Is there a term for the opposite of a mook? One that describes a character that is not a mook, but without specifying good/bad or player/non-player?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think of mooks as Extras in the narrative. The opposite of that are named cast members.
To the OP: yes. They're called a "monk".
Joking aside, I'm trying to ascertain if you feel that "mook" in PF is similar to "minion" in 4E (a minor threat: effectively a "1 hit wonder" kind of creature) or if you are trying to define something strange.
Player Character v. Non-Player Character (this describes everyone in the game world)
[note: both contain "character", as Jiggy suggested]
Good, Neutral, Evil (this covers all moralities)
Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic (this covers all ethics)
If you're wondering about off-hand comments, a BBEG ("Big Bad Evil Guy") is generally the opposite of the Mook in NPC terms and, despite the name, isn't necessarily evil, merely an antagonist to the PCs. A Henchman is another name for a Mook (though with less combative flavor, to my mind), and a Dragon is generally the most powerful subordinate a BBEG has.
If you're asking about a non-morally defining term that is free of association indication, yet indicates a specially defined opposite-of-boring-and-generic character, the only discrete, individual term I can think of is "bada-"... er, well, the end of that word is two "s"s.
Urban dictionary gives a word I won't use (another name for a private detective, or short hand for Richard), rebel, renegade, and "vegabond" (that might intend to be "vagabond", I'm unsure as the spelling and grammar there is pretty terrible) as synonyms.
Yahoo best answers indicate "bodacious", while other suggestions include "intrepid", "indomitable", "macho", "rugged", "tough", and "fearless".
On another site, "wicked", "bangin'", "hard-core", [possible expletive], "fierce", "warriors", and "awesome" are suggested.
The Macmillan Dictionary and Dictionary dot com both contain entries (though dictionary.com is lacking an entry in the thesaurus).
The wiktionary entry.
That's... about all I've got. I hope that helps?
OK, so definition of terms is in order before we can discuss the opposite of a term.
Generally speaking in literature and gaming, there is a certain lexicon for the "bad guys" that the "good guys" tend to fight.
Usually there is a big bad evil guy, generally described as the "BBEG" or the "Big Boss". The BBEG rarely does his own laundry, so he usually has a hierarchy of supporting cast members. The most common way I've seen it laid out would look something like this:
The Big Bad Evil Guy usually has some powerful underlings. In the case of huge adventures, they might even be "junior" or "mini" bosses, and each might have their own hierarchy.
BBEGs who don't have junior bosses, or junior bosses themselves, typically have one or more "lieutenants" who are significantly powerful characters themselves. They usually have names, roles and interact meaningfully with the heroes.
Below the lieutenants there are usually a few to several somewhat powerful figures who provide the heroes with some difficulty to overcome. They are usually nameless, but identifiable in some way. These are usually referred to as "mooks".
At the lowest tier you have large numbers of minor characters who provide a challenge usually only in numbers, and whose purpose is usually to provide the heroes with the sense of "mowing down" the enemies as they pursue the lieutenants or junior bosses. These minor obstacles are usually referred to as "minions".
So, using those definitions, the opposite of a "mook" in Pathfinder would probably be a "cohort" or a party NPC that is lower level than the main party, but is still a force to be reckoned with by the evil guys. In many cases a "good guy" version of a "mook" might well be a summoned monster or animal.
Okay, I can see I need to clarify somewhat. I'm looking for a term to define the difference between someone who is essentially nameless and without consequence (whether in combat as cannon fodder, or out of combat as an extra) and someone who has a personality and consequence in the game world (either in combat as character/monster or out of combat as character). I want the terms to include (or at least not be associated primarily with) any sort of morality, and any level of agency (ie, PC and NPC alike), and either side of the party line (both ally and enemy of the PC group).
I'm not actually sure there IS a term like that, but figured I could check here for a wider slice of opinion/experience than my local circle of friends and fellow gamers.
The best term I've found so far (suggested by a friend) was "mook" vs. "face", although mook/name might work as well.
Does the NPC have a propper name?
Yes = not a mook.
