| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you read fan fiction? If so, what's your favorite kind? AU, crossovers time travel etc. Also, what's your favorite fandom?
Me, personally, I'm a huge nerd for the Harry Potter fandom. Recently, I've been really keen on Harry Potter/Star Wars crossovers.
Since I wanted to give a more detailed response once I got home from work...
I used to read some fanfiction when I was a teenager, but I kind of fell out of it because most of it was crap and I couldn't really find anything that appealed to me most of the time, so I kind of fell out of interest.
That's not to say I dislike the notion of fan fiction however. Technically doujinshi is essentially fanfiction, and the idea of writing about original characters set in a pre-established fantasy world (such as stories set in the Harry Potter universe that are about someone other than the Potter-gang) is pretty neat. I also don't even mind OCs interacting or being involved with cannon characters if it's done well (in which case it feels like a fanmade x-pac), or even self-inserts or cross-universe stuff (though it's hard finding good material, I feel that's less because it's innately crap and more because there's so much fanfiction that it's hard to find the diamonds in the rough).
When I did read fanfiction, I spent a fair amount of time reading some Ranma 1/2 'fics, X-Men, and Pokemon, and a few other things. I think writing fanfiction is tons of fun though. The ecchi story involving Agatha and Magthera was technically fanfiction wrote at the behest of another player in that group ('cause he shipped Agatha & her Psicrystal), so it was fanfiction of a D&D game (talk about a tiny fandom :P).
Potentially, I could conceivably enjoy fanfiction about anything that I already liked (such as Star Wars), or theoretically anything at all (since good writing is good writing).
That dwarven "kingdom" was naught but a single city, plus the city of Dale. They also were taken by surprise, and the dragon, one of the greatest dragons, had the advantage of "tight confines" which drastically favored him. Things were also good in those days, so military would have been at a peacetime stance, and indeed the men of dale likely had never seen combat outside a tavern brawl. Also, given the chaos, trying to evacuate women and children, units never having the chance to form up nor even properly equip themselves, it is no surprise the two cities fell. With all of those circumstantial things stacked in favor of the dragon, there is no need to attribute invincibility to Smaug, no need at all. Also, it is known that dragons can't repair their scales, and knowing that requires seeing them damaged, which requires the dragons being hurt, and in lotr no one reaches mid level, even Gandalf at best a lvl 8 (a stretch) and he faced a Balrog single-handed and Gandalf is one of the maya, greater than men or elves.
As for demigod vs dragon, the dragons are described as powerful but not demigod powerful in the fluff, but the stats say demigod. Thus, the fluff and stats are contradictory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That dwarven "kingdom" was naught but a single city, plus the city of Dale. They also were taken by surprise, and the dragon, one of the greatest dragons, had the advantage of "tight confines" which drastically favored him. Things were also good in those days, so military would have been at a peacetime stance, and indeed the men of dale likely had never seen combat outside a tavern brawl. Also, given the chaos, trying to evacuate women and children, units never having the chance to form up nor even properly equip themselves, it is no surprise the two cities fell. With all of those circumstantial things stacked in favor of the dragon, there is no need to attribute invincibility to Smaug, no need at all. Also, it is known that dragons can't repair their scales, and knowing that requires seeing them damaged, which requires the dragons being hurt, and in lotr no one reaches mid level, even Gandalf at best a lvl 8 (a stretch) and he faced a Balrog single-handed and Gandalf is one of the maya, greater than men or elves.
It's been a while since I read the Hobbit, but I recall his flesh being likened to armor that would turn any blade, his teeth like swords, his breath death, blah-blah. It was pretty clear that either they shoot him in his weak spot or he murders everyone, end of story. All the armies showed up to contest the loot AFTER Smaug was gone. Men, elves, dwarves, everyone coveted the loot enough to be ready to fight to the death with everyhing except the freakin' dragon.
I really feel like this cannot be overstated enough. Three armies composed of men, dwarves, and elves were ready to fight each other to the death over the treasure that was described as being so vast that they could have easily shared it, but not one dared to try to even fight the dragon for it, not the three of them. Not a single army, not a dozen armies, was willing to go and fight the dragon for a treasure that they were willing to fight and die for.
Because even Smaug, who isn't a D&D dragon, was no joke. His strength was legendary. He was, by the large, believed to be invincible. The moment the dragon was dead and word spread, BAM! ARMIES. Not before, but after. Not during. But after. Everyone wanted a piece but none dared to even test the dragon's might.
As for demigod vs dragon, the dragons are described as powerful but not demigod powerful in the fluff, but the stats say demigod. Thus, the fluff and stats are contradictory.
