Level 10: #5
Chapter: Comic, Level 10 — Speakeasies & Sea Monsters
Rusty & Co.
Monstrous Misadventures! Updated every Wednesday at noon, EST.
Follow Rusty & Co.!
BOOKMARK
Click "Tag Page" to bookmark a page. When you return to the site, click "Goto Tag" to continue where you left off.
Click "Tag Page" to bookmark a page. When you return to the site, click "Goto Tag" to continue where you left off.
I love A-M’s two-panel reaction.
“Ohmygods, she’s gonna rip the boss to shreds! Cool!”
“…oh. She’s just gonna slobber on his shoulder. What a second-rate bear.”
Oh, yeah….
Were-bears are listed as Lawful Good in D&D, aren’t they?
Usually
Neutral Good, according to Google. But they are usually Human. Still not ruling out Druid, “moonshiner” name or not.
Well, the cast page says druid. Could be both depending on ruleset I suppose. I don’t know much about 4e or 5e, but in 3.5 and 3.p racial alignments are generalizations not rules except maybe for outsiders so there’s no reason an ursanthrope can’t fall into a druid compatible alignment if the setting is based on that period of the game.
“Arctanthrope.” Don’t mix Latin and Greek.
That’s generally true, but the whole deal with werecreatures is that the transformation changes their nature. The werebear part of you is Good even if you were previously an Evil humanoid. It’s a curse, after all.
But people can change over time.
*Ursually.
If you were to bear like that, at least bear with it all the were.
I’ve always found it silly that “lycanthropes” (“therianthropes” would be a more accurate term) get an alignment forced on them based on what alignment they are. Especially when many of the alignments don’t make sense based on those animals’ natural characteristics (wolves are pack animals, bears are not).
The interesting thing is that the rules say “this is a reflection of how these animals are perceived, not any innate quality of the animal itself”. Which always made me wonder whether a valid way of dealing with werewolves would be a propaganda campaign convincing people in the area that wolves are actually cute and cuddly, causing all the previously-Chaotic-Evil werewolves in the area to shift to the newly-perceived alignment.
I think that whoever first made the type used the stereotypes of that era. Probably intended to produce them that way.
I assume that determining alignment through public perception comes from survival instinct. People see an animal and feel like they’re in danger, so they classify it as something to be avoided. That said, if you convince people that a Chaotic Evil Werewolf is friendly, they’ll probably figure out pretty quickly that it’s not.
I think a were-creature’s alignment ought to depend on the nature of their lycanthropy (or therianthropy, as I’m hearing for the first time). If they’re cursed and compelled to kill that’s one thing, but if they’re just behaving like animals and trying to meet natural needs, then that’s different. If they retain their personality and consciousness when transforming, then the only way I could see their nature changing is if there’s something about being in an animal body that changes their perception of the world around them.
“That said, if you convince people that a Chaotic Evil Werewolf is friendly, they’ll probably figure out pretty quickly that it’s not.”
Werewolves aren’t exactly common. If there’s like five werewolves in a city of a hundred thousand people, a skilled propaganda campaign can probably convince most of them that werewolves are friendly. Just not the ones who’ve personally interacted with them.
Besides, I don’t even have to convince people that werewolves are friendly. I just have to convince people that wolves are friendly. That’s what the wording says.
Also, it’s not just relevant to propaganda campaigns.
Animal stereotypes already vary quite a bit from culture to culture. Snakes, for example, are often seen as unfailingly evil and treacherous in European culture, but they are viewed more positively in many other cultures, such as India. So would a weresnake be compelled to change alignment upon crossing the border?
I would assume that most actual animals don’t have the capacity for good or evil, so we high and mighty sapient species get to project our own ideals onto them. I also expect that it’s more of a practical perspective than a cultural one. Threatening animals are evil, docile animals are good. A wild wolf can kill you, therefore it’s evil. I’m a rookie to the actual rules though, so I don’t know how sensibly it gets applied in the game.
Then again, we’re reading a comic where the heroes are a rust monster, a mimic, and a gelatinous cube, so preconceptions be damned.
