THE PACK Message Boards

after a bit of extra research I have decided to change the Irish werewolf into the Portugese werewolf. It seems I mixed up my werewolves, the werewolves or ireland fit the same description as the werewolves I had been calling the Welsh werewolves, may need to rename them the British isles werewolves.

These boards have proven very useful for throwing around werewolf ideas.

Actually come to think of it. I can have uber-werewolves that use venom to mutate their victims to become half werewolf thralls like the half vampire servants of vampires too.
Another use for venom.

The bacterial bite of the Irish Werewolf is one thing. But some back ground no use little pup werewolf is boreing.

readers want a super-beast.

Venom can have many uses for werewolves, from killing prey, mutating to create servants, an excuse to make other werewolves, maybe have a werewolf that spits venom to blind giant fire breathing Elk in the Makai world.

One type of monster is boreing. Heck I have at this time at least eight breeds of Werewolves for Europe alone.
Long live magic and its ability to make anything possible.

You need medecine buddy. Extra research my butt. Seven minutes isn't extra research. Thats called listening to me and then saying you went and found it elsewhere.

neoritter wrote:You need medecine buddy. Extra research my butt. Seven minutes isn't extra research. Thats called listening to me and then saying you went and found it elsewhere.

Nope. I make huge documents and forget to check them filled with weirdness that I found.

Plus I have decided your no expert on this and not worth careing about on the subject.

If I want a werewolf with venom I'll have a werewolf with venom.

The whole point of this thread was to gage "multiple peoples" reactions to it. But YOU have scared them off. Now they are likely afraid YOU'LL attack them if they say a positive and that ruins my experiment. People tend to avoid threads where they feel they'll just be attacked.

Scared who away? It seems that the majority said it was a bad idea before I posted anything. Also, you can't say I scared anyone away because no one really added anything to the discussion since I posted. Also, you can't say that these supposedly scared away people would agree with you, you don't know.
All I originally said was "no." But you wanted me to support my opinion. And when I did, you got metaphorically angry and started arguing with me. You wanted my reason; I gave it. Was there really any reason to argue with it? I've given my reasons why it doesn't work, it doesn't work, end of debate.

interesting thought....but i dont think they would have venom...

Rhuen and Neoritter, you two need to get off each others throat, you both stated your oppinion, and thats all to it. Please dont argue anymore for I know how far these things go by personal experience.

I have a bad habit of reacting to "imagined voice tones" something hard to gage in a text only conversation. and arguing from Neoritter's point of view to my point of view was "expanding the thought" so I was taken back when he started to get hostile all of a sudden.

What was comming across to me was "condesention", plus the whole using both folklore and biology at the same time thing bugs the crap out of me in these types of discussions.
Also the scaring people out of a discussion thing was carried over from another forum where two people were getting out right vicious with each other so no one else would participate.

And that's the last I'll say on that then.

"PS: 7:30 pm on here is equal to 3AM in my time apprently. I need to stay out of forums when I am half out of it"


Anyway the origin of this discussion stims from Van Helsing, where the insanity thing was added on for a more realisitic feel. and not intended to reflect on the folklore or any actual biological principles.

I'd buy the "bacteriological toxin/venom" bite theory. We have medical evidence that human bites can be rather nasty (Scott, back me up here). They're in the same league as rats in terms of toxicity, assuming the human never brushes their teeth. I've heard of people getting toxemia in their hands after punching someone's teeth in.

I'm sorry you took what I said as condenscending. You have to know when you claim research into something right after I state it, and also basically ignore my posts that it would be annoying to me, and probably to a number of other people.

Rhuen wrote:Anyway the origin of this discussion stims from Van Helsing, where the insanity thing was added on for a more realisitic feel. and not intended to reflect on the folklore or any actual biological principles.

Now in this respect, I don't think it had to actually do with any real venom. I haven't seen the movie in a bit, but I would venture the insanity or lunacy (a word related to lycanthropy) would stem from the mental trauma of transforming back and forth from human to wolf. I heard this once from a psych major a year or two back and it makes sense. Would you be completely sane if you were transforming into something possibly fake (maybe not in the case of Van Hellsing), and every night went out and possibly killed humans? And again, we could go biological here and reference the probable change in brain cavity size or the construction of the brain. Now I am not a brain surgen or a pyschologist, but I would say that the shifting would cause some form of trauma on a person's mind.

vrikasatma wrote:I'd buy the "bacteriological toxin/venom" bite theory. We have medical evidence that human bites can be rather nasty (Scott, back me up here). They're in the same league as rats in terms of toxicity, assuming the human never brushes their teeth. I've heard of people getting toxemia in their hands after punching someone's teeth in.

