3
\$\begingroup\$

So we have a tag. I recently asked a question that’s explicitly about Animal Companions, and it strikes me that it may not be obvious that animals should be tagged as Monsters. Is the tag intended to cover them? If so, should the title be broader (e.g. )? If it’s not supposed to include the non-monstrous, should we have an tag or something?

Or should we just call all non-humanoids and just understand that it’s the tag for all such things?

| |
\$\endgroup\$
5
\$\begingroup\$

I believe (though I may be wrong) that the "monsters" name for all non-humanoid creatures is an artefact of early editions of D&D and some of its contemporaries, and so it's stronger in some roleplaying traditions and weaker or non-existent in others. I'm pretty sure that's what our [monsters] tag was supposed to mean, but since we are broader than one roleplaying tradition, it does a poor job at meaning "creatures often encountered as opponents".

I can't think of a good replacement though. Busting out a bunch of specific tags doesn't seem like it would have much search value or help categorise better. What we really need is a better generic term. [opponents]? [opposition]? [antagonists]? [hostiles]? Though they might describe the category a bit better, they've got little to no currency, so askers won't discover and use them.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Juts a couple of points in support of what you say: Holmes D&D explains XP with the quote ""Monsters killed or overcome by magic or wits are worth experience points" and has fixed terms such as wandering monsters. "weaker or non-existent in others" - example: the question in RQ of whether trolls are to be classified as monsters sounds just a bit odd. Well, to the Yelmites they are monstrous demons and are a good choice of bogeymen for a Darra Happan campaign; to the Esrolian matriarchy they are men associated with the darkness rune and a most playable choice for a PC in a Kethaelan campaign. \$\endgroup\$ – Alticamelus Jan 11 '13 at 10:52
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ In D&D monster = opponent. In other games, it has little to no meaning. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk - SE stop being evil Jan 11 '13 at 13:51
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ In 4e, Monster is defined in the compendium as: "A creature controlled by the Dungeon Master. The term is usually used to refer to creatures that are hostile to the adventurers (often including DM-controlled characters). See also adventurer, character, and creature." A human bandit is a "monster". \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Jan 12 '13 at 9:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .