Seriously, it's always one of my peeves about the D20 system that:
1) The divide between Aberrations as opposed to Magical Beasts and Monstrous Humanoids is so arbitrary and ill-defined and yet...
2) It's often used as world-building excuse for choosing "Sides" in a way that're often neither consistant or sensible if...
3) an Aberration, to quote the Bestiary 2, is so simply defined as something that "has a bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three," without there being an overarching origin for them.
For example, the Lovecraftian-esque nightmares with bodies like tentacled stalagmites and warped alien mindsets known as Ropers that are Magical Beasts (at least originally in D20) because... well... as near as I can guess, because they're combat monsters and need the D10 HD and full attack bonus to do their jobs. Meanwhile, a snake with a human head (Naga) or a dark elf with a spider abdomen (Drider) is an Aberration. On the other hand, a horse with a fish-butt (Hippocampus, Magical Beast) or human with the same (Merfolk, Monstrous Humanoid) is not.
Targetting Aberrations for whatever in D&D just doesn't make sense when Aberrations don't give off a consistant thematic vibe that sets them apart from all the other weird-crap-creatures-that-don't-make-sense-outside-of-bending-the-rules-of- nature in D20.
What brought this all up fresh in my brain was reading about the First World being hostile to aberrations in the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing entry of Misfit Monsters. What is an aberration? Stuff that's weird? Baby, the whole First World is weird. Is a
I have no problem with the idea of xenophobic characters, organizations, gods, or even places, in D&D or Pathfinder. But a Mothman is at least as weird or weirder than a Guardian Naga, and it shouldn't get a free pass from slayers of aberrant life for being a Monstrous Humanoid.
Ultimately, the GM must overrule the writers when they get things WRONG. One GM might have Naga as an actual playable race, no more 'aberrant' than Dwarves (me), while another might rules anything not Human as a Monstrous Humanoid (a game I play in). Personally, I run Humanoid as a collection of races both common enough to be generally known and magically prepared for by the common spells of the day. Monstrous Hummanoids are less known to the general public and just not as susceptable to 'off the shelf' magics, while still being 'of this world'. I have Aberrant races available as playables, but they are radically different from the norm: varying degrees of immunity to SA or spells, odd powers, strange diets, etc.
The one thing that truely separates my Aberrants from Core is that many Su abilities are now Ex. This kicks several into new realms of ZOMG from players. Think Beholder...
I think creature types are really more of a metagame concept. I think someone at pazio said the same. They exist to have groups of monsters that work similarly. How often do these come up in character. I really think it would be a wierd character for a wizard that wants to classify every single monster. Carlous Linneous is not the normal wizard concept.
I always figured that "Aberration" was just a fancy word for "Alien". Like they were sitting around dreaming up creature types for 3.0, and they wanted one for aliens, which is a popular enough category of monster, but the title just didn't fit the milieu.
In that context, I actually think it is a great category as distinct from magical beasts (which are more mythical), and most of the monsters really do fit.
If it is a weird beast with 7 arms and it comes from greek myth: magical beast. If it is a weird beast with 7 arms and it comes from H.P. Lovecraft mythos: aberration.
One of a few changes in 4th edition D&D I like is reworking type into orgin & type (I would do it a bit differently and I still think how to apply something like it to 3.5/PF without too much work).
Amongst the others some 3.5 types were turned to orgins (e.g. Fey an Aberration) which makes much more sense and aberration (or more properly aberrant) are explicitly things that come from or were tainted by Far Realm (e.g. Lovercraftian-alien-nightmare-(un)space-beyond-planes).
Sometime they are just typed because of Grandfather clause.
Darkmantle are listed as Magical Beasts, although the picture looks more like Aberration.
Doppleganger are listed as Monstrous Humanoid, although there natural form screams aberration to me
On the other hand
Drider are listed as Aberration, although that makes no since to me, as i think they should be Monstrous Humanoids.
Naga are listed as Aberration, even though i think Magical Beast or Humanoid fits better.... well unless they want all snake creatures aberration.
............
When all is said and done.. i usally just use what is printed in the book, and not worry about it.
Well except for Lich = Magical Construct instead of Undead. :)
aberration (or more properly aberrant)
ENGLISH POLICE!
