next »

[SteveLaw]

First of all, let me just point out that I am just using the name "Tooth & Claw" as a kind of shorthand/signposting.  There was a game with this name not very long ago and we were just starting to have fun before the SC just shut it down without warning.  I might have taken over the game given a chance but I wasn’t so I am going to have to start from scratch.  This is partly a "checking for interest" partly an advance advert, but mostly a discussion about the setting.  (I wasn't sure where to post it.)

I'm expecting that some of the original players may be tempted back, so that is why I used the old name as a rallying flag.  I will probably change the name when I'm ready although it is a cool name.

The game is going to be basically anthropomorphic fantasy (animals with human characteristics – i.e. walking on two legs, wearing clothes, talking, using weapons and tools, etc.) - roughly medieval period although we can discuss that as well. 

The first thing I want to discuss though, is the problem of "beasts".  If the animals are sentient then what takes the role of "animals" in the world?  What do we eat?  What do we ride?  What pulls our plows and carriages?  Etc..

There are, I think, two basic approaches:

1) Use reptiles/insects as beasts and make it so that only mammals have "evolved" into anthros.  All other creatures have developed more widely and larger to fill the needs.

2) Use a "side by side" evolutionary model.   As humans exist alongside apes in our world, so we would have, for example, humanoid cats and animal cats.  This is the Pluto/Goofy model. 

Each has various pros and cons I think.  There may also be room for some kind of "compromise" between the two basic types (e.g. as in the Spellsinger books which have beastly reptiles (with some exceptions) but intelligent insects and also include Humans).  Which raises another question - do we include Humans as well as animals?

Please discuss (this aspect in particular, but about the setting in general).

[wiglaf]

Third option would be slavery - anthropomorphic animals being used as beasts of burden, but that would still raise the question of what kind of meat do we eat?

If reptiles are beasts than poor Cornelius really will be made into soup.

Hrrrdrat

[SteveLaw]

Slavery is an interesting area, and could be included in either option - I expect there will be some slavery in some parts of the world - but it's not quite as impressive riding a horse-man piggy-back (no pun intended) as riding a dinosaur (or even just a horse)!   (I have visions of Monty Python and the Holy Grail )

And yes, poor Cornelius. 

I think reptiles and insects could make pretty interesting and diverse characters.  Note: This was an exception in the Spellsinger books - reptiles were animals except turtles et al. (one of the central characters was a turtle wizard).  No real explanation was given (as far as I remember) and while it didn't really spoil the setting, it did leave a tiny niggle.

[Aleksev]

How much do you care whether the setting makes sense or is consistent?
Option 2 would be the simplist, but might not be as interesting as option 1 in my opinion.

[SteveLaw]

How much do you care whether the setting makes sense or is consistent?

"Makes sense" is something of a relative term, but I would prefer "internally consistent" if possible.  It doesn't have to be scientifically explained, or make sense from our world-view (i.e. "realism" is pretty much foresaken anyway given the basic premise), as long as it makes sense with itself.

Funnily enough I find 1) the simplest and 2) the most interesting (2 raises all sorts of moralistic/ethical questions that I'm not sure we will want to get bogged down with).  Although 1 does lend a more obviously "fantastical" flavour to the world.

[Aleksev]

Really? I thought that 2 would just be like any old fantasy setting except all the "races" where actually animals, perhaps I've misunderstood?

[SteveLaw]

Yes, kind of, but imagine if the only animals in our world are other primates.  Wouldn't that complicate things? 

Would an anthropomorphic chicken eat chicken?  Would an anthropomorphic cat eat an animal mouse?  How would the anthropomorphic mice feel about that?

Perhaps I am projecting too much?

[Aleksev]

I had seen that as more of an issue in Option 1, with intelligent cats eating intelligent mice. I think they'd be more worried about that, but if the smart animals felt a strong connection with their not-so-smart cousins then they probably wouldn't be that happy about that either.

[SteveLaw]

I had seen that as more of an issue in Option 1, with intelligent cats eating intelligent mice.

Ah, sorry, that's my fault then for not making it more explicit.  In Option 1 meat would be from reptiles/insects.  There may be a "connoisseur" black-market for such things, but generally it would be considered more or less cannibalism to eat other sentient beings.

[Aleksev]

Option 1 seems to be the more complicated option by far then.
Not only would you have to decide what freakish lizard/bug monstrosity was replacing every mammal that was being "evolved", all the evolved carnivorous mammals would be losing a key part of what made them them in our world: hunting and eating other mammals.

[SteveLaw]

The whole problem with examining the evolution argument is that it would probably start to unravel the entire anthropomorphic genre.   But if we did, wouldn't hunting a great variety of reptiles and insects have produced the same (or close enough to fudge) sorts of natural selections and niche filling mutations?

I do think that 2 makes more "sense" (and allows more diversity of player characters).  But with that we should probably also allow Humans, which further complicates matters. Or does it?

Oh, and what about birds?  Which side of food fence should they be on?

[wiglaf]

Oh, and what about birds?  Which side of food fence should they be on?

If it tastes like chicken it's non-sentient, if it doesn't taste like chicken then it is sentient.

[SteveLaw]

 

[Aleksev]

The whole problem with examining the evolution argument is that it would probably start to unravel the entire anthropomorphic genre.   But if we did, wouldn't hunting a great variety of reptiles and insects have produced the same (or close enough to fudge) sorts of natural selections and niche filling mutations?

No. :p But you're right, trying to look at this genre scientifically is just stupid.

But with that we should probably also allow Humans, which further complicates matters. Or does it?

It's probably highly cliche, but if you want to have Humans in this sort of story then perhaps have them as the "enemy" that causes the eclectic group of animal characters to work together?

Oh, and what about birds?  Which side of food fence should they be on?

Clearly birds should be flying over the fence

[SteveLaw]

Clearly birds should be flying over the fence

Singling out chickens again then.  And penguins.