Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:15 am
You got a point there.
This is the home of united werewolf fans across the globe. Searching to improve the image of the werewolf in popular culture, known as... The Pack
https://thepack.network/thepackboard/
I still feel that Werewolves are best seen as 'Humans with Lycanthropy', and therefore, any children they have will be "Humans with Lycanthropy" as well...emphasis on the 'Human'.MoonKit wrote:Depends. If we're talking about werewolves who generally stay in half form, then they should have half form babies. But if they are normally in human form, they should have human form babies and so on.
I still feels to me like the concept of werewolves that are WOLVES that have the ability to transform into Humans, instead of the other way around, is too uncommon to really consider as one of the general standards.Rhuen wrote:As I said before I am for the human is born human wolf born wolf ect... not meaning the state it is in while pregnant but its original state.
...woah...Rhuen wrote:Not so much wolf to man,
But sentient wolves descended from their gods who in order to live amongst humans have had to use magic to assume human like forms.
Is the premise behind the idea.
Got the idea from the Pacific Americans story of the wolf tribe descended from the wolf god turning human to live amongst the other tribes.
For the wolf to human breeds yes. But more like partial gods, like using a more common example. If Hercules had kids (who lived) and they had kids and so forth, a thousand generations down the line.Vuldari wrote:...woah...Rhuen wrote:Not so much wolf to man,
But sentient wolves descended from their gods who in order to live amongst humans have had to use magic to assume human like forms.
Is the premise behind the idea.
Got the idea from the Pacific Americans story of the wolf tribe descended from the wolf god turning human to live amongst the other tribes.
That's pretty 'out there'...
How are sentient Wolves able to take on human form, instead of Ferral Wolves with the same ability not "Wolf to Man"?
...werewolves are wolf demi-gods hunh? ...interesting concept...
I didnt nessecarily mean what form they spent most time it. What I meant was their true form. If we're talking about werewolves who are basically humans who can turn into wolves, then I assume the child would be born a human. If we are talking about more of a fantasy world where the werewolf's true form is in half form and they can turn into human or wolf, then I suspect they would have half form babies. It depends on how you envision werewolves.Vuldari wrote:MoonKit wrote:Depends. If we're talking about werewolves who generally stay in half form, then they should have half form babies. But if they are normally in human form, they should have human form babies and so on.
I don't see how the form they choose to spend more time in would have any effect on how thier children will come out. Would pumping iron and working out all day long every day make the child be born 'ripped'?...
...the physical activity of the mother (including extraordinary activity like shifting) does not have that kind of effect on an unborn child, IMHO and to the best of my knowlage.
This is a very good point. (although worded in bad way:Morkulv wrote:No offence, but its a stupid question.Ofcourse they would be human. Not only does it make more sence, but it also wares down the fantasy/sci-fi element some more.
...which is a completely different question entirely.Rhuen wrote:... not meaning the state it is in while pregnant but its original state.
Vuldari wrote:Rhuen and Moonkit are posting questions and giving answers as if they thinks that everyone else has been imagining the same kinds of "demi-god decendants", "Fantasy Wolf-Were" off the wall stories that they have...(..even though most of us haven't...)
I'm not being mean... ...at least I'm not trying to be...MoonKit wrote:Vuldari wrote:Rhuen and Moonkit are posting questions and giving answers as if they thinks that everyone else has been imagining the same kinds of "demi-god decendants", "Fantasy Wolf-Were" off the wall stories that they have...(..even though most of us haven't...)I was just stating my opinion. I think we've already proved that everyone here has a different definition of werewolves, even if MOST agree on almost everything. I have seen games and species that people have made up where half form is their true form. No one ever said that we couldnt include fantasy werewolves and only had to refer to the traditional ones. Because honestly the traditional ones dont even have to worry about this because traditionally, people are bitten, not born.
So be nice.
Rhuen wrote:and Neoritter you missed the point of my response. I am not FORCING anyone to follow my response. Also the whole wolf tribe thing isn't something I made up, i only expanded on the idea.
When it comes to an imaginary creature, the concept of "norm" and "general" does not exist.
Right off, and I'm sorry Vuldari for doing this but; why are you being such a douche about this. I didn't insert an insult anywhere in my last post. Why the hostility? Don't answer that, its not required. Now, I've had people with far more experience try to pin what my beliefs are. The last one was a pysche major, so don't try. That all aside. I don't quote:"HATE" anything about the subject on werewolves. New stories are very welcome. But in a sense they are just stories where as old myths are supposed sightings, etc. Thats getting off track though. On track now, what I reference is not purely "germanic legend". I got stories from France, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Babylon, Rome that have similar mythical details. Not to mention other regions. I don't even get where you can get off mentioning that I would hate anything to do with werewolves and would biasedly ignore a story, no matter how recently created. One can't arrive at a conclusion by only sampling one group. As for werewolf movies I hate, there is really only one I can honestly say I hate (others I hate based on costume creation, etc), that movie is Underworld. I don't like the werewolves in that movie, nor the vampires that much. And you know what thats my opinion so you can $$$$$$ off commenting on that.If you HATE the idea of NEW ideas being introduced into the werewolf then why do you even bother doing anything but reading the old german legends?