…And bears aren’t wild animals that can kill you?
Fun fact: people in many cultures were so scared of bears that the very word for “bear” became taboo to say, for fear that it might summon one. The English word “bear” is itself an example, having replaced the original Indo-European word in proto-Germanic times. In Slavic languages, not only did the original Indo-European word get replaced with one that means “honey-eater”, but then that word became taboo too and people started using other nicknames (though it wasn’t completely lost from the language and they’re back to using it now).
Not that everyone did this: the Latin and Greek words for “bear” are derived from the original proto-Indo-European word for “bear”… which is believed to have had an etymology along the lines of “destroyer”.
Examining which cultures had the most propensity for referring to bears with euphemisms has led me to the conclusion that there are two types of people: people who are terrified of bears, and people who live in areas where there are no bears.
So now why are they Lawful Good again?
Note, actual, non-were animals are always of Neutral alignment according to the rules, due to their lack of capacity for moral reasoning. It’s only therianthropes that apply the “stereotype = forced alignment” thing. (Well, there’s plenty of other animal-inspired monsters, but they tend to differ from each other in more than just what animal they’re based on, so having their own moral identity is more understandable.)
And yeah, the comic is under no obligation to stick to D&D rules-as-written, but it’s still fun to mock their sillier bits
Oh yeah, werebears defaulting to Lawful Good gets a flat what from me. As does applying animal stereotypes to therianthropes, who should have the same moral flexibility as any sapient being, to force their alignment. But yes, examining the silly rules is good fun.
The idea that all thinking beings have total freedom to choose their nature is a very abstract and modern idea; throughout most of history it was assumed, not without reason even if they tended to take it too far, that a person would always be what their bloodline and birthright caused them to be. Therianthropes in particular represent the ultimate expression of this nature-over-nurture concept. You can choose to be a vegan all you want, but when the lunacy strikes and you change to your wolfen form, you’re going to hunger for meat whether or not you’re consciously bothered by the idea, and you’re probably going to lack the self control to deny a hunger which is so deeply rooted in your very flesh, however accursed and artificial it might be. You can call all this a problematic trope if you want; you can just say that you don’t like this conceptualization of werecreatures. But some of us disagree.. I like this trope specifically because of the nature-not-nurture thing.
They are not “honey-eaters”, they are “honey-knowers”. At least in Russian.
The point of enforcing chaotic evil on werewolves is to reflect the “curse” part of the werewolf who, no matter what his personality is in human shape, is driven to kill innocent people (often the lycanthrope’s own family and friends, since they’re the most likely to be nearby) while in wolf form. Though this version of the werewolf is less popular now that we’ve had several fictions featuring werewolves in control of their acts even in monster form.
Werebears, on the other hand, are good because of Tolkien. Cf. Beorn in The Hobbit.
Yeah, I know that.
It would some make sense if, say, all therianthropes were portrayed as cursed and unable to control their bestial nature. But assigning each animal type an essentially arbitrary alignment based on what legend the author happened to like, but then insisting that those alignments are immutable and all other therianthropes of the same type must be that alignment, is ridiculous. And that’s exactly what the 3.5e rules-as-written do.
Actually, 3.5e does describe all therianthropes as cursed to modify their behavior, it’s just that some of them are cursed to become Lawful Good
Also keep in mind that the “your alignment changes to Chaotic Evil” thing represents more than just you losing control and doing bad stuff while transformed. It means you start acting Chaotic Evil even in human form.
As I remember, in 3.5 only infected characters are forced to change their alignment. Characters who were born as therianthropes have as much freedom in choosing alignment as their base race have.
Lycanthropy specifically refers to werewolves, the Greek word lykos meaning wolf. It’s popular use for all similar creatures came much later but language changes over time. There are many words in English, and other languages, that are also used wrong. Take “Meek” for example. It’s used today as a synonym for weak but the original meaning is quiet strength.
I agree – I’ve been using “therianthropes” for about 15 years (and confusing my players everytime I say it – DOH!).