Um, not sure what fluff you're describing. D&D dragons have traditionally been described as being potentially immortal and of ridiculous strength in their old age. Their mechanics actually demonstrate the scale of that, because you can clearly see that an ancient red dragon is "THIS AWESOME". If they weren't, then they wouldn't be.
First off, in the hobbit, Smaig describes himself (thus biased), and you hear hearsay (unreliable, and yes, Tolkien included unreliable elements), so hardly conclusive.
As for the armies, the men were hardly an army and went to get recompense for the damage from the dragon and repayment for the aid given to the dwarves, which Thorin would have given save that the elves were there as well and Thorin didn't trust the elves' intentions, which was the reason for needing an army from the iron hills, the dwarves, which expected the elves to try and take the mountain from Thorin. So not nearly so simple as being ready to fight to the death for gold. The men were not even there to fight at all, but being all refugees basically and in a poor state for the coming of winter, badly needed the dwarves aid. Thranduil covoted the gold and hoped for easy grab not expecting to fight any army (a vastly different prospect from starting a fight with expected casualties). Further, it should be noted that the elves were not going to fight at all, but rather wait until Thorin got hungry enough to deal with them.
The goblins were the only ones who went with the intent of fighting and killing to claim treasure. Of course, as they and the dragons were nominally servents of morgoth, and thus ancient allies in a way, they possibly had other reasons for not attacking a dragon. Also, being a fearful lot, they were probably less afraid of fighting men and elves and dwarves then the dragon even if expected casualties were exactly the same, much like how a surgery with a 97% chance of survival is vastly preferable to a surgery with a 3% chance of death, even though they are exactly the same thing.
I remember reading in an early 3.5 book (i'm thinking Draconomicon maybe ELHB) an entry describing dragons when they get to so great an age where they become comparable to deities (and one of the reasons most dragons don't worship deities is there not so far from them) however I suppose one is allowed to fluff there adventure however one wants.
I remember reading in an early 3.5 book (i'm thinking Draconomicon maybe ELHB) an entry describing dragons when they get to so great an age where they become comparable to deities (and one of the reasons most dragons don't worship deities is there not so far from them) however I suppose one is allowed to fluff there adventure however one wants.
Yeah more or less. The point I was making is ancient red dragons are ancient red dragons. We can look at what they can do and see what they can do. If the idea is to have a more mundane sort of dragon that isn't city-levelingly awesome, then use a different kind of dragon.
But as is, an ancient red dragon is essentially a death sentence for an army of mundanes or pseudo-mundanes. There's just no reasonable hope of defeating or even driving the darn thing off unless it allows there to be. But that's kind of the point, because it's supposed to be a foe that's beyond mortal men.
And I was using this to contrast the mechanical implications of 5E, where a mob of angry peasants (or undead or whatever) can wreck pretty much anything given the numbers to do so, because 5E's (whack) bounded accuracy mechanics and lack of things like Damage Reduction mean that the world trembling terrors (who are still described as such as well) such as great wyrms, pit fiends, and the like can be taken out by a horde of low level peons.
Whereas in 3.x/PF, that doesn't fly. There comes a point where even if you do have a 5% chance to hit the big bad, you still have no chance of actually hurting them (due to combinations of things like DR, fast healing, immunity, etc). This creates a niche where you absolutely, positively, must have heroes. Trivial summons, animated mooks, and the town militia aren't going to do it.
To be honest, my original point was that simply being a massive creature didn't automatically make one untouchable by the lowly masses simply due to size modifiers.
Now any story I know of with dragons, they are merely creatures, not demigods. I personally have not seen any dnd fluff that counters that (and what I have seen indicates they usually starve once they get so big that catching enough prey to eat in a day takes more than a day to catch.).
"city-levelingly" no demigod untouchableness required for this.
"must have heroes." Those aren't heroes, they are demigods who may or may not be heroic. I support calling them what they are.
I see and since dnd (and pathfinder) is the tale of hero's it definitely lends itself to make the heros (otherwise known as the PC's) feel like there the only ones who can save the kingdom. at least in pathfinder and 3.5 i hadn't thought of that of 5th but now i can see it.
To be honest, I dislike 5th. I've always hated the flat chances, and 5th makes you feel like your character doesn't actually matter even to what you are doing. Why bother even having stats really.
Slightly different from feeling a lack of heroicness. Of course, for me a hero isn't someone more capable than mere men, rather to me a hero is the one who does what needs done because it needs done, regardless of the cost to theirself. Obviously, I've never been a fan of superheros. In fact, I much prefer stories of the young or weak being heroes, doing what their elders should be doing.
so your arguing by definition on the term demigods then? maybe you established why 20th level adventurers get called demigods somewhere and i missed it? This might be a Laynes law situation maybe you should define demigod more precisely because I don't consider 20th level PCs demigods in my games.
