I would argue that it's all relative. A human is a monster to a frog, which is a monster to a dragonfly, which is, in turn, a monster to smaller insects, and so on.
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real monsters are the friends we made along the way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The word itself is too vague to meaningfully discuss what it takes to be one.
It's like asking how many roads must a man walk down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A monster is something you can't talk to, befriend, or form alliances with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're playing evil goblins right now. Humans, dogs, and horses are currently monsters.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I am not sure why the word is still in use in the new edition, it creates a misleading distinction - monsters are just npcs.
The separation of "monsters" and "npcs" caused a weird cognitive effect where for many editions GMs didn't give much thought to the motivations and fears and behaviour of "monsters". This is why it was the norm for a long time (and still generally is the norm) for most "monster" npcs to fight to the death and not have actual goals or motivations. If you give the same thought to the pack of ghouls that you give to the surly innkeeper who is withholding information from the party because their child is being held hostage, you make encountering the ghouls a lot more interesting (most GMs run ghouls as fighting to the death, while if you think about them like npcs who have motivations and goals and fears, they will probably try to knock out a PC and drag them away (because their most basic motivation is they want to eat people) and will flee as soon as the fight gets difficult (because they are intelligent enough to fear death and don't have the courage for a fair fight)).
The reason "Monster" is a confusing word is because the distinction between monster and npc doesn't actually make sense. It does have use "in-character" as being something a character calls whatever they perceive to be a monster.
It also runs into some... sort of problematic territory when you define intelligent beings as monsters - the idea that an entire race of people are defined as monsters gets pretty gross, especially if that definition is in the rules (where it is presented as the objective truth independent of the subjective perceptions of in-universe characters).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason "Monster" is a confusing word is because the distinction between monster and npc doesn't actually make sense. It does have use "in-character" as being something a character calls whatever they perceive to be a monster.
And still... AoN has 2 categories for creatures: monsters and NPCs.
I think monsters are a necessity. If a creature is not a monster, then it deserves proper justice and you can no more kill it without extremely good justifications. Most Pathfinder adventures consider you will kill or dispatch a monster when you find one, not that you will respect demons right to live or bring ghouls to justice. The game would be very different if non lethal damage was the norm.
Also, if you consider that sentient monsters should be treated like humans, then an edict like "Destroy undead" (Pharasma) would be equivalent to "Destroy varisians" or "Destroy babies". But we clearly feel that a divinity with such edicts would be definitely evil. Undeads can be destroyed without a second thought because they are monsters and as such are not comparable to humans.
As a side note, Goblins are in the monsters category from AoN, not in the NPCs one. Proof that the whole debate about goblins being part of the Core Ancestries is a legitimate one.
Ask a Hellknight of the Order of the Pike. I bet they have a very... interesting opinion on what count as monsters
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason "Monster" is a confusing word is because the distinction between monster and npc doesn't actually make sense. It does have use "in-character" as being something a character calls whatever they perceive to be a monster.
And still... AoN has 2 categories for creatures: monsters and NPCs.
I think monsters are a necessity. If a creature is not a monster, then it deserves proper justice and you can no more kill it without extremely good justifications. Most Pathfinder adventures consider you will kill or dispatch a monster when you find one, not that you will respect demons right to live or bring ghouls to justice. The game would be very different if non lethal damage was the norm.
Also, if you consider that sentient monsters should be treated like humans, then an edict like "Destroy undead" (Pharasma) would be equivalent to "Destroy varisians" or "Destroy babies". But we clearly feel that a divinity with such edicts would be definitely evil. Undeads can be destroyed without a second thought because they are monsters and as such are not comparable to humans.
As a side note, Goblins are in the monsters category from AoN, not in the NPCs one. Proof that the whole debate about goblins being part of the Core Ancestries is a legitimate one.
Aasimar and Catfolk and Deep Gnomes are also in the monsters category.
And I don't think you need to categorize things as monsters to kill them. A demon isn't okay to kill because of what category it is in, it is okay to kill because it is actively trying to destroy everything. Thinking of it as an npc rather than separating it out into a "video game enemy" category just means that you give some thought as to why it is where it is and what its objectives are (in the case, it is as simple as it is there because someone summoned it, and its objectives are to cause pain and suffering - but even with such simple motivations and goals it will act differently than just "fight to the death" - if it can cause more pain and suffering by fleeing from the fight or attacking the harmless villagers instead of the PCs that are actually a threat, it will)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monsters are creatures that have absolutely no hope of ever becoming a playable PC ancestry.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I don't think you need to categorize things as monsters to kill them. A demon isn't okay to kill because of what category it is in, it is okay to kill because it is actively trying to destroy everything.
And it is actively trying to destroy everything because it's a demon. As such it's ok to kill it because of what category it is in.