It really does come across that you HATE anything that even slightly strays away from the germanic view of the werewolf legend. Which would mean you should hate every last single werewolf movie, comic book, video game, and literature of all kinds that has come out about the werewolf since the turn of the previous century.
If we look at each and every single myth, word for word, detail for detail. We'd have a billion answers, that would really bear little relevance to the topic at hand.all on this one sentence of yours:
(Since, we should be looking for a general statement):
I can't disagree more. In fact this way of thinking goes completly against my very nature. It defeats the purpose of discussing these ideas. This Poll really doesn't relate to the movie Freeborn as in it they use Werewolves. This poll serves the purpose of expanding on the werewolf and its counterpart the wolfwere (which has very few apperances) and seeing how different people respond to their own preferences and how they INDIVIDUALLY view the idea of wolf to man or man to wolf transforming beings.
Thats because the Zeus figure has been transposed onto the Christian god. Ever ponder at the similarities? I mean, God strikes down sinners with thunderbolts, what does Zeus use?"why you rarely see Zeus in a horror movie. "
Vuldari wrote: neoritter still seems to think that of all the legends and stories around the world, only ONE set of them are valid, and everything else is *&$#...
Which is why I stick to a more common norm when talking about werewolves. Would you have any idea as to what the heck I am talking about if I was only referencing phantom werewolves/lycanthropy?...but if everyone else is talking about traditional Werewolves, and then someone cuts into the middle making suggestions that would only apply to magical Wolfweres...it just seems incredibly odd if they never mention that they are talking about completely different creatures.
OK.Vuldari wrote:I'm not being mean... ...at least I'm not trying to be...MoonKit wrote:Vuldari wrote:Rhuen and Moonkit are posting questions and giving answers as if they thinks that everyone else has been imagining the same kinds of "demi-god decendants", "Fantasy Wolf-Were" off the wall stories that they have...(..even though most of us haven't...)I was just stating my opinion. I think we've already proved that everyone here has a different definition of werewolves, even if MOST agree on almost everything. I have seen games and species that people have made up where half form is their true form. No one ever said that we couldnt include fantasy werewolves and only had to refer to the traditional ones. Because honestly the traditional ones dont even have to worry about this because traditionally, people are bitten, not born.
So be nice.
If one wishes for people to stop accusing them of hating "Everything", it would be advisable to not base very many of thier responses about the different ways they think someone elses ideas may be wrong, or bad, and instead focus more on explaining why they think thier own ideas are Right and Good.neoritter wrote:Right off, and I'm sorry Vuldari for doing this but; why are you being such a douche about this. I didn't insert an insult anywhere in my last post. Why the hostility? Don't answer that, its not required. Now, I've had people with far more experience try to pin what my beliefs are. The last one was a pysche major, so don't try. That all aside. I don't quote:"HATE" anything about the subject on werewolves. New stories are very welcome. But in a sense they are just stories where as old myths are supposed sightings, etc. Thats getting off track though. On track now, what I reference is not purely "germanic legend". I got stories from France, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Babylon, Rome that have similar mythical details. Not to mention other regions. I don't even get where you can get off mentioning that I would hate anything to do with werewolves and would biasedly ignore a story, no matter how recently created. One can't arrive at a conclusion by only sampling one group. As for werewolf movies I hate, there is really only one I can honestly say I hate (others I hate based on costume creation, etc), that movie is Underworld. I don't like the werewolves in that movie, nor the vampires that much. And you know what thats my opinion so you can $$$$$$ off commenting on that.If you HATE the idea of NEW ideas being introduced into the werewolf then why do you even bother doing anything but reading the old german legends?
It really does come across that you HATE anything that even slightly strays away from the germanic view of the werewolf legend. Which would mean you should hate every last single werewolf movie, comic book, video game, and literature of all kinds that has come out about the werewolf since the turn of the previous century.
That's the Spirit!neoritter wrote:...There all valid in their own little way. They are stories after all.
Hostile? You really think so?neoritter wrote:Last, you people make no sense. I got Vuldari and another member PMing me saying I need to be more "nice" when I post, yet Vuldari himself puts a hostile line into his post and Rhuen's first post I reference is obviously hostile. Make up you minds people. You want me targeting the poster more than I target the facts presented, I will. And this can get very ugly. A small example is what I wrote after the third quotation I wrote to. Don't target me and I won't get into targeting you.
