Quote from: Ratman_tf;1123813People have suggested this to BoxCrayonTales many times, in other threads. He seems to be more interested in "deconstructing" D&D.

Why waste time deconstructing D&D when we still don't know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123799https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_egg

In any event, IIRC in D&D basilisks reproduce "normally" so the whole story about the cock egg is irrelevant. My point is that D&D's taxonomy of the basilisk is arbitrary. In other settings, like Warcraft, they're beasts.

The only reason I can think of why they're typed as [monstrosity] or whatever is 1) they don't exist in real life, which is an arbitrary distinction that makes no sense for a fantasy planet unrelated to Earth, and 2) you don't want druids to wild shape into them or charm animal them, which is defied anyway by the [beast] type including flying snakes, tressym, and cranium rats by RAW.

A "Cock egg" may be a thing, but not relevant to the basilisk, since that involves a toad egg. As to the cockatrice -- that one involves being hatched from a cockerel's "egg" (quote from Wikipedia). Not the same thing as that clever name for a pullet egg.*

I agree with you that the taxonomical categories of D&D are essentially utterly arbitrary -- and for me un-fun for that reason. I still find the argument that "basilisks are natural" to be unconvincing, but I personally don't need to be convinced.

* Edit: did I get that reversed previously? This one is correct.

Quote from: Bren;1123809Have you consider using  a different system and setting?

All the time. Mythras Classic Fantasy, Trudvang, Mazes & Minotaurs, etc. I just like using D&D as a common point of reference.

Quote from: Bren;1123809They are animals, not hybrids. They appear to be hybrids because the creators have chosen to create and depict the animals in those fictional worlds as a combination of earthly creatures, possibly with more arms, legs, or fins than the earthly models and we, the audience are familiar with our own real world animals. I never got the impression watching the show that a polar-bear-dog was created by someone in the fictional world who magically or scientifically combined the DNA of two existent creatures i.e. of polar bears and dogs. The animals in those settings arbitrarily mix earthly species and classes and arbitrarily vary whether they are quadropeds and or hexapods.

So, despite being hybrids of real world animals, you define them as not being hybrids. Fair enough. What defines whether something is a hybrid or not? How does it come into existence? Does it matter how it came into existence? Why would that cause it to be classified by the in-game laws of physics as something other than the same category as its components? Where do animals even come from in the first place? The gods? Spontaneous generation? Morphic fields? Something else? If the god or process that created all the animals created eagles, lions, and griffins, (for example) then why or why wouldn't the griffin be a hybrid by your line of reasoning? Why should this change if something else is responsible for the creation?

Quote from: Bren;1123809D&D, as written, is a kitchen sink setting that has grown by accretion over decades. As a system/setting it values inclusion over consistency. You can't get a consistent categorization for D&D because any such categorization will have new objects (monsters, races, items, deities) added from outside the current categorization, thereby invalidating the schema. You can select a subset of D&D creatures and develop a consistent categorization for that subset, but you can't include all the creatures written up in the system.

Quote from: Bren;1123809The supposed characteristics of medieval creatures aren't particularly logical, they like any mythology are a-logical and fairly arbitrary. Like the D&D setting they grow by accretion. D&D seems arbitrary because it isn't focused on setting consistency. It is much more focused on kitchen sink inclusion. A system/setting can include virtually everything or it can be highly consistent. It can't be both.

D&D is based primarily on Indo-European sources, so it shouldn't be impossible to create a scheme that encompasses those sources. Academia has no problem categorizing these things: comparative mythology shows us that the apparent differences between mythologies aren't as extreme as we might think, since our mythology is united by our shared humanity. By contrast, D&D is far more arbitrary and inconsistent than any real mythology or academic analysis thereof.

Quote from: Bren;1123809The supposed characteristics of medieval creatures aren't particularly logical, they like any mythology are a-logical and fairly arbitrary.

In a purely literal sense, yes these creatures are quite fantastical and that's what I like about them. That is unrelated to how the taxonomy works. The medieval authentic taxonomy is outdated, sure, but it is a hell of a lot better than the D&D taxonomy.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1123813People have suggested this to BoxCrayonTales many times, in other threads. He seems to be more interested in "deconstructing" D&D.

An apt way of putting it. It helps that I was a biology student, so I know what I'm talking about when I say that the D&D taxonomy is broken.

