D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Big Beasts

[JamesonCourage]

Personally I'd prefer a triceratops to be called as such. Much as I'd call a tiger a tiger not a stripyfur fangbiter. Would thog the caveman, or whoever, refer to a dinosaur by its given name? No. But the MM is designed so that I can find the stats not thog.

I basically agree. Why is there a push to get rid of the scientific names? Because "Latin doesn't exist"? Well, I'd assume English (or whatever) doesn't exist, either, but we'll still use "lions" and "tigers" and "bears", right? Can anyone explain the actual push to give them new names? Is it based on lumping them even more together (they're not all just dinosaurs, they're also "behemoths")? Is it just to make them sound cooler (and if so, why not on lions and tigers and bears)?

Just curious, because I don't get the basis of the logic for this side's argument, and I usually at least understand where someone is coming from, even if I disagree. As always, play what you like

 

[Dausuul]

I don't mind what they call dinosaurs, but the fewer COMPOUND_ADJECTIVE NOUN monsters we get this edition, the better.

A-freakin'-men. I wouldn't mind having some "common names" for them, and I rather like "behemoth" as a general term, but I hate the way Wizards names things. It's not even the COMPOUND_ADJECTIVE NOUN format per se, it's that they always use the same damn words! If I were in charge, Wizards management would issue a decree that henceforth, the words "sword," "blade," "battle," and "war" are not to be used in any name, for anything, ever. If people are very good and come up with really cool evocative names, they may someday be allowed to restore the names "long sword" and "short sword" to the equipment list, but right now they have to go dig up names like "gladius" and "claymore" because they've shown they just can't be trusted.

</rant>

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I basically agree. Why is there a push to get rid of the scientific names? Because "Latin doesn't exist"? Well, I'd assume English (or whatever) doesn't exist, either, but we'll still use "lions" and "tigers" and "bears", right? Can anyone explain the actual push to give them new names? Is it based on lumping them even more together (they're not all just dinosaurs, they're also "behemoths")? Is it just to make them sound cooler (and if so, why not on lions and tigers and bears)?

Just curious, because I don't get the basis of the logic for this side's argument, and I usually at least understand where someone is coming from, even if I disagree. As always, play what you like

It's becasue lions, tigers, and bears are real, while "dinosaurs" are a hoax planted by the Men in Black!

 

[I'm A Banana]

A-freakin'-men. I wouldn't mind having some "common names" for them, and I rather like "behemoth" as a general term, but I hate the way Wizards names things. It's not even the COMPOUND_ADJECTIVE NOUN format per se, it's that they always use the same damn words! If I were in charge, Wizards management would issue a decree that henceforth, the words "sword," "blade," "battle," and "war" are not to be used in any name, for anything, ever. If people are very good and come up with really cool evocative names, they may someday be allowed to restore the names "long sword" and "short sword" to the equipment list, but right now they have to go dig up names like "gladius" and "claymore" because they've shown they just can't be trusted.

</rant>

Add "wild" to that list. And perhaps "shadow." And certainly "spawn."

There should be a sticky note on the desk of every WotC writer that says "USE A THESAURUS, HEMMINGWAY." Any time anyone hands in a manuscript with some compound word made from those words, they should be back a pile of shredded paper with this image on top.

 

[Tonguez]

I basically agree. Why is there a push to get rid of the scientific names? Because "Latin doesn't exist"? Well, I'd assume English (or whatever) doesn't exist, either, but we'll still use "lions" and "tigers" and "bears", right? Can anyone explain the actual push to give them new names? Is it based on lumping them even more together (they're not all just dinosaurs, they're also "behemoths")? Is it just to make them sound cooler (and if so, why not on lions and tigers and bears)?

Just curious, because I don't get the basis of the logic for this side's argument, and I usually at least understand where someone is coming from, even if I disagree. As always, play what you like

Because the scientific names are just adjective-noun coolname in disguise, afterall we dont use Panthera Tigris or even Hound of Actaeon (apparently thats were the name Tigris comes from?). We dont call Bears Ursus which apparently derives from the Sanskrit for 'beast'.

Ironically the word Bear (and bruin) means brown and Panthera just means "yellow-beast".

 

[JamesonCourage]

Because the scientific names are just adjective-noun coolname in disguise, afterall we dont use Panthera Tigris or even Hound of Actaeon (apparently thats were the name Tigris comes from?). We dont call Bears Ursus which apparently derives from the Sanskrit for 'beast'.

Well, yes, but the people call them these names (which sound nothing like their Latin "CoolName" combos). I don't get why them being scientific makes a difference, I guess; they're basically just colloquial names to most people that use them, like tiger or bear. I get more where the argument is coming from, but I still don't fully grasp why it's bad or anything. Any insight into that aspect of it? (And thank you for the reply, by the way.)

 

[Mike Eagling]

Because the scientific names are just adjective-noun coolname in disguise, afterall we dont use Panthera Tigris or even Hound of Actaeon (apparently thats were the name Tigris comes from?). We dont call Bears Ursus which apparently derives from the Sanskrit for 'beast'.

As far as the English language is concerned (although the fact of the matter holds true for any other natural language you care to translate into) we call a bear a bear and a tiger a tiger because these are the names we (i.e. speakers of the languages concerned) developed for these creatures over millennia.

Then, following the Renaissance, naturalists such as Charles Linnaeus began applying the scientific method to the classification of natural history, including animals. Linnaeus invented the binomial name (e.g. Homo sapiens) and used Latin because, put simply, that's what scientists did in those days. The binomial system and systematics developed over time and is still used today.

Then, about 200 years ago, people started digging up dinosaurs and scientists quite naturally added them to the animal classification. To do that they invented binomial names for them, such as Triceratops horridus. These names are the only names available for these creatures because, unlike bears, humans didn't spend millennia trying to warn each other there was one was stood behind them.

So, we don't generally refer to bears by the term Ursus unless we're discussing species in a scientific context. But we do refer to a triceratops as a triceratops because we don't have another name for it.

 

[Sunseeker]

I basically agree. Why is there a push to get rid of the scientific names?

Mostly because I find them stuffy and un-fantastic.

 

[Mon]

I-rexes, surely.

I love me a good pun . This one is OK too. Must spread xp around and all that.

 

[Mon]

Because the scientific names are just adjective-noun coolname in disguise, afterall we dont use Panthera Tigris or even Hound of Actaeon (apparently thats were the name Tigris comes from?). We dont call Bears Ursus which apparently derives from the Sanskrit for 'beast'. ans brown and Panthera just means "yellow-beast".

Sure, but those animals have different common-use/generic names vs scientific names. In the case of dinos, the common-use names are the same as (or close to) the scientific names.

At least when you say "Tyrannosaurus Rex" people know what you mean - on account of it being the common name of the creature in everyday English. It has resonance and a touchstone of familiarity. Kinda like Grizzly Bear or Bottle-Nosed Dolphin. It also happens to be the scientific name but so what?

When you say "Swordtooth Titan" people don't know what you mean - on account of it not meaning anything in English outside the MM and certainly not hinting at it being a dinosaur when encountered among fantasy critters. Although it does sound like a good description of a picture that I drew when I was 5.