Page 2 of 2

Re: Lone wolf

Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:51 pm
by Volkodlak
well i consider a pack is a very tight group kinda like family and they have a leader(Alpha), but i consider any werewolves who cooperate with each other to be an allys.

In my view you can be friend with whole pack , but you are still just a friend not a pack member so you are lone wolf.

Re: Lone wolf

Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 5:11 pm
by Meeper
Thought dump.

I suppose I'll toss in my version of events, so you all know where I'm coming from in interpreting the pack structure debate. I tend to default to basic definitions (at least as I understand them, I could be wrong), a pack = a family unit, one breeding pair, their offspring, and whatever drifters happen to be accepted. The last point I imagine is the entry point for Terastas's notion of basically all werewolves generally being considered a pack, or "The pack" I guess it would be, but again I'll have to plead ignorance at this point.

In regards to Lovec's criteria of a werewolf who's either chosen a human lifestyle, felt more of a pull toward a human life style, or just never felt a pull to the werewolf lifestyle (whatever a werewolf "lifestyle" may be), I find it difficult to make a case for such an individual being a threat to much of anything that didn't threaten him/her first. Either they're not "werewolfish" enough for their werewolf status to cause problems, or otherwise the situation is well enough in hand that they can settle down and live a basically normal life. I imagine that situation would only be a problem if the loner werewolf's path in life breaks down, and even then, it would likely need first class evidence (like getting caught shapeshifting at work), or a heavy dose of dumb attracting unwanted attention (a disgruntled ex posting revenge materials online maybe?).

From the perspective of a werewolf pack, to UTS' point I'm not sure even a devout werewolf pack member (though perhaps an extremist werewolf nutter) could call that being a loner. But to my point, a loner can still take advantage of social conveniences while remaining a loner, so only the individual in question can really know for sure, or those observers who know how to spot such incognito loners in a crowd.

I had some other things floating around my brain which I'm not sure how to integrate into any of the arguments, but I'll add here as is, relates to my thoughts about dependent and independent loners. I think someone mentioned or alluded to the psychology of the loner who snaps, runs amok with a powerful personal weapon like a gun then suicides, while still deemed dangerous for the tragedy caused to a community they were a part, and empathy ranging wider still to other communities, still contrasts the potentially broader and more persistent danger of a "true loner", who, because they're able to get everything they need regardless, is able to pick and chose to take advantage of society, not out of necessity but convenience, manipulating their way through, let's face it, the pretty much inescapable spread of humans (or in this case werewolves) in liveable areas. Having researched a little, I suppose the line drawn between these dependent and independent loners is a sliding scale, at the furthest reach sitting the proverbial dragon trying to enslave everything to its own ends, or having the potential. The potential may be enough in some minds to take the fight to an otherwise inert werewolf, kill the dragon while it sleeps so to speak.

Ok, brain is addled again, I'll end there. If I made a boo boo or missed anything, I'll try address as and when I can.

The Meeper.