Insect Wylderkin

Ash

Artisan
Are you allowed to create an Insect Wylderkin? In the rulebook it says, "humanoids with animal-like characteristics"

Could I, for instance, create a bee-kin? or some such? I know there are spider-kin out there, but they aren't technically insects...
 

Inaryn

Knight
I've seen plenty of spider-kyn.

The only animal completely restricted is cat.
 

Inaryn

Knight
jpariury said:
And mythological creatures.
I suppose extinct creatures could also be considered restricted... I can't say I've ever heard of someone trying to play (or being allowed to play) a dinosaur-kyn.
 

Agahi

Scout
There was a discussion on the old boards about extinct animals..they where ok'd at that time.
 

Mobius

Squire
from what i understand, the only restriction is feline and fantasy, so insects should be fine. i've played in games with a few Bumblebeekin NPCs and i've always wanted to play a tapeworm scavenger. extinct should be fine too, no reason you couldn't play a velociraptorkin (though, you better bloody well have feathers, no matter what Crichton says)
 

Inaryn

Knight
I'm of the opinion that allowing creatures that no longer exist creates a slippery slope towards the mythological creature end... We have a general idea about what they looked like and how they lived, but as was just pointed out, velociraptors for a long time were thought to be scaled and there's evidence now that indicates they were feathered.

In other words, it's a bad idea.
 

Mobius

Squire
it's not as though the characteristics of existing animals are all that well represented by Scavengers, most kin are fantastic amalgamations as is. the inclusion of extinct species just allows a greater variety of personality, background, and PC amusement
 

Agahi

Scout
I always considered the diffrence as mythological being in the magical beast catagory from dnd 3.5, and animals being in the animal type. The seperation was that mytholgical creatures have near, equal, or greater than human intelligence, while animals are capped at 3.

also..mythological creatures never existed on RL earth only fantasy earth. Do not see any reason extinct would lead to mythological though i've never been a fan of slippery slope arguments either so..eh I dunno. What if say dogs suddenly went extinct, would dogkyn not be able to be played anymore?
 

Inaryn

Knight
Agahi said:
I always considered the diffrence as mythological being in the magical beast catagory from dnd 3.5, and animals being in the animal type. The seperation was that mytholgical creatures have near, equal, or greater than human intelligence, while animals are capped at 3.

also..mythological creatures never existed on RL earth only fantasy earth. Do not see any reason extinct would lead to mythological though i've never been a fan of slippery slope arguments either so..eh I dunno. What if say dogs suddenly went extinct, would dogkyn not be able to be played anymore?

I think if it's something we have recent (read last 200ish years) documentation and study of, that's one thing. But tell me what the prey, attitude, and social habits of a Leptarctus were.
 

prashka

Scholar
Oregon Staff
Marshal
Inaryn said:
Agahi said:
I always considered the diffrence as mythological being in the magical beast catagory from dnd 3.5, and animals being in the animal type. The seperation was that mytholgical creatures have near, equal, or greater than human intelligence, while animals are capped at 3.

also..mythological creatures never existed on RL earth only fantasy earth. Do not see any reason extinct would lead to mythological though i've never been a fan of slippery slope arguments either so..eh I dunno. What if say dogs suddenly went extinct, would dogkyn not be able to be played anymore?

I think if it's something we have recent (read last 200ish years) documentation and study of, that's one thing. But tell me what the prey, attitude, and social habits of a Leptarctus were.
So....No Woolly-Mammoth-kin? Too bad, the tusks could be cool...
 

Inaryn

Knight
prashka said:
So....No Woolly-Mammoth-kin? Too bad, the tusks could be cool...
It's not in the rulebook, so I mean, it's really up to your local plot team to decide. You can, y'know, get the tusks from an African elephant (and skip the fur coat which can't be terribly fun in the summer.)

I just personally think that, if you can't find what it ate, what it looked like for sure, and how it interacted with its environment, you should probably not be considering this animal. Anything we know about such an animal is going to have speculation involved, and speculation isn't that far a step from fabrication.
 

Agahi

Scout
Inaryn said:
Agahi said:
I always considered the diffrence as mythological being in the magical beast catagory from dnd 3.5, and animals being in the animal type. The seperation was that mytholgical creatures have near, equal, or greater than human intelligence, while animals are capped at 3.

also..mythological creatures never existed on RL earth only fantasy earth. Do not see any reason extinct would lead to mythological though i've never been a fan of slippery slope arguments either so..eh I dunno. What if say dogs suddenly went extinct, would dogkyn not be able to be played anymore?

