Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Good breed forms for Amazin Mokole?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Good breed forms for Amazin Mokole?

    What are some good non crocodile, caiman, or alligator breed forms for Mokole? I am trying to look past the obvious for options.

    EDIT: Obviously that was meant to be "Amazon." I'm writing this on my phone so mistakes sometimes get through.
    Last edited by Mercurial; 04-13-2017, 04:42 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Mercurial View Post
    What are some good non crocodile, caiman, or alligator breed forms for Mokole? I am trying to look past the obvious for options.
    The largest lizard species is the Green Iguana. That doesn't strike me as particularly wild choice, though. Jesus lizards are weird and interesting (they're the ones capable of running across water thanks to the miracle of surface tension). Turtle shifters are kinda sorta supposed to be dead and gone, I guess, but the Amazon is a big place, and lots of unusual creatures haven't been discovered yet. Maybe some of the Ao still live. If they do, a Mata Mata would make a terrific breed form for such a werebeast. Alternatively, something like a Caecilian shifter would be a very strange and alien thing to run across.
    Last edited by The Laughing Stranger; 04-13-2017, 04:13 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Caecilians aren't reptiles, so they'd be out.
      Last edited by Saur Ops Specialist; 04-13-2017, 05:58 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Saur Ops Specialist View Post
        Caecilians aren't reptiles, so they'd be out.

        Within the context of an animistic universe, I think rigid adherence to modern classification is a bit overrated. Gaia doesn't care what box we put caecilians or worms or dinosaurs in.

        The thing I linked is actually an extinct proto-caecilian... which wasn't a reptile either; but I think it is worth considering.since taxonomic precision matters relatively little WtA and we are talking about were-dragons, some of which get confused for Wyrm-monsters. Lots of far-flung species have ended up under the Mokole banner, after all. If Thylacines can be Garou, why couldn't an Eocaecilia-like monster be a Mokole?
        Last edited by The Laughing Stranger; 04-13-2017, 06:16 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Laughing Stranger View Post


          Within the context of an animistic universe, I think rigid adherence to modern classification is a bit overrated. Gaia doesn't care what box we put caecilians or worms or dinosaurs in.
          They're amphibians. Going further on this train of thought is going to get us back to terrible early excuses of Nagah breathing water because of their being "part eel", in spite of how that just doesn't work out in any way.

          The thing I linked is actually an extinct proto-caecilian... which wasn't a reptile either; but I think it is worth considering.since taxonomic precision matters relatively little WtA and we are talking about were-dragons, some of which get confused for Wyrm-monsters. Lots of far-flung species have ended up under the Mokole banner, after all. If Thylacines can be Garou, why couldn't an Eocaecilia-like monster be a Mokole?
          The Mokole had millions of years to settle on kin, and they were all reptiles, so obviously, it's more substantial a link, much as how their Archid traits come from reptiles. Also, I doubt that W:tA would have had the Bunyip be Garou if it were going off of where it is now. They're rather firmly a product of playing fast and loose even by the standards of the setting, a bit of early installment weirdness that we're not likely to see again.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Saur Ops Specialist View Post
            Caecilians aren't reptiles, so they'd be out.
            We don't know how far the rules can be pushed but remember that their Archid form can draw on amphibian traits. Hell, they can even draw on bird, snake, and amphibian traits.
            Last edited by Mercurial; 04-13-2017, 08:13 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mercurial View Post

              We don't know how far the rules can be pushed but remember that their Archid form can draw on amphibian traits. Hell, they can even draw on bird, snake, and amphibian traits.
              Snakes and birds are under the nominal envelope of reptiles. Amphibians are not. At least when the Bunyip turned into Thylacines, they were still mammals, if not placentals.

              Quite frankly, enough is packed into the Mokole's biological relation space that adding more would be a bit cluttered.
              Last edited by Saur Ops Specialist; 04-13-2017, 09:46 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Saur Ops Specialist View Post

                Snakes and birds are under the nominal envelope of reptiles. Amphibians are not. At least when the Bunyip turned into Thylacines, they were still mammals, if not placentals.
                Now you are stretching your own definitions. Birds are not reptiles. There are significant differences between the two (true flight/patagia, warmblooded/cold, ect). I don't care about that, but it hardly seems sporting to say that birds and reptiles are equivalent but amphibians are completely off the table.