Quote from: Zalman;1123817A "Cock egg" may be a thing, but not relevant to the basilisk, since that involves a toad egg. As to the cockatrice -- that one involves being hatched from a cockerel's "egg" (quote from Wikipedia). Not the same thing as that clever name for a pullet egg.*

I agree with you that the taxonomical categories of D&D are essentially utterly arbitrary -- and for me un-fun for that reason. I still find the argument that "basilisks are natural" to be unconvincing, but I personally don't need to be convinced.

* Edit: did I get that reversed previously? This one is correct.

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm curious as to the underlying reasoning behind your position. Basilisks don't exist, so this is purely a thought experiment about the world building of a fantasy setting.

Why are basilisks unnatural? What is natural? What decides that?

Is it because they don't exist in reality, on our Earth? Why is Earth relevant to Fantasyland? Snaiad isn't real but that doesn't make it an unnatural abomination, does it?

Is it because they can petrify with their gaze? Anybody who knows the right spell can do the same, and that doesn't make casters unnatural abominations, does it? Why is the basilisk different?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123822I'm not trying to convince you. I'm curious as to the underlying reasoning behind your position. Basilisks don't exist, so this is purely a thought experiment about the world building of a fantasy setting.

Why are basilisks unnatural? What is natural? What decides that?

The difference between your position and mine is that you are arguing that what's "natural" is relative to the setting, and not a word we can evaluate based on our own real life perspective. I think your use of the word in this way makes that word meaningless -- the bane of all relativism really.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123820An apt way of putting it. It helps that I was a biology student, so I know what I'm talking about when I say that the D&D taxonomy is broken.

That's no weighty claim. I can go audit a biology course at a community college and them claim to be a biology student.

I agree that forcing every monster to fall into one of a set of exclusive categories is illogical and counterproductive. It's another example of an attempt to impose an unneeded symmetry on the game. Though while they make the systematist in me wince, the real problems are they make things more complex than necessary, and they definitely answer questions I want to leave to the DM's discretion.

On the other hand, I also think it's self-evident that types are useful, particularly when it comes to spells. And that it's best to have types listed in each monster entry, instead of in lists that need to be constantly updated.

I think reverting back to first principles is a good start. What's the purpose of types? To interact with game specific game mechanics. So I don't want to start by trying to classify every monster into a group, and then trying to exhaustively define every possible group. Instead start with the categories demanded by game mechanics -- for instance, it's useful to know what's affected by charm person and hold animal. Then look at each of those cases, and decide if the category needs to be broadened, or further defined -- for instance, I might need a general "evil spirits" category, if I want clerics to turn demons as well as just undead. It's also possible to use types to exclude, for instance telepathy normally might work on any creature with intelligence above a certain level, but I can carve out an exception with an alien mind descriptor, for creatures that think in ways too alien to comprehend. I'll end up with a manageable list of overlapping and non-exclusive types that address what you need in the game, not a rigid hierarchy. Then slap the appropriate ones on each monster entry.

That's the base, but one of my favorite aspects of AD&D 1st edition's mythology was the ambiguity. Are guardian daemons from the FF a type of daemon, in the MM2 sense, or is the name just a coincidence? Or what's the difference between a major and a minor demon? The terms weren't applied until the MM2, and the original MM had at least 3 different ways to break demons into lesser and greater classes. By focusing on providing everything the DM needs to run the game at the game, I already leave room for the DM to make judgment calls about the less pressing questions, instead of answering those questions with game mechanical certainty before they're asked.

But I'd like to add even more uncertainty. One option is to build some ambiguity into the descriptors themselves. For instance, have a dragon type, and a dragon-kin type. A red dragon is a dragon, a hydra is a dragon-kin. Assume by default that a dragon slaying sword only affects dragons, but give the DM a list of things they can tweak for their campaign, including allowing dragonslayer swords to affect dragon-kin as well. And this doesn't have to be purely binary -- maybe the swords work on hydras to a lesser degree, or some swords affect both but are weaker in general. The reason for the default assumption is to ensure there's a pre-packaged answer in place for DMs who don't want to make that call, and it should always be the most restrictive answer because it's easier for a DM to allow new possibilities than to exclude things that are part of the expected baseline.

Another way to do this is to allow descriptors to be uncertain. For instance, is the shadow undead? AD&D says yes, but the B/X monster entry doesn't mention anything, and they're missing from the list of undead. To emulate that ambiguity, apply a conditional: perhaps [maybe undead]. Come up with several different adjectives, implying different degrees of likelihood or certainty; and again have a default answer for each: Maybe should default to no, but probably defaults to yes. That encourages the DM to do world-building in the realm of the descriptors, without requiring them to make a decision every time.