"tale of hero"
Really? They've always struck me as tales of people out for themselves, either for their own power and wealth, or to make themselves feel better because they do "good" work, nevermind that they could do much greater good than the fancy adventures they seek.
Frodo is a real hero to me. He acted out of necessity. He didn't go looking for treasure nor dungeons, nor monsters to be defeated. They found him, and rather than run away and leave such things to bigger people, he faced those things, he accepted responsibility for the problems set before him. That is a hero.
This thread is really more for questions for Ashiel so I don't want to get into a debate on (i think) what style does pc's roleplay. probably need to start another thread for that.
I was using this to contrast the mechanical implications of 5E, where a mob of angry peasants (or undead or whatever) can wreck pretty much anything given the numbers to do so, because 5E's (whack) bounded accuracy mechanics and lack of things like Damage Reduction mean that the world trembling terrors (who are still described as such as well) such as great wyrms, pit fiends, and the like can be taken out by a horde of low level peons.
The power level of 5E is definitely much lower than PF, although there is still a limiting factor to the 'hordes of militia' strategy in the form of the number of casualties they're willing (or able) to accept. A town which fights off the dragon on its own probably spends more arming it's militia than the adventurers would have asked for and then won't be in any shape to fight off the trolls next year or the ogres the year after that.
Damage resistances in place of DR and especially immunities change things slightly too in shifting to the 5E paradigm from PF, since the acquisition of magic items is purely in the domain of DM fiat (not that dragons have it, but there are plenty of things which are immune to non-magic weapons).
so your arguing by definition on the term demigods then? maybe you established why 20th level adventurers get called demigods somewhere and i missed it? This might be a Laynes law situation maybe you should define demigod more precisely because I don't consider 20th level PCs demigods in my games.
The numbers say demigod, you just need to understand what the numbers actually mean. When you understand the numbers, no human that has ever lived has been higher than lvl 6, and frankly, lvl 6 is highly unlikely to have ever occurred.
For a much better response than I can write,
read http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-yo ur-expectations-2
If the best humanity can achieve is lvl 5, than lvl 20 if four times better than humanity, therefore, lvl 20 is divine.
I dare you to find someone who can jump 51'.
That always strikes me as a funny thing to say about Frodo.
It's always seemed akin to people admiring Trump's business acumen, like he didn't inherit his father's empire.
Frodo was Bilbo's "son". Of course he did the same things.
wrong place to debate
Honestly, I don't mind debates. Though I feel like this one is more of a semantics issue at this point. :P
4x normal human isn't divine. I'd set the bar at the point that stating them out is pointless.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Dragons
You are forgetting that heroes are lvl 4 or 5. Lvl 10s are myths, lvl 20s are demigods.
RnR can actually handle that, but it is designed to stay within a desired tier range while still providing effectively limitless growth, such as me prefering to hang around the tier of humans doing only what real humans could do (plus magic of course). But because of tier control (such as tier dice), it is easy to make demigods out of dragons and thus require several armies to actually kill one when demigod adventurers aren't around.
I think you give too much credit to them in dnd though. A small army (soldiers would be lvl 2-3, not 1 unless using conscripts) could handle a dragon. It'd be difficult, and the army would take major losses, and the army could lose if the commander was a moron, but the dragon can't just pretend that armies don't exist and are no threat.
The reason adventurers are the ones who kill dragons is more about story conceit (no story if the army comes in and slays the dragon first) and from an in world pov, stopping a dragon is expensive, sometimes more expensive than the losses incurred from the dragon. Also, strategic considerations play a part, perhaps the neighboring nation would love to sweep in and take a province over if the military went to deal with the dragon, or the expected losses would leave the kingdom too weak to withstand the orc hordes, etc.
Having a small army able to kill a dragon does not mean there is no room for needing demigod heroes.
5th is just not up to handling such things in a satisfiable way for folks like you and me.
Well, let's look at the matchup. In the red corner we have 1000 lv 1-3 soldiers(mixed to represent an actual army, so let's say 60% lv1(militia), 30%lv2, 10% lv3(veterans and officers). Various races and classes are represented as well-this is a well-rounded army, so it has races with Darkvision to stay watch at night and so on), controlled remotely by the best generals present in the world.
In the black corner we have a very old black dragon, because black is stylish, and CR 15 is a nice number.
