Comments on: [GUEST POST] Rejecting Creationism: Building Better Monsters Through Evolution by James L. Sutter

By: Gillian B

Gillian B — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:44:40 +0000

That makes so much sense! I knew there was a reason I was proud of the oozes in my world.

Seriously. A dragon of immense size had died on the peak, and petrified, and the adventurers were burrowing through the body. Now the contents of the stomach of this dragon had been sitting there for centuries, so of course they’d become something black and nasty and sentient and eager for new nutrients…

In a similar vein, the wizard’s tower had been abandonned for several centuries, and he’d left the washing up soaking in the sink. When the adventurers approached, this grey ooze reared up from between the dishes and went for them…

By: Alphastream

Alphastream — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:27:41 +0000

Good points! I took this to heart with my recent Ecology of the Vegepygmy article for 4E. There was a fair amount of work done across the editions, but little that really showed how the monsters really worked ecologically. I worked in those aspects into their powers to show how they propagate and their relationship with thornies and russet mold, then wove that into their culture. Similarly, that past with a certain spaceship was woven into their limited religion and even into a companion character so that a campaign could explore these issues further. All of this was based on really enjoying how other designers have worked to explain ecologies in the past. Oh, and the Owlbear is a study in how badly the Flumph has been wronged!

By: Mantar

Mantar — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:18:49 +0000

So, I take it you’re not a fan of the owlbear? Aww, nobody loves owlbear! Heh.

By: James Sutter

James Sutter — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:39:04 +0000

Yes, exactly! When you start following things to their logical conclusions, you end up with a world that’s far weirder, and at the same time more realistic. It’s why I enjoy monster design so much–once you pick a few starting factors, the monster pretty much writes itself!

By: Traveler

Traveler — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:56:47 +0000

Great post.
A friend and me had similar experiences when we designed a D&D world inspiered by legendary Greece. It was a weird experiecne. Whenever we asked ourselves, why would this and that monster be here, i.e. how does it fit into the ecosystem, we came up with some weird (or not so weird) explanations which impacted the way the world worked in the end and even how certain adventure locations were laid out.
Complexity from simple patterns, I guess.

By: Sue CCCP

Sue CCCP — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:42:14 +0000

No, he’s definitely talking about the evolutionary pressures that cause an organism to develop in one way or another. That is why the whales and dolphins still breathe air, even though their ecology would suggest using gills would be a much better idea.

By: Peggy

Peggy — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:27:59 +0000

Yes! I like my monsters to have a bit of biological plausibility.

And if the environment changes (unexpected drought, 100 years of winter), monsters will need to deal with that along with the story’s hero.

By: TW

TW — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:50:32 +0000

I get my ideas like the Master…from bags of cheap plastic “dinosaurs”.

By: Achan hiArusa

Achan hiArusa — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:24:41 +0000

I think you are confusing ecology with evolution. It doesn’t matter how the animal or creature appeared, what matters is what it is doing now.

By: James Sutter

James Sutter — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:16:40 +0000

Wow, that class sounds AWESOME!

By: James Sutter

James Sutter — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:16:07 +0000

Good lord, yes! Those were always my favorite–part of the reason I worked on our “revisited” line for Pathfinder (Classic Monsters Revisited, Dungeon Denizens Revisited, Misfit Monsters Revisited, etc.).

By: Paul (@princejvstin)

Paul (@princejvstin) — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:25:21 +0000

Thanks, James.

I can tell you were a fan of the “Ecology of the…” articles in Dragon Magazine back in the day, weren’t you?

By: Deborah J. Ross

Deborah J. Ross — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:57:59 +0000

Great post, thank you! I’ve gone about it both ways: monsters/villainous thingies that stem from the creation myths of a fantasy world; and aliens/weird thingies with a solid foundation in the ecology of their planet.

This reminds me of a final exam in embryology a few years before I took the course. Depicted were a Venusian, a Martian, and a Jovian. Each had bilateral symmetry with 5 appendages on each side, appropriate to the environment (although those were stereotyped according to the guidelines established by pulp fiction of the 30s). The task was to describe their ontogeny and the key concept was that they had a common ancestor and had evolved in swamp, desert, gas clouds.