See...we all learned something here. Our thoughts are not nearly as syncrhonised as we may sometimes think.Rhuen wrote:I always assumed when one said, born a werewolf or is something other than the traditional form others assumed they meant some other fanatsy creation as those others are not present in the horror form.
when I stated the phrase:
Which form do you like best if it is born a werewolf, to imply its natural state of being rather than being bitten or cursed or otherwise transformed into a werewolf. A question I hadn't noticed may inherently exclude the traditional form (which was not my intention either) Simply meant which is prefered as its natural state of being.
Also My wording of the poll was a little off...I did write it while tired, and as it continued was confused when people thought I meant born as depending on state of the mother's form while pregnant, which caught me way off base.
I can see how that may have been assumed.
What I did mean was, do you prefer the traditional, wolf, or hybrid versions of the human/wolf cross-over type of character.
In fact for "Natural Wolf" one I thought could have thought either a wolf that becomes human because of a spell, demi-god fantasy deal, sentient wolf that turns human, or even a Wolf's Rain type of deal where its an illussion.
I hadn't thought the idea of "its always human first" would be so deeply ingrained as to cloud the question in one's mind.
And thats one of the things I was trying to point out in my last and the one before that post. The common idea that is really indisputable about what a werewolf is; is that they are humans transforming into wolves. Base human secondary wolf. Like you say Vuldari, when you take away that element they aren't werewolves anymore. One could say that a werewolf species developed as an offshoot of humans, because that does not stop them from being of the same genus or stop the common idea of human to wolf. Another common thing that shouldn't be disputed is transformation. If its a half-human half-wolf (sorta "furry") type character its not a werewolf because it lacks the transformation element. Again two common idea are human to wolf, and the ability to transform.Vuldari wrote:The idea of Werewolves not actually being humans at all, but some different species entirely is an idea that I just can't wrap my head around easily. I have to struggle to open my mind wider than usual for such ideas to make sense to me.
"Werewolves are Humans first" IS concretely chiseled into my brain.
If you were to ask me to define "Lycanthropy", I would describe it as a condition of a Human with both fictional and non-fictional manifestations.
...but even if I made a list of 32 different versions of Lycanthropy, I would describe every one as a Human "Condition".
"Lycanthope" as a Species just does not exist in my mind. Once I start thinking of them as a unique species (not Human), I stop thinking of them as "Wewolves" and start thinking of them as "Anthropomorphic" wolves, or some strange other kind of shapeshifting Wolves, like Lupine equivilants to 'Kitsunes'.
But that is what is so FUN about this place...
...hearing all the kinds of ideas that I myself would NEVER have thought of before. Some that I LOVE...and even some that I may not like very much.
Hey now...don't twist my words to mean more than I was saying.neoritter wrote:And thats one of the things I was trying to point out in my last and the one before that post. The common idea that is really indisputable about what a werewolf is; is that they are humans transforming into wolves. Base human secondary wolf. Like you say Vuldari, when you take away that element they aren't werewolves anymore. One could say that a werewolf species developed as an offshoot of humans, because that does not stop them from being of the same genus or stop the common idea of human to wolf. Another common thing that shouldn't be disputed is transformation. If its a half-human half-wolf (sorta "furry") type character its not a werewolf because it lacks the transformation element. Again two common idea are human to wolf, and the ability to transform.Vuldari wrote:The idea of Werewolves not actually being humans at all, but some different species entirely is an idea that I just can't wrap my head around easily. I have to struggle to open my mind wider than usual for such ideas to make sense to me.
"Werewolves are Humans first" IS concretely chiseled into my brain.
If you were to ask me to define "Lycanthropy", I would describe it as a condition of a Human with both fictional and non-fictional manifestations.
...but even if I made a list of 32 different versions of Lycanthropy, I would describe every one as a Human "Condition".
"Lycanthope" as a Species just does not exist in my mind. Once I start thinking of them as a unique species (not Human), I stop thinking of them as "Wewolves" and start thinking of them as "Anthropomorphic" wolves, or some strange other kind of shapeshifting Wolves, like Lupine equivilants to 'Kitsunes'.
But that is what is so FUN about this place...
...hearing all the kinds of ideas that I myself would NEVER have thought of before. Some that I LOVE...and even some that I may not like very much.
Allright, I started this, so I really need to be the one to end it.Rhuen wrote:To end my part on the misunderstanding:
Neoritter: Vuldari is right, it is your habit in many posts I have read by you to others here where you state how their ideas are wrong rather than just giving your own that has given me the impression that you "hate" anything outside the "European" norm for the werewolf.