Aberrant is an adjective. We can thank White Wolf for the nouning of aberrant I believe. Nevertheless, "aberration" is the proper noun form of the word.
Either one is okay, I suppose, but since we were discussing what is "proper"...
I always figured that "Aberration" was just a fancy word for "Alien". Like they were sitting around dreaming up creature types for 3.0, and they wanted one for aliens, which is a popular enough category of monster, but the title just didn't fit the milieu.
In that context, I actually think it is a great category as distinct from magical beasts (which are more mythical), and most of the monsters really do fit.
If it is a weird beast with 7 arms and it comes from greek myth: magical beast. If it is a weird beast with 7 arms and it comes from H.P. Lovecraft mythos: aberration.
I would agree with the above.
Only to expand on the 7 arms from greek myth vs the 7 arms in a Cthulhu style. Partly appearance and partly the intend psychological effect. The Magical Beast/Humanoid is typical one you can assign a folklore tail to, or as a way to explain something a person has difficulty comprehending. An aberration goes beyond that and just breaks reality with little explanation as to why. Horror and nightmare creatures are the best examples of type because very often human dreams can have absolutely no connection to reality on how things are put together.
Sorry I'm going to rabble a bit....
Granted the creatures like the Naga are borderline, given their status in various Asian content earth religions. Although as presented in the Bestiary without those overtones, they match up better with aberrations. Why do they just have human heads 0.o ? I'd also point to various Plant based monsters could also be categorized as Aberrations given how they both appear, act, and the 'fears' of the human mind they play off of. Fungus and spore "plant" types especially. There are many different borderline cases in monster types, however on the whole they seem to work.
Also not all aberrations need to be mind-bending/destroying creatures of fear.
In a case, pulling from a dream I had a long time ago. It began with me and a "platoon" of soldiers wandering through a feted swamp (spooky atmosphere and all). When we spot a pack of plant like quadrupeds, all spindly and ropey with a sick mossy browns and greens coloration. Oh and sharp stinger/bill like beaks. "We" watch them fearfully run out and back through the mist several times. Eventually "we" get bold enough to approach the rotten log/hollow they have been running in and out of. What "we" find is a VCR intertwined and embedded in the roost of this plant like thing. The LCD panel is lit and "we" can clearly hear the sounds of the tape being played. Then it hits the end of the tape and with a clunk it begins to rewind.... This is where things really get odd but hey it was a dream.... The creatures come running back as the cassette rewinds, and they fold/slide themselves into the tape slot. It finishes rewinding and starts playing again, the creatures come sliding back out and run off again.
If I were to stat these creatures what would they be? Aberration, Magical Beasts, or Plants? I could possibly make a case for each, however given their origin I'd slot them in as aberrations. Certainly fear was an original component and to this day I can still pull that heart pounding sense of dread from my memory, but in the end while in modern parlance this qualified as "FTW!?" it didn't end as a true terror. It is one of the few times I've woken up form a "nightmare" and I think the only time I can recall sitting up in bed and basically going "what the hell was that?"
To me that kind of "has limited logical explanation" is what really defines the Aberration type more then anything. A multi-bodied electric eel that lives to give loving hugs would qualify it for aberration (in my mind) over a similar creature that by "folklore" would be responsible for dragging drowned seamen down to Davy Jones Locker.
ENGLISH POLICE!
Aberrant is an adjective. We can thank White Wolf for the nouning of aberrant I believe. Nevertheless, "aberration" is the proper noun form of the word.
1) According to Meriam-Webster dictionary abberant function as a noun as well as an adjective: aberrant. I really doubt that it was WW that popularized aberrant as a noun enough to include it in M-W dictionary (first known use is listed as 1938). Instead I think that they used existing noun as the name for their game.
2) Adjective is proper form in my post because I was speaking about 4th edition usage - in which it means creature orgins and Mind Flayer is Aberrant Humanoid not Aberration Humanoid*.
*Not sure if Mind Flayer was really classified as humanoid, only used as an example here so 4th edition players don't have to bother with actually checking and correcting me unless they actually want to do so.
