Remove ads

Scaling Up

Reader mode
drag0nsoldier said:
Of course were-bears are either lawful good or neutral good depending on d&d source. Leads so well into the "how the hell did a bear build an orphanage overnight? And to code too!?"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I like to think that, in cities with werebear infestations, it's a common occurrence to see large, vicious kodiak bears helping little old ladies across the street. But only at crosswalks, because jaywalking would be illegal.
 
I said modern idea, not classic version. The modern idea would be changing into a hybrid form, or sometimes being able to change at will between human, animal, or hybrid. That is a modern invention. Older legends of werewolves had them become wolves, not wolfmen. Greeks had people being turned into animals (and sometimes reversed), but always by a second person/being such as a god, goddess, or Circe.
 
I would point out that at least one of the other were-creatures in First Edition AD&D was based on a mythical creature that had nothing to do with Werewolves; the Fox Ladies. From what I can tell, these were based on one or more version of East Asian shapeshifting Fox Spirits, and not the werewolves of Europe.

Which leads me to wonder, what other folklore creatures from around the world ended up bundled as were-creatures in D&D?

As to if they are good, evil, or indifferent, that varies by species, but importantly unlike with Humans or Demihumans, their alignment is set by their curse. An infected character can resist the change in their alignment, but without magical or divine aid, their alignment WILL slowly shift to the new one, often changing over completely within a year of being infected. Or at least, that's how it was in First Edition...
 
Let us suppose that Rachel, who is now training dogs under the watchful eye of PRT/BBPD, gets approached by a RsOB (aka a god or demigod) related to wolves. I beleive Rachel would actually decline the gift, because somewhere deep down, she knows her powers haven't made her life any better. But, on off chance she took the offer, she gains a Changer ability. As such, she would keep her current alignment, and would still be Rachel, though one that looked like a wolf.

Now, however, we flip to the other possibility. An actual werewolf, a sufferer of lycanthropy, gets loose in Brockton Bay. Before getting mauled by any one of the heroes present (Armsmaster : "I have planned for such a contingency." (The halberd blade switches out for a silvered one)), bites Rachel. Panacea heals her up using her powers, which completely miss the lycanthropy. First full moon, and all of her dogs wind up dead, mauled by a large animal. This continues, three nights every twenty-eight (night before, night of, and night after the full moon), until someone puts 2+2 together (probably Lisa) and gets an answer that equals 4 instead of Banana or Kumquat. And during all this Rachel (and any other people she infects) suffers.

The difference between the two is that the gift is less likely to screw you over. Lycanthropy is a curse, and solely exists to make the affilicted and those around them suffer. Thus, there really is one of two ways out at this point : Find a cleric, and get Greater Restoration or Heal cast on you and atone for you deeds, or go down fighting, to be killed by your former friends and allies.
 
Jacen1 said:
I would point out that at least one of the other were-creatures in First Edition AD&D was based on a mythical creature that had nothing to do with Werewolves; the Fox Ladies. From what I can tell, these were based on one or more version of East Asian shapeshifting Fox Spirits, and not the werewolves of Europe.

Which leads me to wonder, what other folklore creatures from around the world ended up bundled as were-creatures in D&D?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Werebears are based on Beorn from Tolkien, thus the Good alignment. Not sure if that's "folklore" or not, though.
 
Sorrow said:
See, that's the thing that never made since to me. Why do you need to atone for deeds that are not your own?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

if you're not a cleric, druid, or paladin... you don't. But what you're missing is that the Atonement spell places a geas on the subject, sending them on a Quest that if completed cleanses their spirit of the sin/evil. Thus why a fallen paladin can progress as a paladin again, or why a cleric regains their spellcasting ability. Their patron deity is demanding this to regain divine patronage.
 
Jacen1 said:
In D&D, or at least the earlier editions, the various Were Animal Curses come with a MANDATORY Alignment Change. As such, ALL were Rats are Chaotic Evil, and view Humans as a mix of future Were Rats, preferred food, and entertainment as they die of whatever diseases they can provide.

In Other Settings, Weres can be morally whatever they want to be. In D&D, not so much, and the best you can hope for is to find one that is indifferent towards Humanity instead of actively hostile.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Minor quibble, but D&D wererats are Lawful Evil.

I know this because it's an important plot point in an adventure I have only the rough outline for.
Kryslin said:
Let us suppose that Rachel, who is now training dogs under the watchful eye of PRT/BBPD, gets approached by a RsOB (aka a god or demigod) related to wolves. I beleive Rachel would actually decline the gift, because somewhere deep down, she knows her powers haven't made her life any better. But, on off chance she took the offer, she gains a Changer ability. As such, she would keep her current alignment, and would still be Rachel, though one that looked like a wolf.

Now, however, we flip to the other possibility. An actual werewolf, a sufferer of lycanthropy, gets loose in Brockton Bay. Before getting mauled by any one of the heroes present (Armsmaster : "I have planned for such a contingency." (The halberd blade switches out for a silvered one)), bites Rachel. Panacea heals her up using her powers, which completely miss the lycanthropy. First full moon, and all of her dogs wind up dead, mauled by a large animal. This continues, three nights every twenty-eight (night before, night of, and night after the full moon), until someone puts 2+2 together (probably Lisa) and gets an answer that equals 4 instead of Banana or Kumquat. And during all this Rachel (and any other people she infects) suffers.