So, what happens? Well, army does it's thing, likely trudging towards the dragon's lair. Meanwhile dragon is flying above the clouds, searching for it's prey. It's stealth and perception modifiers mean that it will be invisible to the army while army would never be able to hide from it.(Noticing the dragon from 200 ft is a DC 51 perception check, while noticing an army from 200 ft is 30+mod of the lowest soldier, which is likely 0.) So our dragon(let's call him Bob) gets a drop on the army. A very literal drop-in the surprise round he folds his wings and drops 200 ft straight downwards in a charge, activating his frightful presence as a free action, and wrecking the day of ~5 poor sods(likely the commanding officers) he gets adjacent to. At this point 95% of the army runs away screaming in terror for 5d6 rounds, because they can only save on a natural 20, and all have fewer than 4 HD. What is left is 50 shaken lv1-3 scrubs who have to roll initiative. Let's be generous here and say that 25 of them win initiative, they have already applied Oil of Magic Weapon to their arrows, their weapons are already drawn, etc. Now they have to roll a natural 20 to hit Bob. 1.25 of them hit him, dealing what, 10 damage at best? That is 4% of Bob's health. Probably more like 2% on average. Then dragon gets it's turn, and wrecks another 5-10 people. Army has no chance.
And that is assuming the dragon is exactly like it is in the bestiary. Make some changes, like put some ranks into UMD, buy a scroll of Greater Invisibility, and army would never even realise what is killing them as the dragon would turn them into sludge by doing strafing runs with it's breath. Use some of the trueasure value the dragon is supposed to have to buy some magical items, and fight gets so unfair it's not even funny.
>Humans are prey and have prey instincts.
I mean, if you ignore the fact that humans have colonised the whole planet, are omnivores(and thus hunt other animals), can take tigers on 1-v-1 with minimal training, have badass endurance abilities that are geared towards chasing their prey, and usually hunt in packs(like true predators), I suppose you could consider humans to be prey. But you would have to ignore quite a lot of things to do that.
This reminds me. What breed of dragons is your favourite?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Labradrake.
Black dragons have always been my favorite. Probably because of Sleeping Beauty.
I apologize in advance if this comment starts a 5 page dissertation on how Maleficent wasn't an actual dragon...
;)
Black dragons have always been my favorite. Probably because of Sleeping Beauty.
I apologize in advance if this comment starts a 5 page dissertation on how Maleficent wasn't an actual dragon...
;)
Hmmm this reminds me, didn't Ashiel run a campaign featuring Maleficent once?
This reminds me. What breed of dragons is your favourite?
Black Dragons actually, though White and Red are probably tied for a very close second, with Blue being probably third favorite. Out of the metallic dragons, probably the bronze dragon, then silver.
While technically not a "true" dragon, I'm also extremely fond of wyverns and have used them as NPCs on many occasions. They are also a great base to use when creating alternative dragons using the half-dragon template (which gives them a pair of forearms which they don't normally have) if you want that kind of classic spell-less dragon with the barbed tail.
I think he does the same thing I do: on any homebrew world I run, you will always find a female Black dragon of any given age, named Maleficent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm this reminds me, didn't Ashiel run a campaign featuring Maleficent once?Black dragons have always been my favorite. Probably because of Sleeping Beauty.
I apologize in advance if this comment starts a 5 page dissertation on how Maleficent wasn't an actual dragon...
;)
I don't remember that I did, but I damn well should. She is just sooooo cool. Look at how awesome she is during the throne room scene!
She's just so...stylish. :o
EDIT: And she's damn sexy. Look at her coy facial expressions. She doesn't even need to show any skin beyond her face and fingertips to be this sexy. XD
EDIT: Also, oddly enough, her body is conspicuously absent when Philip whacked her with the true-striking sword. He looks over the edge and all that's there is some tattered cloth. No body, no dragon, no badass mage. I call shenanigans.
No body, not dead.
And then Disney ruined the character with that stupid Angelina Jolie flick... >:(
While technically not a "true" dragon, I'm also extremely fond of wyverns and have used them as NPCs on many occasions. They are also a great base to use when creating alternative dragons using the half-dragon template (which gives them a pair of forearms which they don't normally have) if you want that kind of classic spell-less dragon with the barbed tail.
i was considering just taking the spells away from true dragons (though perhaps leaving them an SLA or two) and trying to guess at the CR from there. this might work better...
No body, not dead.
Of course, by that logic, the only Disney character who ever died was... Mufasa.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No body, not dead.Of course, by that logic, the only Disney character who ever died was... Mufasa.
