Now that the submission deadline has passed and the question won't distract the contestants...
What makes a monster appropriate for Nar-Voth, as opposed to Sekamina or Orv? What sort of general ideas apply to each region of the Darklands for monsters?
Contestants should probably avoid this thread as it could easily slip into commenting on your entries and get you DQ'ed!
Must be able to survive prolonged periods underground/away from sunlight/the bloody underdark! <that last one should be read "must be able to survive the bloody underdark!">
That said, in my mind, everything "Under-darkian" is +1 or +2 CR from normal (see Drow compared to Elves, Duergar compared to Dwarves, etc. Though Pathfinder did better by getting rid of CR adjustment to class by race stuff, etc.).
Nar-Voth is the "upper" level though, so that may not apply.
Looking at the actual Pathfinder Wiki entry, it has such varied terrain I could see almost anything could have a niche.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the monsters don't get much direct sun exposure, they need darkness-enabled features. I'd like to see something involving spores, or those bioluminescent bacteria, like angler-fish have. Something different than your standard "it has darkvision" response. Not everything should be able to see in the dark. I also like the monsters that have tremor-sense, echolocation, or other work-arounds for the darkness condition. It just feels more organic to me. So I hope we get some monsters with those alternative qualities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine it isn't just a physical thing, but a social/organizational thing. Nar-Vothian creatures are more likely to have some interaction with the surface cultures- such as predators who hide away and stalk their victims at night; boogeymen that are used as tales to frighten children into good behavior.
When I think of Narvothian creatures, I think of things like the Derro, the Darkfolk. Creatures that exist in a sort of transitional phase between light and dark, as opposed to being chiefly one or the other.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can recommend the setting book 'Into the Darklands' for this.
That was one of the things I bought for my brother along with the first two 'second darkness' AP's a few years back. Gave him the 'gift of gaming' for him and his university flatnates. He studied environmental sciences back then so we had a lot of discussion as to monster ecology. Vestigial eyes were discussed, changes in pigmentation, skin translucency, bioluminescence, the kinds of micro-organisms that formed the lowest rung on the food chain and the prevailence of scavenging organisms.
Wikipedia has a pretty good list of Cave dwelling critters, and some good links to more info on this. But I'll summarize for those who want a quick starting point.
Underground critters can be divided into Troglofauna and Stygofauna. The former living in dry cave systems and the latter in underground rivers and such.
Keeping the Troglo / Stygo prefix the same (Denoted by X) they are then divided into:
1) X - philes
These complete a large part of their life cycle underground but are exposed enough to surface tunnels to have retained the features to allow them to life on the surface. Many species of chiropteran (Bats) are the classic example of this.
(Due to its proximity and number of accessable surface passages, Nar-voth creatures would largely be this type)
2) X - xenes
These creatures are known as 'cave guests' and can spend a part of their life cycle underground, but they are not adapted to survive their entirely. Hibernating mammals such as bears are an example of this.
(These are the sort of beasties you'd find guarding the surface passageways)
3) X - bites
These are the archetypal subterranian creature and the kind that spends their entire life cycle underground. Usually descended from X-philes, these are the ones like the pale cave salamander or the eyeless cave fish whose lack of exposure to the surface ecology causes them to adapt in weird and wonderful ways.
(classic example of this are the Troglodytes which were once lizardfolk who fled underground and adapted, and this also factors in the various crotters that come up from the lower levels)
(Forgive the spelling and grammar mistakes, as usual I'm typing this on my iphone instead of socializing with real people. I just love monster ecology)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me the most compelling monsters are the one you see fulfilling an ecological niche that makes sense. For Nar-Voth that means fitting into a cavern/cave intensive environment and surviving a whole lot of different predators that infest the region.
I'd make a monster that somehow manipulates or causes predators to ignore it. Parasites that infect other monsters, clever scavengers that have adapted a strategy to use other monsters, ambush predators capable of some sort of sustained period of deprivation that only expend energy when opportunities are created...
Parasites that infect other monsters
From the ecology role I agree, I like creatures to have role in the environment. But, for superstar this may get someone disqualified/down voted as being a template, or worse being considered a trap
Monster Round is my favourate round of the competition.
Given Nar-Voths listed inhabitants.
I'm expecting to see creatures associated with the Derro, Duergar, Troglodytes, Morlocks, Vegepygmies. Drow Fleshwarps are the other thing I predict.
Man O man I cannot wait. Love me some new monsters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping for some weird and wonderful - when you imagine creatures living in the ground, away from sunlight for life, you have to imagine what sort of developments mother nature would give them to survive.
In the same way the fish that have surfaced from the depths of the ocean have exoskeletons and their own form of light, sightless eyes, and so on, carrying that through to the underground...
It would make sense that the creatures are blind, maybe seeingthrough other senses, scent, tremor sense, bat like sonar and so on. Those with eyes would certainly take penalties in any light, even torchlight should hurt them, but those using other senses shouldnt be affected by a light source.
Would they be humanoid, hmmm, maybe, but I also envisage elongated and stretched torsos for squeezing through gaps in the walls. Maybe spiked appendages for clinging to sheer rock walls or even cavern ceilings.
Would they all be carnivorous, well, there would be the predator vs prey thing but what about something that exists on fungus and molds, or something that eats minerals from the very rocks in which it lives.
How would they carve their dens/homes/nests - claws or shovel like hands maybe.
In short, for me, the vote winners in this next round will be the original creep me out entries. I want my Nar Voth to be scarier than spending a night with Count Strahd von Zarovich!
To sort of answer my own question, here are my personal (only partially informed) thoughts...
A Nar-Vothian creature is relatively "shallow" dwelling. They may still have some contact with the surface world, and are more likely to have traits in common with normal surface monsters. They have a lot in common with real-world cave creatures, and would at least have some familiarity to us.
Nar-Voth is described as the "wilderness" of the Darklands, and though there are settlements for the Derro and Duergar and so on, most of it is wild and untamed. Creatures for the most part will not have highly organized societies. Wild, possibly widely-roaming monsters make sense here. Not all areas of Nar-Voth are necessarily connected to each other, so there may be some odd creatures in out of the way places.
Sekamina, on the other hand, is mostly connected, with some larger caverns. It's also described as more "civilized", with a number of organized societies such as the Drow, with their large cities, and the Svirfneblin. Most creatures on this level of the Darklands probably should make sense as part of the world controlled by these civilizations.
Orv is deep, huge, and weird. The vaults are wholly isolated and self-contained ecosystems. Underground deserts, underground jungles, underground forests. These areas were constructed and populated intentionally. Monsters here may tend toward aberrations, having been designed (or mis-designed). There could be "cave" versions of jungle creatures, desert creatures, and so on. They don't have to necessarily have arisen as part of a natural ecosystem, though they should have some way of survival that makes sense.
Anyway, as I said, these are only partially informed thoughts, and if anyone has some different thoughts, it would be cool to hear about them!