Caterpillars's page

17 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Caterpillars wrote:
Quote:

Or you know magic.

Futzing around with psuedoscientific justification for mythology is rarely interesting, unless you're going to go all the way and structure the whole setting that way. Even then it's often pretty awkward.
I like to think of pseudoscientific justification as a way to hang the world together. Internal consistency helps to hold together the imaginary reality we create at the table, so why not consider how these creatures/creations are made and reproduce?

Considering the way they're made and reproduce can be cool - see the examples Fuzzy-Wuzzy gave. Or hags - we've long known how hags reproduce and it's got plenty of story potential, but focusing on the genetics of why they only have female children doesn't add anything.

Nor does making dryads, who started mythologically as tree spirits, into fungi.

We are, in the end, sitting about and playing make-believe on a grand scale. Does it really matter if one uses myths or real phenomena as the basis of the make-believe? Reality is full of extraordinarily odd too-strange-for-fiction stuff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or you know magic.

Futzing around with psuedoscientific justification for mythology is rarely interesting, unless you're going to go all the way and structure the whole setting that way. Even then it's often pretty awkward.

I like to think of pseudoscientific justification as a way to hang the world together. Internal consistency helps to hold together the imaginary reality we create at the table, so why not consider how these creatures/creations are made and reproduce?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:

Male dryads are just plain weird. As that implies the trees they are an expression of also have gender.

(Arguably, dryads should probably be closer to hermaphrodites, like the vast majority of trees.)

Plus... if dryads reproduce by sexual reproduction, how so they couple? They're bound to stationary trees. There's seldom two dryads that close.

Perhaps they are actually fungi, which have biological gender defined by "is this fungal spore genetically different from my fungal spore?" leading to each individual fungus is its own "gender" (gender for lack of better term, when we are way past a binary and into 1000s+ of options).

Or msybe dryads, like many grain crops, are wind pollinated.


thejeff wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:
What if all Changelings have some form of androgen insensitivity? That way even XY Changelings would develop feminine traits. Blood of the Coven mentions that Changelings can be born with indeterminate sex characteristics, and some Changelings grow up to adopt masculine gender identities, you just won't have a cis male Changeling.
I was personally under the impression that male changelings never happen simply because hags murder any male children they have, since they are useless to them.

I'm pretty sure Hags are not checking the chromosomes. Certain intersex conditions can result in a child having entirely female secondary sexual characteristics while still being genetically XY. Could this person become a hag? I figure there's magic involved in the transformation anyway.

"Hag genes cause androgen insensitivity" is an interesting twist; I like it.

While I agree, I will also note that there is an established magical bond between a changeling and her hag mother that drives her to become a hag - if this bond goes both ways, it's entirely likely that hags simply check "Do I feel a mystical bond with this baby? No? Oops, maybe next time."

IOW, it seems plausible to me that hags don't at all care about sexual characteristics of their child, but rather are directly examining "suitability for becoming a hag" - whatever determines that.

It's also possible that potential male children just miscarry.

But mostly, it's magic. Maybe any kid is automatically female, who cares what the genes should be.

Parthenogenesis.


Any remotely competent noble in a world with magic will employ loyal magic users, have some version of Improved Paranoia, or will actively attack magic users.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
doomman47 wrote:
except that's exactly the case here, paladins as is are just stick in the mud goodie two shoes, which is bad as there is no variety.

I'm sure you've read it, but just in case not, are you familiar with the webcomic Order of the Stick? Because the paladins in it aren't one dimensional, nor are they the only LG characters.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would happily give up spellcasting to keep deityless Paladins (or Paladins who worship like all the gods they like.) Whole "gotta worship only one" thing in Golarion is like no Polytheistic culture I've ever heard of.

How many polytheist cultures are there that let you decide, "all right, I'm going to go kill god(s) today" and then ride off on your steed with a band of followers to do so? And bring back proof of kill?

In fantasy settings, gods are tangible, superpowered nPCs. It makes sense within a fantasy realm to require picking one and sticking with her/him/it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Go for - bonus points for incorporating a miniature giant space hamster.