Well, I think the thing that makes Maleficent's demise strange is that Philip actually takes the time to look down at the remains and it zooms in on it, and even makes a point of the glowing sword going out, but the body is suspiciously absent.
Which is slightly different from the typical Disney villains where they are shown to be slain but "off screen", such as with Ursula being impaled and going down with the ship, or Clayton's shadow showing he was hanged, or seeing the silhouette of Scar getting torn up by hyenas. It's strikes as something else when a second look is actually taken but the villain is curiously...gone.
The odds of a sequel were slim though since Sleeping Beauty didn't do well at the box office's and led to Disney not making any more "fantasy" themed movies for quite a while.
i was considering just taking the spells away from true dragons (though perhaps leaving them an SLA or two) and trying to guess at the CR from there. this might work better...While technically not a "true" dragon, I'm also extremely fond of wyverns and have used them as NPCs on many occasions. They are also a great base to use when creating alternative dragons using the half-dragon template (which gives them a pair of forearms which they don't normally have) if you want that kind of classic spell-less dragon with the barbed tail.
You might like the revised half-dragon template I was working on for my friends' Wyrmspire campaign. It scales better than the regular half-dragon template (it's not nuke-tastic on low-CR foes and the breath weapon is usable frequently and scales with their total HD/level). It's less front-loaded with ability scores and such, and if you advance them as a half-dragon (similar to advancing them in a class) then you assume the CR adjustment into their advancement.
Other creatures that can be fun to turn into "dragons" are hydras. They tend to be very sluggish by comparisons to traditional dragons (the run and fly very slowly) but they're pretty flavorful and are already giant reptile-like monsters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This reminds me. What breed of dragons is your favourite?
Green. It gets woodland stride, hide in plain sight in the woods, is amphibious and can see through foliage like it's not there. With some minor to moderate investment in stealth related things you have a 40ft ninja stalking you through the bayou with casting power and can just hit and run through the trees like they are not there. And then dive under water if things are getting dicey. Or dart up through the foliage and out of sight. And thats without getting into exotic locales.
A giant tree lair it's stuffed an infinite water bottle who's name I forget inside so it spews water out of the knotholes and such, creating a surrounding half sunken forest region to rule over.
And then Disney ruined the character with that stupid Angelina Jolie flick... >:(
I thought the angelina jolie film was awesome, all except a couple scenes in the fearie realm. Of course I've always loved villains who were turned bad but weren't really, or simply did bad rather than being somehow naturally, completely, and utterly evil.
But since I only saw handful of scenes from the original and mostly know the character from Kingdom Hearts, that might color my perspective a bit.
>>I mean, if you ignore the fact that humans have
>colonised the whole planet,
>are omnivores(and thus hunt other animals),
>can take tigers on 1-v-1 with minimal training,
>have badass endurance abilities that are geared towards chasing their prey,
>and usually hunt in packs(like true predators),
I suppose you could consider humans to be prey. But you would have to ignore quite a lot of things to do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually humans are adapted for endurance hunting. We can literally run down prey by following them for extended periods of time. Our ability to sweat, our posture, and our ability to carry water and such with us can allow us to run down animals who are better evolved for sprinting by simply out enduring them.
There have been cases of Indians who have slain tigers simply to protect their children/grandchildren, etc. A knife is enough to kill one of them, but most tigers are ambush hunters and attack from behind whenever possible. In places like the Sunderbans where tigers hunting villagers is a common problem, they tend to get unarmed and unaware foragers and fishermen.
Humans have been hunting things via means other than "fishing" since before recorded history. Last I checked, we're responsible for the extinction of at least a few other animals, including some larger than us, because we hunted them out.
As to the colonization part, we're at the top of the food chain. That's not to say that we don't get eaten by wild animals who are often bigger and stronger than we are (such as bears or tigers) but we also have our means of elevating ourselves like a web-spinning spider elevates itself when otherwise challenged.
And yes, pack-hunting is a traditional method for hunting worldwide. Having multiple hunters driving prey into traps, surrounding prey, baiting/feinting prey, or simply overpowering them with greater numbers has been a thing humans have been doing for ages and still do today. Humans also have demonstrated an amazing ability to integrate other species into their hunting routines, domesticating and breeding animals to join their hunting packs (such as hunting hounds).
My uncle routinely hunts bear. He and his friends go out in groups, with hounds that have been raised and trained to assist in hunting bear (they're tenacious lil' f***ers, and they surround and intimidate). They hunt them with guns, bows, etc. These are pack tactics. These are trap tactics. These are, without a doubt, predatory tactics. These are not fishing. :P
Humans are at the top because of our intellect, not our instincts. There is a massive difference there. The length of time humans have been hunting is a blink in the eye of evolution. More, our hunting via intellect means there was never a real need to develop predatory instincts, and humans don't have predatory instincts. Just cause we can do something, doesn't mean our instincts support it. In fact, my opinion is that the thing separating humans from animals is our ability to rise above our instincts (now if only more people would actually do so).