1) According to Meriam-Webster dictionary abberant function as a noun as well as an adjective: aberrant. I really doubt that it was WW that popularized aberrant as a noun enough to include it in M-W dictionary (first known use is listed as 1938). Instead I think that they used existing noun as the name for their game.
Alright, sir, I consider myself edified. Thanks!
I think the bigbdifference between aberrations and some magical beasts is that magical beasts otherwise exist as part of the normal ecosystem. but aberrations do not. given fey in the normal world can stop being fey eventually I think so to with aberrations.
I thought the primary differentiation between "Aberration" and "Magical Beast" was an Aberration was "A Wizard Did It."
A horse with wings is pretty strange... but it isn't "the thing that should not be."
|
I thought the primary differentiation between "Aberration" and "Magical Beast" was an Aberration was "A Wizard Did It."
"A wizard did it" = magical beast. Abberation = a wizard sitting in a corner, drooling, his sanity blasted from his encounter with a being from beyond the known planes of existence.
The problem is that there are few aberrations who actually do that. There really isn't a SAN loss system in Pathfinder. I just read a rather amusing article that talked about how aboleths (which are aberrations) have all this scary fluff and how they seem to have spawned half the scary critters in both bestiaries, but there is nothing in their stat blocks to support any of it. It went on to paint aboleths as "misunderstood 'cuddle' fish" (pointing to their mucous cloud ability having a short range).
I like the concept of aberrations. I really do. But I agree with Drakli that there seems to be little rhyme or reason for the appellation. In my homebrew setting, we basically have had to go the other direction. Rather than trying to figure out why one thing is an aberration instead of a magical beast or monstrous humanoid, we just took things as printed in the book and started giving them reasons to be different. Aboleths are "aberrations" because they existed on the planet before the gods started doing stuff. They exist outside the normal creation routine. The shoggoth? That one came through a crack in the planes from a parallel Prime.
It's sort of a case of trying to not over analyze things. Why does falling at terminal velocity from a thousand feet not kill the 10th level barbarian? Because the books say so. Why do dragons have huge piles of gold and magic items that they never use? Because the books say so. Why is a centaur a monstrous humanoid while a drider is an aberration? Because the books say so. The books pretty much determine how physics (and biology and chemistry and thermodynamics and...) work in the Pathfinder worlds. You can either accept it and patch in the fluff you need or you can decide not to and reinvent the wheel. I like quilts, so I choose the patches.
The shoggoth is an ooze, as written.
The qlippoth would be perfectly described as extraplanar abberations... but they're just outsiders despite being weirder than any abberation.
The shoggoth is an ooze, as written.
The qlippoth would be perfectly described as extraplanar abberations... but they're just outsiders despite being weirder than any abberation.
You're right about the shoggoth. I was going from my poor memory. The point still stands though.
Actually I start to think, that maybe aberration should be made into a subtype instead representing unspeakable lovercraftian things applied to Outsiders (entities from beyond normal planes, Old Gods and such) and to other types to represent things tainted by the first.
Especially that there is little constancy, reason and role between Aberrations that would warrant them having standarized BAB, HD and saves.
Alright, sir, I consider myself edified. Thanks!
We learn all the time. I always appreciate others pointing my linguistic errors when I make them as English is not my native language and it allows improvement of my skill.
Which gets back to
Some of the older monster were classified as Magical Monster or Monsters Humanoids, because at the time of there creation, that was the fad.
Now a days, more creatures are classified as aberration, because there is more demand for them.
And some creatures are classified as other things, just because stat/effect wise they fit better in that category: example: shoggoth
1) According to Meriam-Webster dictionary abberant function as a noun as well as an adjective: aberrant. I really doubt that it was WW that popularized aberrant as a noun enough to include it in M-W dictionary (first known use is listed as 1938). Instead I think that they used existing noun as the name for their game.
2) Adjective is proper form in my post because I was speaking about 4th edition usage - in which it means creature orgins and Mind Flayer is Aberrant Humanoid not Aberration Humanoid*.
Rraarrr!
I heartily approve of this post. It does my savage heart good to see people availing themselves of dictionaries. Now, if only I could stamp out true aberrations, such as the sanity-blasting per say.