Quote from: Zalman;1123823The difference between your position and mine is that you are arguing that what's "natural" is relative to the setting, and not a word we can evaluate based on our own real life perspective. I think your use of the word in this way makes that word meaningless -- the bane of all relativism really.

How are you defining it, then? Why is the basilisk unnatural and what does being "unnatural" mean in this context? Is it a meaningful distinction to make in the first place? Why?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1123828That's no weighty claim. I can go audit a biology course at a community college and them claim to be a biology student.

I wasn't trying to be weighty. If you know even a bit of popsci about taxonomy then you should be able to notice flaws in D&D's taxonomy.

Quote from: Pat;1123836I think reverting back to first principles is a good start. What's the purpose of types? To interact with game specific game mechanics. So I don't want to start by trying to classify every monster into a group, and then trying to exhaustively define every possible group. Instead start with the categories demanded by game mechanics -- for instance, it's useful to know what's affected by charm person and hold animal. Then look at each of those cases, and decide if the category needs to be broadened, or further defined -- for instance, I might need a general "evil spirits" category, if I want clerics to turn demons as well as just undead. It's also possible to use types to exclude, for instance telepathy normally might work on any creature with intelligence above a certain level, but I can carve out an exception with an alien mind descriptor, for creatures that think in ways too alien to comprehend. I'll end up with a manageable list of overlapping and non-exclusive types that address what you need in the game, not a rigid hierarchy. Then slap the appropriate ones on each monster entry.

At this point you seem to be conflating the types mechanic with the abilities and traits section of the statblock. Which I would use as a justification to discard the type mechanic entirely and just have everything run off the traits section of the statblock.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123838At this point you seem to be conflating the types mechanic with the abilities and traits section of the statblock. Which I would use as a justification to discard the type mechanic entirely and just have everything run off the traits section of the statblock.

I'm not conflating anything, I'm talking about general principles.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123799https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_egg

In other words, Cock's Eggs are real things (they're just not called that anymore); putting this more into the realm of superstition akin to spilled salt (and I suspect deriving from spoiled/rotting eggs drawing in various critters that carry diseases... thus, throw it away over your house's roof/a sufficient distance).

The existence of other period terms like dwarf egg, witch egg and wind egg (i.e. all things which were seen as infertile/sterile) suggests "cock's egg" is more a colorful turn of phrase akin to "tits on a boar hog" rather than something actually believed to be true.

But this also highlights the problem with your position; you say "basilisks should just be beasts, not monstrosities" but haven't bothered to actually read the 5e definition of a monstrosity; a beast with notable supernatural abilities that don't fit cleanly into other categories. It's not a beast because normal beast can't kill/petrify people with their gaze.

Dragons aren't monstrosities because D&D has always ascribed a special nature to dragons (it fits cleanly into its own category); they aren't just big lizards that breathe fire, they're almost the embodiment of supernatural power second only to the gods complete with nigh immortal lifespans and colossal intellects.

But that's irrelevant to your complaint, which can be fundamentally boiled down to "they aren't doing it the way I want them to."

It's just a rehash of your "I think D&D shouldn't have so many unique monsters because ogres and trolls and giants are basically different names for the same folklore creature" pitch with a fresh coat of paint.

Just because it isn't what you want it to be doesn't mean the system used doesn't make sense. My purely mechanical "taxonomy" works perfectly in my game.

Unicorns are primal beasts; kin to the spirits of the natural world. But if, in your world, you want unicorns to be the steeds of gods then you just flip the tag from primal to astral and you're done. If you want all wolves to be supernatural creatures of darkness then flip the tag from natural to shadow. If your rats of your world are all intelligent and able to perform fine manipulation then change them from tiny natural beasts to tiny natural hybrids (or even humanoids if they're primarily bipedal as well).

And my setting does use those names you call "all the same" to make distinctions clear. Giants are primal humanoids, Ogres are natural humanoids. Natural creatures generally follow natural laws like the square-cube law and not being able breathe fire. Magic in the setting is essentially imposing the physics of other realms onto the natural world; the other origins correspond to those realms.

Ogres are big, but big in the sense of a tiger, and are still flesh and blood (their size is also why they're carnivores; it's easier to hit their caloric needs with a meat diet). A fire giant can be anywhere from ogre-sized to the size of an elephant or even a whale and yet still move like a man, have molten blood and can breathe fire because the physics of the primal realm they are connected to allows it.

Wyverns aren't dragons because their abilities are those that natural creatures could have (albeit pushing the upper limits for the largest horse-sized varieties, the smaller species, particularly the eagle-sized forest wyvern fall easily within the laws of physics).