How do we rise above instincts we don't have? Humans are able to rise above classical conditioning but we're not unaffected. We're at the top due to intellect but if we had no instinct to hunt, why would we do it in the first place?
There is clearly a biological reward there or we wouldn't have sport hunters and what not. There is a clear rush that occurs when chasing down and hunting, there's a reward when operating in a group aggressively. It's very easy to get wrapped up in a group mentality for us, and to strike out, it's why mob justice and mass hysteria are a thing. Not everyone is affected in a given circumstance, but anyone can be affected under the right ones.
Endurance is not somehow about hunting. It can be used for hunting, but it isn't specific to hunting. Endurance is just as handy for running away, or migrating, or ranging long distances each day (very important for gathering things other than grass and leaves, such as berries, or scavanging carcasses).
Sweating is all around useful in hot environments regardless of hunting or not.
Posture is good for travel, watching for predators, seeing over tall grasses, and particularly important is for advanced tool use. Plenty of reasons for our posture to develop.
Intellect is far better suited to developing tactics of any sort, offensive or defensive, than instincts. In fact many top predators learn tactics rather than using instincts, then again, so do prey. Thus tactics, especially modern ones, are not evidence of being predators.
Put simply, if we prey upon, we are predators. That's pretty irrefutable.
As to endurance being good for running away, not really. It's pretty crappy for running away because a predator only needs to sprint and get you, which is why most of the quadrupedal preys have evolved to sprint ever faster to get away. Being able to run for five miles without stopping to take a break doesn't do you any good when the lioness got you in the first ten yards.
But those sprinting animals lack endurance so they can keep sprinting away, and do, but it fails, because they just keep coming. They just don't get tired and give up. They just keep going, and going, and going. Lurching ever forward relentlessly. Like the undeaaaaaaddd.... >:3
"Put simply, if we prey upon, we are predators. That's pretty irrefutable."
Doesn't mean we have predator instincts though. Our intellect allowed us to become predators, nothing else, most certainly not instinct.
It is believed humans started scavenging. Well, if you survive an attack by killing your attacker, a scavenger would obviously scavenge the body. A smart scavenger might go "Hey, if we kill animals, then we have more reliable access to dead bodies to scavenge." No predatory instincts required.
Also, being smart enough to utilize defensive tactics, especially with tools, can negate the predator's ability to catch you in the first 10 yards and turn into a long running exercise of predator vs prey, whoever tires first loses. When I said run away, I was meaning a more general activity of escaping the predator not literal only running.
Define predatory instincts?
Instincts are built-in activities that can be, and usually are, acted upon without concious decision and without training or experience. A bird prevented from opening it's wings till adulthood can still fly without practice because it is instinct. Predatory instincts are therefore instincts specifically related to activities that separate predators from non-predators.
For example, dogs, when something runs away, they give chase automatically. Humans don't. Human only give chase if they specifically want or were focused on the thing that ran away.
We can also see this in hunters. Predatory instincts would be to hunt prey down the old fashioned way, up close and personal, not from half a mile away like tech allows us to in modern times.
Predators also crave fresh kill. Humans are usually sickened by it unless acclimated. I.E. a dog raised on kibble encountering fresh roadkill investigates, they are attracted to it. A human isn't attracted and generally is grossed out by it.
Predators are usually more confident in handling uncomfortable circumstances and pain. Humans need a strong will or training to say the same. So much so, that the us military uses small caliber rifles because it takes two out of the fight, the injured and someone to help. The rare cases of warriors that keep fighting when injured are feared greatly by people amd generally become legends because that is unusual. Predators on the other hand are built to take a little pain in the struggle of catching prey and handle it much better, hence dogs crying in pain only when the pain is very severe.
Humans also generally prefer direct confrontationm because human instinct about confrontation is built around social confrontation and defense against predators. In social confrontation, it is not the desire to kill but rather dominate, and in defense against predators it is desirable to scare/hurt them to avoid things reaching the point of death. Both of which are better served by direct confrontation. Predators are far better served by indirect confrontations, letting the prey know you are there is bad for hunting, thus direct confrontation is usually avoided, and is usually done only when the predator is very hungry. Humans have no instinct for indirect confrontation, that is why we look down so much on such tactics and call them "underhanded" and "evil," and why such tactics work so well against the general populace, because folks are not instinctually familiar with those sorts of tactics.