That may be true, but I can say that people are not immune to the bacteria that builds up when teeth aren't cleaned. People lose teeth, roots get destroyed, and gums become bloated and puss filled. And bleed when agitated. There aren't that many animals that I know of that lose teeth because they fail to brush, floss, rinse with mouthwash, and require a trip to a dentist every six months.

Well, take a look at old skulls. You find that tooth loss is the rule and perfect teeth is the rare exception. In many parts of the third world...and I include the poorer states, counties and neighbourhoods of America...you find people missing at least some of their teeth.

Part of it's genetic. Some people have naturally great, perfect teeth, most don't. It hasn't been bred out because we've pretty much removed ourselves from at least that type of natural selection. Sure, there's probably a gene mutation that lets you grow teeth back but what are the chances of it coming up? But that's another discussion...

Anyway, according to my dentist, people living longer is a factor. He said he was awestruck by the fact that I'm in my forties, coming from a family history of severe dental problems, and I only have three fillings, and one crown.

To Neoritter. I wasn't completly ignoring your posts. Rather I just kept expanding my thoughts on the subject, which had no direction to them in relation to anyone.

"insert, quikly looked at my documents file of werewolf stuff, with research and you see why/how I did it so quikly"



Now on the topic as it currently stands: tooth loss and decay is rather common for mammals. I fact most big cats in the wild that survive to old age tend to die of starvation due to tooth loss and shortning due to use, when your fangs go blunt you loose you main killining tool.
same happens with elephants as they ware down their mollars. Grass is tougher than teeth and the grains scrape down the teeth over time causing the elephant to loose its mollars and thus its ability to chew its food.
Seems to be one of nature's twisted ways of killing off the elderly.

Okay so animals lose teeth but it occurs towards the end of their life span. Humans can lose teeth relatively in their prime.

You forgot sharks. They lose their teeth every so often, but they grow it back no matter what.

I know I know, sharks arent mammals. I just wanted to state that since you said animals.

We're talking about humans though.

Werewolves have no venom its just the wound from the bite that infects very fast

neoritter wrote:Okay so animals lose teeth but it occurs towards the end of their life span. Humans can lose teeth relatively in their prime.

Which has more to do with diet really, you see adult chimps with really bad teeth too, so it could also be great apes related. and if you give your pets a bad diet their teeth and gums can decay just as our's do.
Most animals follow an instinctive diet so tend to eat healthier in the wild, but humans can choose to eat what ever and our teeth suffer for it.

Keep in mind that humans in a state of nature have a lifespan averaging 35 years. It's only in the developed countries where you see longer life expectancies.

So we come to the conclusion, because of the lifestyle of humans, werewolves might lose their teeth around the age of 30?

Werewolves regenerate, albeit rather slowly. Cut off an arm, wait a week or two, there's a new arm. Werewolf after 30 loses a tooth or two, wait a couple weeks, there's a new tooth. The exception I'd give is if the tooth were pried out with a silver implement and the hole cauterized, but if it came out naturally then I would say the werewolf would regenerate the tooth.

vrikasatma wrote:Werewolves regenerate, albeit rather slowly. Cut off an arm, wait a week or two, there's a new arm. Werewolf after 30 loses a tooth or two, wait a couple weeks, there's a new tooth. The exception I'd give is if the tooth were pried out with a silver implement and the hole cauterized, but if it came out naturally then I would say the werewolf would regenerate the tooth.

So werewolves are kinda like sharks. Lose one tooth a billion are waiting?
Why not just call them sharkwolves. Sharks that can turn into wolves.

This is going into the territory of the limb regeneration thread, as to the limits of a Werewolf's ability to regenerate parts of its self.

I"m sorry, I'm still laughing at the already - more or less - nibbled human. That line needs to be used in a book or movie somewhere. it's one of the best I've read.

Okay, okay, venom, natural wolfish LSD and scent marker combined. I like the ideas off the bat, but I don't think I can reconcile them with my own view of a Were. Even though my ideas are heavily influenced by the movies and I know they're are just vampire rip offs and such.

I like the idea of there being two types of weres, one bitten, and the truely rare born ones. I like the idea of the bite being infectious and inducing the were-isim through the victims blood contact with the WW's saliva.

In a sense, that is venom to me. In my little mind, there can't be two venoms in the same mouth.

But the concept is cool - marking a person 'drunk' and trackable. What if the infection that causes the Were gene grows out in the hair and nails? It's much weakened, but can still cause poison-like reactions, much as do other mild poisions like alcahol. Definite scent (wich includes the Were's own body scent and therefore a more specific tracker).

Being a red-headed lass of Irish decent, I'm gonna throw in my two on Irish Weres. Of COURSE there should be Irish weres. It's the land of magical creatures already. The guys would be so sexy!! (Yes, Anthony's Irish).

http://www.irelandseye.com/aarticles/cu ... ewolf.shtm