Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Theo R Cwithin" data-source="post: 5037484" data-attributes="member: 75712">Monsters are monsters for different reasons.  I think tend to divide them into two broad categories: the "little-M" monsters, and the "big-M" monsters:Some monsters are really just "beasts" or "men", unfamiliar but understandable.  They are monsters only in the sense that they are dangerous or different.  I think this is where dwarves and hippogriffs fall in typical D&D settings.  In a lot of settings, they are standard or common feature of the world, so it seems to me reasonable to make them consistent in an ecological sense.  Whether dwarves come from storks, stone carvings, or bumpin' uglies is just a setting detail; but all these ways of making dwarf babies is a form of "biology".  These are all just explanations for "how things work", as is any other myth or science.  Other monsters are monsters because they are stereotypes of the worst aspects of human nature.  I think this is where the standard orc fits in: it's basically a stupid human that's filthy, ugly, brutish and cruel.  And it is for exactly these reasons that it's ok to kill 'em and take their stuff.  Likewise, I think a lot of monsters of myth fall into this class: satyrs epitomize lust, and sylphs beauty, dragons are avarice, necromancers are unchecked ambition, and so on.  Effectively, we exaggerate and give shape to these human characteristics and call them "monsters".  I think these two kinds of monster-- call them the "little-M monsters"-- serve to define a world and give it consistency, as well as some way for players to relate to it.  Note that this consistency need not resemble the real world, though.  Whether a setting's ecology (and cultures and cosmology) is held together with physics and evolution or with magic and alchemy, isn't terribly important.  What's important is that the setting has something that renders it somewhat predictable and logical, if only because the players are logical creatures!  Otherwise, why even bother with rules?The "big-M" monsters are the "true monsters", the ones that are monsters because they are not understandable, and are frightening for that reason.  This is the realm of "unspeakable horrors" and incomprehensible motives, regardless of the form.  These are the "real" monsters, the ones that strike fear into PCs' hearts.  These are the ones that defy biology or psychology, and that stand out from the rest of the setting, because they are so horrible, calculating, evil, or inscrutable.  In other words, these  often are the BBEGs.  It's these "true monsters"  that define the real conflict in a world and are often the ultimate source of the strife the PCs overcome.  I think it's important to note here that such "big-M" monsters might begin incomprehensible, but slowly become understood over the course of an adventure or campaign-- effectively transforming into a "little-M" monster as the PCs gain knowledge.  In fact, this is typically how most conflicts are structured: something horrible and frightening occurs, weird minions lurk in every shadow, and it's only through the process of finding clues, talking to mentors, discovering peculiar treasures, and following all the leads that the PCs eventually figure out wtf is going on and ultimately defeat the bad guy.The most intersting thing about "big-M" and the types of "little-M" monsters is that the lines drawn between them are often in very different places in different settings.  A common example is kobolds.  In the "default" D&D setting, their just little wimpy scaly foul-tempered humans, the second kind of "little-M" monster in this taxonomy, as they are miserable, cowardly and spiteful-- attributes that humans simply don't like in other humans.  However, I know a common re-imagining of kobolds is that they are cunning, sinister and malevolent, with a peculiar form of evil-- a lot more frightening than the normal kobold, and a little more "big-M".So, yeah, I don't have much problem with a naturalist approach to "little-M" monsters, but I really like the "big-M" monsters to defy reason.  At the same time, I think it's OK for one campaign to call trolls "little-M" monsters, and another campaign to call trolls "big-M" monsters.  It just depends on the mood, feel and details of the campaign.</blockquote>

Verification