Predators aren't comfortable with pain. They often attempt to minimize the risk to themselves. A cat will attempt to throw mice in the air to stun and disorient them to avoid being bitten before going for the kill. Hence the "playing with their food." Since any injury in the wild risks infection and can slow them down and such, getting hurt is a serious impediment. Hence why predators almost always are opportunistic. Also much of these skills are learned behavior, developed through playing with their fellow kittens.
Also, dogs can be trained not to chase, so even they can overcome instinct if need be. It's not quite innate to them, least most of them, but it's doable for them too. Some know somethings are fine to chase, others are not. Not every dog chases cars. Tends to be specific breeds that do that. Also they are scavengers, hence their interest in decaying stuff. Most predators don't want non fresh kills.
The reason animals in general don't make noise when hurt is because to show weakness and illness is to advertise vulnerability to other predators who may take advantage of it. This is all animals generally. Most only make noise when distressed when young, to call out to parents. Domesticated animals are the main exceptions, but they often have those elements too. Cats in distress will often get quiet and hide away. It's why you need to check them for signs of illness.
And many humans avoid confrontation. A lot. The instinct is to avoid going against the grain of ones chosen group. You often lie to avoid confrontation. You avoid certain words and topics because you want to avoid confrontations. And you avoid counterarguments with superiors to avoid the consequences of such may bring. Group think is a huge hazard because of this instinct, probably derived of small tribe instinct. One that we fall into oh so very easily. Society has changed faster than our instincts have, and from these stem many problems.
We call indirect confrontation underhanded because of emotional reasons. Nobody likes to be deceived or to lose or to be wrong. So you demonize whatever is causing this unhappiness. And this is a very subjective measurement, determined from person to person. Usually we set up rules to avoid this in areas we can all agree on, but rules have loopholes and not everyone respects the rules anyways.
In any case, one could argue there isn't less an instinct or reward for hunting just because the tools changed. And animals often use tools themselves. It's been proven animal intelligence is far underestimated overall by people. They are way more intelligent than most people understand. In any case, it doesn't matter how we get the kill, the reward is from success, not from any specific performance in the act. The thrill is there regardless of means.
Anyways going back to instincts, A predator has predator instincts because it's a carni/omnivore. If it isn't, it doesn't. Most omnivores are capable of being predators. They do whatever provides the most benefit. Logically, we have Omnivore instincts then. Which includes the instinct to predate on others. I mean if we didn't, we'd be an herbivore who decided to murder things for reasons. If it seems we lack predatory instinct, consider environment. When was the last time you had to hunt or you'd starve? Probably not very often. We live a primarily sedentary lifestyle that doesn't need to because we have made our prey stand about and take no need to hunt. So we override the instinct. It probably isn't as powerful as a carnivore, simply because we aren't solely reliant on animals for nutrition. But if we're meant to be scavengers, our biology is totally lacking for it. We can't handle raw meat, and we have a repulsion from roadkill. A scavenger cares about sanitation but they aren't repulsed by the possibility of decay.
Also as for why fresh kills and road kills repulse us? Simple. Disease. We instinctively recoil from things that we recognize might be diseased. We can't tolerate raw meat much, we've evolved to handle cooked food. And food thats been on the ground and run over and probably decaying? Major disease thing. Same reason most people get sick at the idea of waste, and why some things smell foul to us. Also indicates we were not built for scavenging.
Poison is also something we deal with instinctively but that part is fully automated in the Heuristics. Most entirely new foods will set your body on high alert. You'll probably not like it much unless it reminds your body of something similar and safe. Repeated exposure without harm will eventually make it more palatable each time. This is to protect you from possibly poisonous food. It's why you can train to like a food you hate through repeated exposure.
This works backwards too. If you like a really good food and get sick from it, your body will probably panic and you'll start to find it less desirable. You'll have to start over. It's a good reason not to eat in the car if you get motion sickness. Negative heuristics take priority over positive ones.
> I never said predators were comfortable with pain. I said they were more confident in dealing with it. Prey need to struggle against a predator only a handful of times in their lives, if they are lucky enough to survive. A predator has to risk it multiple times for every meal. Yeah, a predator avoids injury, but tthey also are at a much higher risk for it and need to deal with it far more often than prey.
> Trained being the keyword here. But even training generally runs on instincts. Many instincts can end up contradicting each other, and thus a resolution to that is required. Mix that with learning and memory, and you have the trainable quality.
> I just made an example is all. A less than stellar one apparently.