If you really want to be pedantic, I could also point out that the “were” part of “werewolf” comes from an archaic word meaning “man”, as in, specifically, male. Which means that (A) just saying “weres” as a catch-all term for werebeasts is technically inaccurate, and (B) you’d need a different term for women who turn into wolves (or bears). The proper female equivalent would be “wifewolf” (the word at the time having referred to women in general, not just married ones).
I leave it as an exercise for the reader whether terms that originally referred to human men or women are still applicable to dwarves of that gender.
On the other hand, as one David Prokopetz remarked, the notion of a werebear going on a mindless GOOD rampage is something of a funny image.
“SNAAWWWGGRRLLLYYYAAWWWWRR!”
*weeds gardens, cleans litter, rescues kitties*
Smokey the Werebear
There is a simple reason why werebears turn lawful good. The werebears of D&D are based on Beorn from the Hobbit. For those who don’t remember he was of the shifter race (a bear obviously) and a well know defender. So back in the early days of D&D that made him Lawful. They didn’t originally do good/evil. When it got transferred to AD&D that had good/evil he became Lawful Good & so were all werebears.
I also want to second Vasiliy Siniy that it is the cursed not natural Therantropes that have the alignment change.
The logic for good werebears is three parts Momma Bear protecting-the-weak instinct, one part Smokey the Bear wanting only you to prevent forest fires, and maybe a dash of someone’s beloved childhood teddy bear.
The reason for evil werewolves is much simpler: werewolf myths are horror stories, because medieval Europeans depended heavily on livestock and thus were terrified of the major local predator species.
Which makes zero sense. Making them chaotic good in 2nd ed was a better idea.
Someone was recently observing that Mimic + Stabs + Anti-Maddie was short of muscle. I think now the team is still (usually) short, but it has plenty of muscle (when needed).
…Stabitha seems like the muscle.
Yeah, Tarta seems more like a big teddy bear.
Be glad she’s just hugging you and squeezing you, Mimic, and not also calling you ‘George’.
Who doesn’t like a good bear hug?
That toothy grin on Antimaddie is great.
Mimic can’t bear to see a lady cry.
but he cant see anything.
He’s not blind to the current situation bearing down on him, though.
I took a look at the cast page, and it seems our new druid friend is joining the main supporting cast, the first new ally since Prestige Perkins. I’m hyped
I can’t help notie Y.T. is still listed as an enemy.
This saddens me, after the previous arc.
Yeah. I know it’s to avoid spoilers, but she’s spent a lot more time as an ally than an enemy at this point.
You know, Y.T.’s plight and the current noir genre are making me wonder about the converse. If a character initially introduced as an ally later betrays the protagonists and turns into an enemy, will that character still be permanently listed as an ally on the cast page?
What’s that got to do with sneakers?
I have to imagine so, but that would kind of sting. It would be a reminder of that character’s betrayal. That sits even worse with me than Y.T. and Slobber not being counted as friends.
It says in the FAQ that to avoid spoilers, all characters are listed by their first appearance, even if they end up changing sides. I assume that would apply just as much to an ally-turned-enemy as it does to an enemy-turned-ally.
Can I get an AWWWW, brothers and sisters??
AWWWW
She just needed a (bear)hug!
Yeah, this definitely deserves an
AWWWW
…
I kind of want a hug now too.????
That ???? was supposed to be an emoji. I’m not sure what made that go all weird.
Here’s a hug for you AND the ???? emoji!
Much obliged! ????
So now I want to know how many of the question mark tetrads in the above exchange were emojis getting rejected by the software, and how many were people actually deliberately typing four question marks.
That was two rejected emojis from me. I had to try it again to make sure I wasn’t messing it up somehow.
She’s putting the squeeze on him! It’s not exactly an ‘AWWW’ moment, but more like a moment of ‘AWWW sh*t’. Hence the alt-text.
Huh. Anti-Maddie thought she’d be dangerous like this but it turns out she’s bear-ly a threat.
He’s a sucker for a bear hug.