In an AP I'm currently GMing, a devil tries to negociate with the PCs. It's not really agressive as it wants a deal. Still, the whole adventure is blocked unless you accept its deal or kill it. Even if this devil is definitely shaddy, there's not a single evil thing it has done that is described (even the deal is not fully evil) and it's currently bound by a contract he can't fulfill and as such is stuck.
If it was a human, I'm pretty sure the adventure would be over at that stage for many groups. But the fact it's a devil allows the writer to consider that PCs will ultimately kill it if they don't accept the deal because they don't need much reasons to do so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They should have had Bestiary entries for basic humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, halfling, etc. for symmetry, especially as PF2 (dubiously) ditched the doctrine of PC-style NPCs as the norm...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Monster" is a lazy term used to shortcut thinking about your characters as living entities with motivations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Monster" is a lazy term used to shortcut thinking about your characters as living entities with motivations.Or it's one used where their motivations are monstrous.
Sure, but that requires a contextual definition. Humans are monstrous. Even in PF, humans are far and away the most monstrous enemies you might encounter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Monster is what you decide it is.
There aren't actually anything in the game called a monster. There are abberations, outsiders, humans, undead, etc. Any of which could be called monsters by someone else in the game world.
"We did as we were told."
"We just heard you offer the apology for all the monsters of our times, is that correct?"
"Ha-ha-hahahaha-haha..."
Does anyone else think my explanation makes sense? things like dragons and giants are monsters to humans, but from the point of view of small animals like frogs or mice, humans are monsters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone else think my explanation makes sense? things like dragons and giants are monsters to humans, but from the point of view of small animals like frogs or mice, humans are monsters.
To a twelve year old, I'm huge.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone else think my explanation makes sense? things like dragons and giants are monsters to humans, but from the point of view of small animals like frogs or mice, humans are monsters.
I recently visited a museum with dinosaurs, mammoths, cave bears... And I could not help but think "Alright. When my PC fights an Ogre, it is something like this. And that could be an Adult Dragon."
To think a Halfling could defeat those with a Small dagger is ridiculous. And what to say about those who defeat such creatures with only their fists?
But in PF2, we quickly reach the realm of superheroics. So Size does not really matter.
Only Level matters.
Does anyone else think my explanation makes sense? things like dragons and giants are monsters to humans, but from the point of view of small animals like frogs or mice, humans are monsters.Behavior is what determines if a creature is labeled a monster or not. Even if that behavior is the result of base instinct. So, I think that size is immaterial.
It's not about size so much as scariness. Things like frogs and mice in the wild are usually terrified of humans.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I write in the Paizo forums, I tend to say "monster" when I mean a hostile creature that does not use manufactured weapons or armor nor skills associated with civilization, such as Society and Thievery. These creatures are the forefront of my explanations that PCs in PF2 should not fight toe-to-toe with opponents. Since the monsters lack ability to use different tactics, they are outstanding at their built-in tactic and will defeat an equal-level PC who tries the same tactic.
In contrast, Bestiary creatures built like PCs have similar features to the classes they resemble. A Hobgoblin Soldier is essentially a fighter and a Hobgoblin Archer is a simplified ranger. They have many tactics available to them; for example, the Hobgoblin Soldier carries both a bow and a sword and sometimes I give them mounts or other armor and weapons. They are equally good at a particular tactic as the class they resemble. I do not call them "monsters" in the Paizo forums.
For using the name "monster" in my game setting, the definition of monster is a thematic point of my campaign, the Ironfang Invasion adventure path under PF2 rules. The Ironfang Legion, a so-called monster division of the Molthune army, broke away from Molthune and is carving their own nation out of western Nirmathis and Molthune. To the hobgoblins in the Ironfang Legion, the word "monster" reflects their anger that the humans of Isger hate them and the humans of Molthune exploit them. Humans accept dwarves and elves as equals, but not goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, centaurs, spriggans, nor minotaurs. Individual commanders in the Ironfang Legion have tried to recruit the goblin, gnomes, chergl, leshy, catfolk, and orc in my party before learning that they were the opposition, but they never tried to recruit the elf. The Lost Omens World Guide speaks of this in the past, since that adventure path was set during 4717 AR.
Oprak
One of Avistan’s newest nations, Oprak’s nationhood was hard-won by the Ironfang Legion, a hobgoblin army that scourged northern Molthune and southern Nirmathas throughout 4717 ar. Its leader, General Azaersi, first rose to prominence as the commander of one of Molthune’s non-human mercenary companies. She patiently attracted hobgoblins and other monstrous mercenaries to her side, ultimately swelling her troop into an army. When she had taken all the recruits Molthune could offer, she broke with Molthune and led her army into Nirmathas ... <spoiler omitted> ... to establish Oprak as a homeland for hobgoblins and other creatures seen as monsters.