Considering that there are still pirates, I suppose one could ask about their musical preferences, but it seems dangerous.

Track down Wreckers, if you can. Dame Smyth did interesting musicological research for it.


Zhayne wrote:

I don't, that spell goes bye-bye. So does Speak with Plants. They have no sensory organs, they are literally incapable of knowing anything involving sensory input, which is literally everything.

Tell that to a sensitve plant, a flytrap, or the trees that use pheromones to tell conspecifics "giraffe attack! Make poison!" Plants can even experience anesthesia and learn to ignore non-harmful falls. They detect light amd gravity and water. They are more interesting than you may think.

Plus a big tree would have 360 vision from way up and it would be aware of a group chopping down its fellow for a battering ram.


Errant Mercenary wrote:
Caterpillars wrote:

Roger McGuinn has an entire album of pirate shanties.

Putting my pedantic hat on.

<snip>

Furthermore on Roger Quinn...he sings shanty lyrics but the accompanying music, vocals and composition makes them distinctingly not very shanty like. I like his music though!

Pendatic hat off.

Wagner is indeed amazing for an incoming storm!

Putting on my pedantic hat:

If McGuinn wants to call his own album pirate shanties, who am I to stop him? Cardiff Rose has fascinating album art to accompany it.

Also, there are field recordings of actual chain gangs, riverboat crew songs, and rail gang work songs. Lyrics and tunes are preserved for waulking songs (you know, kneading raw woolen fabric with your feet into felt in a bath of urine with all your friends and family). Good tunes are surprisingly durable. Just not all get the "let's get drunk and sing folksongs on tour" treatment of, say, Bruce Springsteen.

Pedantic hat off here.

Perhaps Col would prefer the pure silliness of Pirates of Penzance. The recording with Tim Curry as Pirate King is fun.


How do you feel about opera? Wagner specifically, or if you can find it, The Wreckers by Ethel Smyth.

Roger McGuinn has an entire album of pirate shanties.

A Viking metal Pandora station?


Monster for Every Season printables from Rich Burlew. They're D&D based, but they are cheap and adaptable. Winter should be out soon.


The best person with the screen I ever played with took an interesting tack to this - he would roll the checks for the player but not let them know how they did. "You think you're hidden." "You believe that you told a witty joke." We had a not especially bright bulb in that campaign, but this method allowed him to successfully play high int/high char.

Also fun with "you think you've found all the traps."

There's also the Fallout (1 & 2) approach - NPCs know if you're smart or not and adjust their reactions to you accordingly. Story is the same, but options get simplified.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Next time I have to roll a replacement character past level 6, I think I'm gonna roll up an Oozemorph 6/Brawler 1/Barbarian X if there's room for a martial. Six levels allows you to be bipedal and work doorknobs for 18 hours/day, so all you have to do is sleep in a bucket, and you get pretty much everything fun the class gets.

How tightly do doors seal? Flowing under or through a keyhole would be fun.

There's plenty of room for fun things here - did no one besides me not think "sweet, I can be Odo! Or a T 1000"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
It is kinda funny that the Ooozemorph actually specializes in turning into humanoids and not... oozes.
I like that gimmick I just think it could of been implemented better.

Perhaps the original concept was that you're a person who gets progressively better at being oozy (like any of your stretchy superheroes, say) and someone had the idea "but what if it's the other way around" and honestly that is pretty interesting. It's not precisely what I would have wanted, but it is conceptually interesting.

I don't know of any other archetype that weakens you greatly as soon as you take it, so that much is novel at least.

Real caterpillars turn into ooze when they are undergoing their final metamorphosis in their crysalis. Perhaps oozemorphs could be considered similarly?


You want fun times with a paladin? Introduce an NPC who presents as one but has the exact personality of Miss Manners. She's super lawful and cordial, but whether she's good in an RPG sense can be debated.

(She takes great joy in doing things correctly even if it is annoying. She's the one who properly uses her own stationary for RSVPs, but also because it won't fit neatly in the card box.)