                I doubt having a caecilian were-creature is as problematic or inconsistent as you make it out to be. Maybe such beings are the reason other varnas are capable of manifesting similar amphibious traits... I know that there are significant biological differences between an amphibian and a reptile, but I doubt spirits or Gaia cares about such specifics. A primitive mind could easily overlook the differences between an eel, a caecilian, a legless lizard and a krait. For determining its role in WtA, a creature's 'feel' should be more important, I think, that what genus or even clade it belongs to.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Laughing Stranger View Post

                  Now you are stretching your own definitions. Birds are not reptiles. There are significant differences between the two (true flight/patagia, warmblooded/cold, ect). I don't care about that, but it hardly seems sporting to say that birds and reptiles are equivalent but amphibians are completely off the table.
                  I think you'll find it a major and supported strain of thought that, given avians being dinosaurs, and dinosaurs being lumped in with reptiles, that birds are reptiles. I've been pretty consistently operating under this phylogenic definition for what seems like forever, myself. My forum nickname (Saur Ops -> Sauropsidia, aka Reptile*) should have forewarned you about this outlook.

                  I doubt having a caecilian were-creature is as problematic or inconsistent as you make it out to be. Maybe such beings are the reason other varnas are capable of manifesting similar amphibious traits... I know that there are significant biological differences between an amphibian and a reptile, but I doubt spirits or Gaia cares about such specifics. A primitive mind could easily overlook the differences between an eel, a caecilian, a legless lizard and a krait. For determining its role in WtA, a creature's 'feel' should be more important, I think, that what genus or even clade it belongs to.
                  Well, snakes and anguimorph lizards don't have sensory tentacles on their faces. That's a rather huge and immediately noticeable difference. Venom access in Toxicofera is another one, and given the bent of the Nagah and the venomous lizard varnas of Mokole, it seems to count for an awful lot in the eyes of the spirits.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Just wanted to throw in with Saur Ops on all of this. You can argue about differences between birds and reptiles, but a lot of modern DNA analysis shows crocodilians (and turtles, I did put a link on this forum last year about that study) closer to birds then with snakes or lizards. The similarities have got to the point where many in the scientific community do want to place birds in with reptiles. To toss amphibians in is to toss out the major theme of the mokole being dragons, reptiles, and dinosaurs (which the books have pulled over and over again). Sure they may have a few traits that line up with not so reptilian (gills, granted you could link it to a gas exchange via cloaca like some turtles), but i think that has more of a bend on "dragon" then anything.

                    If you want something not so obvious I'd go with a Tegu as its in the area you want and its convergent evolution with the monitor lizards.

                    also...why would caecilian's be Mokole and not Nagah? If spirits were not nearly as picky as people are posting, wouldnt' they'd lump these long barely limbed amphibians in with the long barely limbed Nagah?
                    Last edited by CeltSPZ; 04-14-2017, 02:00 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      In what way would an archid caecilian not look like a dragon? Get rid of this thing's colorful scales and eyes and coat it in petroleum jelly and bam, that is pretty much what I'd imagine a caecilian warform to look like. Slimy blind dragon monsters.

                      That said, if the idea isn't people's cup of tea, fine, whatever, I get that; I am not gonna put a were-caecilian in my game any time soon. Maybe Nagah would be a better fit, if they were supposed to be anything at all. All I am saying is rejecting an idea out of hand because it doesn't fit modern sensibilities of what it officially means to be a reptile strikes me as silly, especially with a creature already as thematically diverse as the Mokole.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Again, the Nagah have to be venomous. Caecilians never developed that, so they;d be a no-go there, too.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Maybe these caecilians *are* venomous. I don't see why strict adherence to real-world facts is such a sticking point- the real world isn't even WoD. In a setting with werewolves and chupacabras and walking dead, there might just be blind amphibian critters that possess envenomed bites, and maybe they magically turn into people sometimes.

                          Again, maybe not your cup of tea, but hardly the unparalleled biological impossibility that you seem to think it is. Heck, biologically impossible creatures are in the setting- I hardly think coming up with a tweaked species of amphibian is inappropriate.
                          Last edited by The Laughing Stranger; 04-14-2017, 11:25 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Boitatá.
                            Flaming giant serpents protectors of the woods and burner of firestarters.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Laughing Stranger View Post
                              Maybe these caecilians *are* venomous. I don't see why strict adherence to real-world facts is such a sticking point- the real world isn't even WoD. In a setting with werewolves and chupacabras and walking dead, there might just be blind amphibian critters that possess envenomed bites, and maybe they magically turn into people sometimes.
                              Grounding, mostly. The WoD does, in fact, bill itself as "this world but darker", so horse-sized dire wolves, venomous caecilians, and D&D-copied Yama Queens are kind of a drag on that.

                              Again, maybe not your cup of tea, but hardly the unparalleled biological impossibility that you seem to think it is. Heck, biologically impossible creatures are in the setting- I hardly think coming up with a tweaked species of amphibian is inappropriate.
                              Impossible creatures tend to be their own thing and distinctly supernatural, like Thunderwyrms or Chulorviah.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X