> Humans avoid confrontation only once a social order is established. Most people settle for a lower spot on the pole rather easily (though most feel strongly against admitting it. Seems no one finds it a comfortable thing to admit to). However, people do fight all the time over social order, dominance, and submission, though it isn't always physical, especially in the post-industrial world.
> Emotional reasons. Exactly my point. Emotional responses are affected by instinct. Sometimes quite strongly. Your assertion of demonizing certain tactics as underhanded due to hating losing is invalid. If losing was all it took to demonize a tactic, we would never see any tactics as honorable in general, and instead there would be a far greater social pressure to use the tactics most likely to win, which would be the more lethal and "underhanded" tactics currently eschewed as evil/wrong/bad.
> "instinct or reward for hunting just because the tools changed" Depends on the tools. If the tools remove the elements that make a hunt a hunt, such as removing the chase or the pounce, then yeah it would, but tools that make the chase easier, or the pounce more effective, with those kinds of tools then you would be right.
"the reward is from success" Exactly, but being rewarded for success is a different instinct completely from hunting instincts. In fact, the success instinct can apply to most of the things we do.
"animal intelligence" Intelligence has rather little effect on instinct except perhaps the ability to shift association. I.E. the example about birds knowing how to fly once developed, regardless of practice or lack there-of.
> You assume instincts not only as fast as biological features (could go either way) but also that instincts always reflect current features like diet. This is not always the case. Humans evolved from primate herbivores, to scavengers, to omnivores (current theory anyway). However, our ability to hunt effectively is entirely based on our intellect, thus at no point in the process was there ever a need for us to develop predator instincts, and eben if there were, we are very new to the predator thing and already the general populace doesn't partake. If we had predator instincts, why don't we seek out being able to chase and pounce prey?
"I mean if we didn't, we'd be an herbivore who decided to murder things for reasons." Any particular reason this isn't likely? With using more and more tools, and finding more uses for the remains of dead animals, there are plenty of reasons to take up hunting even without the need for food. Herbivores murdering for a fur coat to stay warm, fat to burn, tendons to make an axe or any number of multipart tools, stuff to make glue, feed the dogs, etc. The list goes on.
"We can't handle raw meat," it doesn't take long to change things like this. If I recall certain african tribes still eat raw meat (and drink the blood). Japanese regularly eat raw eggs and raw fish.
> "Also as for why fresh kills and road kills repulse us?" More like familiarity. Some people do pick up road kill and cook it then eat it. My point was that a dog has the instincts to be attracted to it even without the familiarity of it. Humans need to be familiar with it to eat it. I doubt a human would need to be familiar with berries to be attracted to them, but given the widespread familiarity with those, unlikely to see any example cases, which might just say something on it's own.
Also consider that in some places eating insects is common, but in others it is gross. Again familiarity at play.
>
>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your need to argue just to argue is truly fascinating.
Humans hunt and prey on other animals... And have done so for thousands of years. Therefore, we are predators. Which tactics we use to do it is irrelevant. A spider is no less a predator just because it waits for prey to fall on its web rather tban chasing or ambushing it.
Now, humans, while not "naturally vegetarian" as many vegans claim, aren't particularly adapted for a carnivore diet. If we go by our closest relatives, humans are probably "meant" to be "opportunistic omnivores". We were "meant" to live mostly on a vegetarian diet and complement it with meat (chimpazees, for example, will occasionally kill and eat birds and fish, even though they are mostly vegetarian). Similar behavior can be seen in other apes. So there is an instinct to kill and eat present i those animals... And no reason to believe it's absent in us. Hell! The ability to digest milk is relatively recent, but our bodies still adapted for it... Do you honestly think our meat-eating ancestors could maintain that diet and still have their species never develop any adaptation to be better at it through natural selection?
Humans are both predator and prey, but since our particular branch of evolution is quite overpowered (Intelligence makes us the full casters of nature), we gradually become more predator than prey.
Most humans can't defeat a tiger, since the tiger is bigger, faster, stronger and has claws... Most spiders can't defeat a bird, for similar reasons... But I've seen spiders eating birds who got tangled in their web.
Yeah speaking of those spiders eating birds and animal intelligence...
If you draw up anything that can be perceived as a weapon, animals immediately react. Fearfully. Pick up a stick and watch dogs, who have never been struck, cower. Completely wild animals will have pause when they realize that a human has become "armed".
It's kind of fascinating. :o
On an unrelated note to arming, but related to instinct...
Great white sharks have to learn to hunt seals, which are their main food source and have been for as long as we know. I guess if the only way to be a predator is to innately "know" how to do a thing without learning or practice, then great white sharks are probably the greatest herbivorous failures that have ever existed.