No = redshirt/cannon fodder/mook
Okay, I can see I need to clarify somewhat. I'm looking for a term to define the difference between someone who is essentially nameless and without consequence (whether in combat as cannon fodder, or out of combat as an extra) and someone who has a personality and consequence in the game world (either in combat as character/monster or out of combat as character). I want the terms to include (or at least not be associated primarily with) any sort of morality, and any level of agency (ie, PC and NPC alike), and either side of the party line (both ally and enemy of the PC group).
Background character?
"Lieutenant" is a word that could work. That's what I use when I have a boss's junior NPC that interacts with the party, has a name, a history and a reputation.
You have defined such a broad category it will be unlikely to find a perfect fit. But imho principal is a good word.
After reading what you mean, the correct answer is "character", like Jiggy said.
Regardless of alignment, agency, or anything else, character fits the bill. Mooks are faceless, nameless, and minimal at best, leaving them not really characters, but stat blocks. A mook can transition into a character, but they're still the opposite of one another given your definition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use Mook for minions/unnamed fodder; I use elite for someone useful to the story/named pc or npc
edit: fightin n cussin i.e. nsfw
For the opposite of mooks, I'd use a term you come across in many games: elite. Veteran also suffices.
It is the pcs once they get a few levels, it is the skilled npcs, the great bodyguards, assassins, knights, that sort of thing.
In the rules compendium of 2nd ed, there was a mass combat system that had a similar term for elite troops. They were called "name". So an army might be 20% name, which means 20% have some levels to their name (but not anything like being level 9s). To me at always represented that level 3-7 spot. Serious veterans, trained elite knights, soldiers that have survived a long campaign and gained better kit.
The term name for highly skilled troops stuck, and my group still uses it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
per the title.
a mook isn't something that has shown considerable proficiency in x4 critting snobby adventurers, thus killing them.
Also not trolls, goblins, orcs, or goshdarn clerics.
Oh, one more thing, each one of those named elites, could in our giant D&D politics games, become a retainer or captain in time. Generally they stuck to their group, named elite infantry, named heavy cavalry, but they could be promoted out of it.
One guy turned all his name (from his twisted little city state) into necromancers. The necs had taken over a border region between the two states, set up in a fort and surrounded it with zombies and skeletons. They were plotting their next move and waiting for orders to come through via messenger. The group of ninja name from the neighbouring rival entirely got past the low level undead guardians, blocked off the exits and slaughtered all of the necromancers up close and personal. The messenger arrived, couldn't get to the keep because of the undead, which were now wandering around without masters. When they eventually got in, they found the necromancers massacred. Their taken fort had become their tomb. I guess the necromancers were really mooks.
per the title.
a mook isn't something that has shown considerable proficiency in x4 critting snobby adventurers, thus killing them.
Also not trolls, goblins, orcs, or goshdarn clerics.
Yes, ogres and trolls are never mooks (until you are high level). They can ruin your day even if you are levels 5-6.
Supporting characters? That's the category they'd win an Oscar for.
Okay, I can see I need to clarify somewhat. I'm looking for a term to define the difference between someone who is essentially nameless and without consequence (whether in combat as cannon fodder, or out of combat as an extra) and someone who has a personality and consequence in the game world (either in combat as character/monster or out of combat as character). I want the terms to include (or at least not be associated primarily with) any sort of morality, and any level of agency (ie, PC and NPC alike), and either side of the party line (both ally and enemy of the PC group).
I'm not actually sure there IS a term like that, but figured I could check here for a wider slice of opinion/experience than my local circle of friends and fellow gamers.
The best term I've found so far (suggested by a friend) was "mook" vs. "face", although mook/name might work as well.
I think Jiggy already nailed it with "character".
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's good precedent for "name." Henry V, Act 4, Scene 8, the Herald lists the English dead:
Edward the Duke of York, the Earl of Suffolk,
Sir Richard Ketly, Davy Gam, esquire:
None else of name; and of all other men
But five and twenty.
In other words, the 4 named dudes and 25 mooks.
Would you perhaps call the opposite of a mook an.. I dont know... Story element?
Non-fodder?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's good precedent for "name." Henry V, Act 4, Scene 8, the Herald lists the English dead:
Edward the Duke of York, the Earl of Suffolk,
Sir Richard Ketly, Davy Gam, esquire:
None else of name; and of all other men
But five and twenty.In other words, the 4 named dudes and 25 mooks.
Thanks! What an interesting reference. Yes, of name.