...do you DMs have legendary creatures, items, places or people in your games that are truly just legends? Do they not exist at all? Are they extinct? Just greatly exagerrated? How do you instill a sense of skepticism and wonder without sending the PCs on wild goose chases?
I read an interesting way to look at "miracles" a while ago and I think the same can also be applied to legends: When deciding what to believe and what not to believe, you must determine which is the more likely "miracle"...that the event happened or that the source got his information wrong?
So looking at this legend, we have to consider what is more likely with each "fact": Did the source get it wrong or did the event that lead to that fact actually happen as reported.
I don't have the time (or the desire) to go too indepth in this sort of analysis...but from the half-dozen or so accounts I've read, I think we can safely accept the following facts:
From 1764-1767, a significant number of people and animals were brutally killed in the French country-side either by an animal, several animals or humans dressed to look like animals. We'll collectively call these "creatures".
These creatures were or appeared to be similar to wolves.
Many hunters, soldiers and adventurers became involved in hunting the creature(s) and apparently succeeded (at least partially) in 1767.
That's about it. There are a lot of contradicting facts and I can't determine which sources are more believable. The large "wolf" is really the only common vein in the stories. But there seem to be enough accounts that point away from a wolf (some reports indicate human involvement) to even pull that into question.
So this gets me to thinking about D&D...how much misinformation do you present to your players? How often is the information presented wild rumors, exagerated eye-witness accounts or even deliberate lies?
Usually I'm pretty "honest" with my players. If I tell them that a massive "white wolf" was attacking herds of cattle, they can take it in good faith that they are going to be tracking down a winter wolf(now...I've been known to mislead about what that creature is doing or what is really behind it). But looking at this legend, accurate accounts from eye-witnesses are probably the exception. Accurate accounts from second hand sources are probably unheard of.
Another story that got me thinking about this is Old Faithful (the geyser in Yellowstone national park for those of you who aren't familliar with America). I was watching a show about its discovery on the History channel. The most interesting thing about it was that the geyser and all the other geothermal activity in the area was originally a legend. Scientists in the eastern United States couldn't believe that such a place could exist. It wasn't until an expedition was mounted and the area was surveyed, PHOTOGRAPHED and drawn by a professional artist that it was commonly accepted to truly exist.
This made me think that I should instill some sort of skeptism in my players. But how? Send them on wild goose chases? What fun would that be.
So...do you DMs have legendary creatures, items, places or people in your games that are truly just legends? Do they not exist at all? Are they extinct? Just greatly exagerrated? How do you instill a sense of skepticism and wonder without sending the PCs on wild goose chases?
Last edited:
Andrew D. Gable
First Post
Re: Re: Re: the Beast of Gévaudan (based on Brotherhood of the Wolf...sort of)
Hmm, well now you see why I gave up cryptozoology.
Well, I didn't give it up entirely, but I'm far from convinced that most of these things are real. A few possibilities, though.
Interesting thing about the hyena theory is that a cave painting found nearby to Gevaudan depicts a very definite hyena...
Uller said:A single exceptionally large wolf (or a small group of them) killed over 100 people? That seems almost as unlikely as the pine martin theory.
Hmm, well now you see why I gave up cryptozoology.
Well, I didn't give it up entirely, but I'm far from convinced that most of these things are real. A few possibilities, though.Interesting thing about the hyena theory is that a cave painting found nearby to Gevaudan depicts a very definite hyena...
If I remember correctly, in the movie (which was only loosely based on the actual events, and at one point progresses into wild fantasy.)
Spoiler Space
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
the beast was a lion from Africa with some form of wicker or bamboo armor attached to it to disguise it's appearance and make it more resilient. The brother brought it back from africa with him and trained it. (Remember that he was supposed to have lost his arm to a lion attack? He killed the mother and brought the cub back with him.)
In 3e terms it would probably be a dire lion with some exotic barding and special training. (Maybe make the brother an evil druid?)
Spoiler Space
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
the beast was a lion from Africa with some form of wicker or bamboo armor attached to it to disguise it's appearance and make it more resilient. The brother brought it back from africa with him and trained it. (Remember that he was supposed to have lost his arm to a lion attack? He killed the mother and brought the cub back with him.)
In 3e terms it would probably be a dire lion with some exotic barding and special training. (Maybe make the brother an evil druid?)
Last edited:
Uller
Adventurer
Re: Re: Re: Re: the Beast of Gévaudan (based on Brotherhood of the Wolf...sort of)
Well don't think I came up with any of these theories on my own. Just reiterating ones I read. I don't _know_ what the natural behavior of a wolf is as I've never met one. I've had many encounters with coyotes. At Fort Irwin in CA there is no hunting allowed (it's too dangerous to hunt on Ft. Irwin because of the training that takes place there). So the coyotes are completely unafraid of men. They walk right up to you and beg for food! So maybe some wolves are unafraid of humans too...but I doubt it.
The hyena theory was posted on some story I read about it. It fits the description rather well (except the creature has a long tail). I don't know if hyena's can cross breed with other canids...maybe a hyena-wolf. That'd be one crazy animal!
Andrew D. Gable said:
Hmm, well now you see why I gave up cryptozoology.
Interesting thing about the hyena theory is that a cave painting found nearby to Gevaudan depicts a very definite hyena...
Well don't think I came up with any of these theories on my own. Just reiterating ones I read. I don't _know_ what the natural behavior of a wolf is as I've never met one.
I've had many encounters with coyotes. At Fort Irwin in CA there is no hunting allowed (it's too dangerous to hunt on Ft. Irwin because of the training that takes place there). So the coyotes are completely unafraid of men. They walk right up to you and beg for food! So maybe some wolves are unafraid of humans too...but I doubt it.The hyena theory was posted on some story I read about it. It fits the description rather well (except the creature has a long tail). I don't know if hyena's can cross breed with other canids...maybe a hyena-wolf. That'd be one crazy animal!
Rashak Mani
First Post
SPOILERS
+
-
x
/
1
2
3
4
A
B
C
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
Caliban... I thought it was more like a Dire Boar/Warthog of some sort. A lion would have roared or something... which the film creature didnt seem to do. It didnt pounce... but then the armor could be the reason. The creatures body was too compact for a big big lion.
+
-
x
/
1
2
3
4
A
B
C
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
Caliban... I thought it was more like a Dire Boar/Warthog of some sort. A lion would have roared or something... which the film creature didnt seem to do. It didnt pounce... but then the armor could be the reason. The creatures body was too compact for a big big lion.
More spoilers, of course...
Its been a while since I've seen it, but I _did_ see it 3x in the theater (no record, I'm sure). I'm pretty sure I remember the eyes NOT being feline. I looked for it. I think they deliberately left the identity of the animal underneath the armor ambiguous.
An easy plot point to steal
-Reddist
Its been a while since I've seen it, but I _did_ see it 3x in the theater (no record, I'm sure). I'm pretty sure I remember the eyes NOT being feline. I looked for it. I think they deliberately left the identity of the animal underneath the armor ambiguous.
An easy plot point to steal
-Reddist
Similar Threads