I think if it's something we have recent (read last 200ish years) documentation and study of, that's one thing. But tell me what the prey, attitude, and social habits of a Leptarctus were.
I dunno what a Leptarctus is but I bet they ate stuff smaller than them... it might have been plants or smaller creatures, I didnt want to wiki it so I dunno. They bred with the other sex. If they ate plants they where probly mildly docile and lived in groups of some sort..if they ate creatures then it was either solo or small group and where likely more aggressive. Thats enough for some racials for me, anything else is in game society dependant on chapter.
 

Mobius

Squire
Inaryn said:
Agahi said:
I always considered the diffrence as mythological being in the magical beast catagory from dnd 3.5, and animals being in the animal type. The seperation was that mytholgical creatures have near, equal, or greater than human intelligence, while animals are capped at 3.

also..mythological creatures never existed on RL earth only fantasy earth. Do not see any reason extinct would lead to mythological though i've never been a fan of slippery slope arguments either so..eh I dunno. What if say dogs suddenly went extinct, would dogkyn not be able to be played anymore?

I think if it's something we have recent (read last 200ish years) documentation and study of, that's one thing. But tell me what the prey, attitude, and social habits of a Leptarctus were.
from what i've read, it's just like any number of ground-scurrying scavenger (small 's'). beyond that, the pc would be at her whim to make it up. besides, it's not as though there are any ARB based RP-police who guide and rebuke people for misROLEplaying their kin (plenty of opinionated prattlers, but nothing Rules-based). it's really impossible to say, "You're playing that turducken WRONG! You can't do it anymore" as the very concept of the Wylderkin is anthropomorphized nonsense to begin with. as long as the pc follows the racial Advantages/Disadvantages, everything else is flavour text

i hear what you're saying about the "real" behaviours of animals and how it's impossible to know, for sure, how extinct animals acted, but that kind of accuracy is totally irrelevant anyways. a Cowkin bears no more resemblance to a milking shorthorn than a great white does to Jaws - both are fabrications based on an individual's imagining of what 'could' be. i don't see why developing taxonomy for an extinct-kin would be any different
 

Agahi

Scout
after a quick wiki Id say just give it ferret or otter racials and say you are a Leptarctus, a ferret, or a weasle/whatever since it is pretty much the same thing.
 

Inaryn

Knight
Mobius said:
from what i've read, it's just like any number of ground-scurrying scavenger (small 's'). beyond that, the pc would be at her whim to make it up. besides, it's not as though there are any ARB based RP-police who guide and rebuke people for misROLEplaying their kin (plenty of opinionated prattlers, but nothing Rules-based). it's really impossible to say, "You're playing that turducken WRONG! You can't do it anymore" as the very concept of the Wylderkin is anthropomorphized nonsense to begin with. as long as the pc follows the racial Advantages/Disadvantages, everything else is flavour text

i hear what you're saying about the "real" behaviours of animals and how it's impossible to know, for sure, how extinct animals acted, but that kind of accuracy is totally irrelevant anyways. a Cowkin bears no more resemblance to a milking shorthorn than a great white does to Jaws - both are fabrications based on an individual's imagining of what 'could' be. i don't see why developing taxonomy for an extinct-kin would be any different
Uh huh... and I'm just going to say I pulled out something obscure to make a point. You're speculating about it based on what you can find. And are further saying you're fine with fabricating the rest. Except that it's not that large of a step from minor fabrications to major fabrications... and major fabrications leap right on in to mythological creatures. It's a slippery slope and I'm just pointing that out.
 

Agahi

Scout
I didnt speculate. Scientists classify it as a mustelidae...which is pretty much a weasle, so give it weasle racials, and the roleplay is not a rule, it is a chapter based thing so it honestly can be w/e you want it too just write it up and get it approved.
 

Inaryn

Knight
Agahi said:
I didnt speculate. Scientists classify it as a mustelidae...which is pretty much a weasle, so give it weasle racials, and the roleplay is not a rule, it is a chapter based thing so it honestly can be w/e you want it too just write it up and get it approved.
What'd it look like?
 
Top