Rraarrr!
|
1) According to Meriam-Webster dictionary abberant function as a noun as well as an adjective: aberrant. I really doubt that it was WW that popularized aberrant as a noun enough to include it in M-W dictionary (first known use is listed as 1938). Instead I think that they used existing noun as the name for their game.
2) Adjective is proper form in my post because I was speaking about 4th edition usage - in which it means creature orgins and Mind Flayer is Aberrant Humanoid not Aberration Humanoid*.
Rraarrr!
I heartily approve of this post. It does my savage heart good to see people availing themselves of dictionaries. Now, if only I could stamp out true aberrations, such as the sanity-blasting per say.
Rraarrr!
I like to refur to my diktionery on an addhock bases.
:b
To me it seems that aberrations = outsiders that do not stem from one of the outer/inner planes but rather from "a place beyond" or are former magical creatures that were warped and influenced by energies from "a place beyond".
So instead of using the appearance as a divider, you should use the origin.
To me it seems that aberrations = outsiders that do not stem from one of the outer/inner planes but rather from "a place beyond" or are former magical creatures that were warped and influenced by energies from "a place beyond".
So instead of using the appearance as a divider, you should use the origin.
This again is why I think qlippoths and things like them should be abberation (extraplanar).
But Qulippoths stem from the Abyss, so "Outsider" seems to fit perfectly.
Of course you could argue that they were there before the Abyss even formed, but nowhere is it indicated that they stem from "the great beyond."
Maybe if we think about quilippoths as being in Abyss before "the great beyond" was pushed away from the reality then they could be aberrations as the great outside from which aberrations came was here and not "Far" away.
No no, you all got it wrong.
1. Aboleths did it.
2. If Ablotehs didn't do it, see 1.
You mean Azlanti and all humanity are aberrations? Well, looking on humans... It is not completly unreasonable.
I added a spoiler tag.
I do like the 4e Monster Vault tendency of using Aberrations to describe things native to the far plane or heavily mutated by far plane mutagenic energies.
That way animal/humanoid is native to the prime, magical beast/fey is native to faerie or mutated/changed by magic, and aberration is completely alien and utterly horrible.
For a setting like Golarion which drips with Mythos elements I'd be perfectly happy to assume all aberrations came from an alternate material, far plane, created by an elder god, etc.
Of course Golarion also doesn't have to worry about incorporating large scale Beholder and Illithid realms and their 1e-3.x mythology either.
Regarding the actual consistency of Aberrations, I find they are somewhat tough and rubbery if you cook them overlong.
I'm just sitting here laughing at the thought of "consistency" with "aberrations"...
If you toss a tentacle against the wall and it sticks, then you know you've cooked it just long enough.
|
I agree that the aberration type isn't as logical as it should be. "A bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, or an alien mindset" is far too open-ended I believe.
Magical beasts "usually have supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but are sometimes merely bizarre in appearance or habits."
So a magical beast is bizarre in appearance and habits, whereas an aberration has a bizarre anatomy.
Boggart and will-o-wisp being aberration instead of fey bothers me.
I'd agree with some of the posters above who think aberration should relate to creatures from or influenced by the far realms, elder gods, and alien techniques like flash-warping.
If a creature like a naga or a drider is an aberration I want a reason. Drider being flesh-warped, and therefore a child of aboleth technology, for instance, works for me. I'd like something similar for each aberration.
Also, a creature like the shoggoth should be an aberration if anything is. I think that's why it makes sense to make aberration a subtype. An aberrant ooze makes complete sense for this type of monster.
Regarding the actual consistency of Aberrations, I find they are somewhat tough and rubbery if you cook them overlong.
Aren't they tough and rubber if you cook them not long enough?
Boggart and will-o-wisp being aberration instead of fey bothers me.
Boggarts are humanoid (boggart). They could be changed to aberrations if you would want them to be deep one/toad-like creatures from Hellboy.
Thats because they are supernatural beings that share certain cosmological similarities (like unity of spirit and body and being manifestation of planar essences - because of this I disagreed with Giths in 3.5 being Outsiders instead of extraplanar humanoids) and because of this they have a lot of subtypes associated. Still this is another place where 4th edition splitting type into two components feels better. If only they used term "astral" instead of "immortal" as orgin for entities from astral sea <facepalm>