The difference between the two is that the gift is less likely to screw you over. Lycanthropy is a curse, and solely exists to make the affilicted and those around them suffer. Thus, there really is one of two ways out at this point : Find a cleric, and get Greater Restoration or Heal cast on you and atone for you deeds, or go down fighting, to be killed by your former friends and allies.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There is a way Rachel could spare her dogs. She would have to embrace her curse and become chaotic evil (the alignment of the werewolf), and lose most of her remaining humanity in the process. Those who do that (in D&D) retain their self-awareness and Priorities when transformed, albeit with priorities permanently warped by their CE alignment. But she could still care about her dogs, then. It would still not be a good thing. Her influence would make the whole pack into man-killers.
 
Segev said:
There is a way Rachel could spare her dogs. She would have to embrace her curse and become chaotic evil (the alignment of the werewolf), and lose most of her remaining humanity in the process. Those who do that (in D&D) retain their self-awareness and Priorities when transformed, albeit with priorities permanently warped by their CE alignment. But she could still care about her dogs, then. It would still not be a good thing. Her influence would make the whole pack into man-killers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
She's pretty much Chaotic Stupid Evil anyway, so it's not exactly a big change.
 
Kryslin said:
The difference between the two is that the gift is less likely to screw you over. Lycanthropy is a curse, and solely exists to make the affilicted and those around them suffer. Thus, there really is one of two ways out at this point : Find a cleric, and get Greater Restoration or Heal cast on you and atone for you deeds, or go down fighting, to be killed by your former friends and allies.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's also the good old "Quest to overcome the mindless nature of the curse."

Lycanthromancer said:
She's pretty much Chaotic Stupid Evil anyway, so it's not exactly a big change.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Rachel is closer to true neutral than chaotic evil - her mind has been so beset by her power that she is far more "wolf" than "human". Most of the bad things she does is her either not being able to comprehend human mores or simply a difference in opinion of the value of things. She places dogs higher because, well, she kinda is one.
 
Last edited:
Byzantine said:
Rachel is closer to true neutral than chaotic evil - her mind has been so beset by her power that she is far more "wolf" than "human". Most of the bad things she does is her either not being able to comprehend human mores or simply a difference in opinion of the value of things. She places dogs higher because, well, she kinda is one.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Randomly, and lethally, attacking people who haven't done anything just because she doesn't know them sounds pretty Chaotic and Evil, to me.
 
Lycanthromancer said:
The behavior is excusable in a non-sapient animal. In a (supposedly) sapient being, it's CE behavior.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And?

Something that needs to be remembered is that Rachel's Trigger Event caused her mind to become closer to a dog's than a humans.


Worm Wiki said:
Rachel's personality is obfuscated by several factors. One is her lack of education that has left her largely illiterate and forced her to adapt to the world in other ways, such as developing a talent for memorization.[6] Another is her relationship with her dogs. Possibly as a consequence of having triggered at a young age,[7] her already weak social skills and empathy were overridden refocusing on her power's target: Canines.

As such the baring of teeth and direct eye contact; normal human interaction, comes across threatening to her.[8] While frequently and erroneously labeled a sociopath or even a psychopath due to this adaptation, Rachel also gained an unparalleled grasp of dog handling for her age. She can easily distinguish individual dogs of the same breed.[9] Rachel continues to struggle to communicate with others but makes an effort nevertheless. She does feel guilt and more for her failed interactions and those she accidentally killed when she first triggered.[10] Traits not seen with sociopathy or psychopathy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Jacen1 said:
CE is killing for one's own benefit. Killing randomly is CN.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Evil in D&D basically has the same definition as sociopathy, and with a tinge of psychopathy. A complete lack of empathy for others, with the preference to hurt them for one's own gain.

"Killing others for one's own benefit" would mean that anyone who killed for any reason other than an accident would be Evil. Like, say, 99(.9)% of all adventurers.
 
Last edited:
Lycanthromancer said:
Randomly, and lethally, attacking people who haven't done anything just because she doesn't know them sounds pretty Chaotic and Evil, to me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just curious:. When in Canon did Rachel attack anyone for no reason?

She attacks animal abusers, like Hookwolf, people being brought into her pack, and people her pack leader tells her to. Oh, and people in her territory, when she had one.

Reasons for them all, even if straight humans might not like those reasons.

When did she attack somebody for no reason?
 
Ravenwood240 said:
Just curious:. When in Canon did Rachel attack anyone for no reason?

She attacks animal abusers, like Hookwolf, people being brought into her pack, and people her pack leader tells her to. Oh, and people in her territory, when she had one.

Reasons for them all, even if straight humans might not like those reasons.

When did she attack somebody for no reason?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Taylor and (IIRC) Spitfire.
 
Sorrow said:
See, that's the thing that never made since to me. Why do you need to atone for deeds that are not your own?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because a god says so. There's plenty of gods in D&D settings that are neither moral nor reasonable, and wouldn't necessarily care in the slightest if their demands are moral, reasonable, or in some cases sane.

I mean, telling Lolth "That's not fair!" won't do anything but make her laugh at you. At best. Ask poor Dinah about Lolth's concern for fairness.
 
Most importantly, it's not only Kryslin's story but it even says "Mangled Mythology" in the title. If Kryslin wants wererats to be pacifist vegetarians and werewolves to be escaped biotinker projects, then for the purpose of this story that's what they are.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top