Dragons, by contrast, have to be primal in my setting because they break so many natural physical laws; not least of which is they're as big or bigger than giants and yet can fly.

I'm getting off topic, but my point is; I have an entirely consistent taxonomy system in my setting that fits with its lore, but you've complained about it not meeting your standards and that standard seems to literally be just "how I personally want it done."

Quote from: Chris24601;1123850Natural creatures generally follow natural laws like the square-cube law and not being able breathe fire.

Not to distract too much from hierarchical taxonomy mechanics but I dislike when people evoke the square-cube law.

Quote from: Shasarak;1123854Not to distract too much from hierarchical taxonomy mechanics but I dislike when people evoke the square-cube law.

Why?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123820So, despite being hybrids of real world animals, you define them as not being hybrids. Fair enough. What defines whether something is a hybrid or not?
It would need to be some combination  How does it come into existence? Does it matter how it came into existence? Why would that cause it to be classified by the in-game laws of physics as something other than the same category as its components? Where do animals even come from in the first place? The gods? Spontaneous generation? Morphic fields? Something else? If the god or process that created all the animals created eagles, lions, and griffins, (for example) then why or why wouldn't the griffin be a hybrid by your line of reasoning? Why should this change if something else is responsible for the creation?

OK. Let me try to explain this again. The creatures in AtLAB are not hybrids since they are not, so far as we see in the show itself, the result of hybridization.

As for what hybrids are, the definition of hybrid works fine so long as we specify that the reproduction is something that happens in game rather than as just some sort of short hand to describe what the creature looks like.

Spoiler

A hybrid is the offspring resulting from combining the qualities of two organisms of different breeds, varieties, species or genera through sexual reproduction.[/quote]

So, hybrids are a combination by two organisms of different breeds, varieties, species, or genera through sexual reproduction in setting. While what we see on shows like AtLAB are described in shorthand as a combination of two or more creatures, creatures that may also include additional legs, arms, or wings, something like a six-legged turtlehopper (a made up exemplar) are not described as the result of sexual reproduction between a turtle and a rabbit.

Personally, I see little need to include many hybrid creatures in game settings. Where I have, they come from one of two sources.

(1) Chaotic features or manifestations of being touched or tainted by Chaos and genesis or hybridization by certain Chaos creatures, e.g. the reproduction by Broos in Glorantha.

(2) Humanoid inter-species births, e.g. half-elves in Tolkienesque fantasy or human-Vulcan and other hybrids in Star Trek. I'm not enamored of this trope, but when I include it, I do so either because the canonical source material already has included it or accommodate a player who really wants to a PC who is a hybrid. In campaigns I've run, I've had more cultural hybrids (the classical 'raised by wolves' of Romulus, Remus, Mowgli, or Tarzan) than genetic hybrids,

QuoteD&D is based primarily on Indo-European sources, so it shouldn't be impossible to create a scheme that encompasses those sources.

If you restricted the materials to a selected subset of creatures based on Indo-European sources, you could reach general agreement. (Real world scholars don't have a universal consensus.) But if you keep the kitchen sink, you won't get a coherent, consistent, all-encompassing schema that most GMs will accept.

QuoteIn a purely literal sense, yes these creatures are quite fantastical and that's what I like about them. That is unrelated to how the taxonomy works. The medieval authentic taxonomy is outdated, sure, but it is a hell of a lot better than the D&D taxonomy.

It's not better, you just happen to like the medieval listing. I, on the other hand, utterly loathe medieval creature descriptions finding some of them barely tolerable in Pendragon (a setting I like quite a bit overall) only so long as I can add Celtic faerie types and don't try to include most of the medieval creatures.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123820An apt way of putting it. It helps that I was a biology student, so I know what I'm talking about when I say that the D&D taxonomy is broken.

I've got 30 years of software development experience, most of it object-oriented.  You only think you've seen taxonomy problems.

You can't fairly ding a thing for taxonomy problems if the problems you are dinging it for are completely outside of what it is designed to do.  Biology is kind of an odd appeal to experience from my perspective, since biology has all kinds of edge cases where its own taxonomy starts to blur.  But it isn't intended to be perfectly logical.  It's jut meant to get a handle on things as a starting point.  D&D is the same way, except that it deals with a much wider range of possibilities than biology does purely in the natural world.

Quote from: Bren;1123862Why?

Mainly because of the amount of people that dont use it properly.

For example a Giant in DnD is not a Human that has been increased to giant size.