THE PACK Message Boards

I think they should be able to change from birth. Not that a werewolf at a young age would survive the TF.......

I agree, I think they could change from birth. The kid or puppy would I guess be in the form the mother is in.

Lupin wrote:

Excelsia wrote:By 'hormones' I was referring to the ones that rush in during puberty. Sorry bout that. Perhaps I should have said that I prefer the hormone adrenaline as an activator, instead of the puberty hormones.

Ah, I see. I was thinking of the sex hormones more as an enabler than an activator. Kind of like circuit breaker as opposed to a light switch.

I could go either way with the adrenaline hormones. By that I mean this:

-The first time in their life that they encounter a really dangerous or exciting situation will cause them to transform, and thereafter they can transform at will (circuit-breakerish). This, of course, would not include birth (for some good reason which I will think of later).

Or....

-In order to transform they have to get themselves really worked up with lots of adrenaline pumping.


I prefer the first option, though I don't know if it really makes much sense (though I suppose it makes roughly the same amount of sense as the puberty hormone scenario, maybe). I like it better than having them start transforming at puberty. The reason I like it better is because most kids wouldn't have to worry about all the transforming business, but if some kid did in fact encounter a dangerous situation where transforming would be helpful, the ability to transform would at least be present (i.e. kidnapping situation).

Most kids wouldn't have that happen though, and some ceremony would have to occur when they are older that scares the s*** out of them, allowing them thereafter to transform.


Alternatively, instead of allowing the children to transform at will after their first adrenaline-soaked encounter, it could be an emergency only thing, until they reach puberty. In other words, children couldn't transform anytime they wanted, only when they desperately needed too. However, once they hit puberty, they would be able to transform at will (maybe the puberty hormone is like the circuit breaker, maybe adrenaline is like a lightswitch). This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever scientifically, but I like it because at least the kid could change if he needed to, even though he couldn't do it anytime he wanted to.

I believe the previous scenario would be a reasonable compromise between the two schools of thought.


A question to some of you: I have noticed that some of you are opposed to children transforming because you are of the opinion that transforming is somehow a sexual thing. Besides the ripping clothes and nudity, how is transforming even remotely sexual? The transformation itself would hurt like hell, IMO, despite the opinions of some recent werewolf novelists. Giving birth involves nudity...is that sexual?

Also...by what reasoning would child transformations be cartoony?

I'm not arguing or disagreeing...just trying to understand where you are coming from with these thoughts.

Excelsia wrote: A question to some of you: I have noticed that some of you are opposed to children transforming because you are of the opinion that transforming is somehow a sexual thing. Besides the ripping clothes and nudity, how is transforming even remotely sexual? The transformation itself would hurt like hell, IMO, despite the opinions of some recent werewolf novelists. Giving birth involves nudity...is that sexual?

Also...by what reasoning would child transformations be cartoony?

I'm not arguing or disagreeing...just trying to understand where you are coming from with these thoughts.

Some people see lycanthropic transformation to be akin to a kind of violent, hyper-puberty. Others are simply sexually aroused by violent mutations.

As for children transforming being cartoony...
Well, lessseeeee...
In my opinion...
There was Fangpuss from "Fangface," the kid sister from the cartoon series of "Teen Wolf," as well as various episodes of "Scooby Doo."
All of the child werewolves featured in these cartoons were portrayed as being comical, not a serious claw or bone about them, even.
Too many hours of watching these cartoons, coupled with my infamous distaste for small lycanthropes, in general, make me look down on the idea for children turning into wolves on a regular basis.

The problem with being able to change from birth, if we follow the Freeborn ideal of teh Virus "infection".. is that it would cause sever mutations to occur.

Possible resulting in the death of the kid.
Possible resulting in a deformed and disabled kid.

This thought is based on teh very real fact that until a certain age, kids bodies are -still- developing. The hormone trigger ends those changes ( or the end of those changes trigger the hormone reactions not sure which ), thus beginning a new phase in human development. That of a kid into a full adult of teh species.

So I see, with each change, for a child.., it coul dbecome a horrible mess.


NOW, on the flipside of that. Instead of going with suhc a rational mode of thought.., we stick to "movie magic". In that the child is just able to change from birth.

The parents would have a heck of a time hiding it, and the kid woul dhave to be home scooled until a certain age. Thus the socialization process is far more werewolf-culture then human culture. Possible making for future "peer" socialization impossible or in the l=ast very difficult.

IE: Placing a hard-core faithful Muslim, into a Catholic School after he hits about 11-12 or so.

Trinity wrote: So I see, with each change, for a child.., it coul dbecome a horrible mess.

She's right. The top of the skull is not fully closed at birth. Imagine a shift during that time.

eeeeeeeee duck for brains. Imagine that! ;) *hides*

Trinity wrote:eeeeeeeee duck for brains. Imagine that! ;) *hides*

Not duck, pate.

Figarou wrote:

Trinity wrote: So I see, with each change, for a child.., it coul dbecome a horrible mess.

She's right. The top of the skull is not fully closed at birth. Imagine a shift during that time.

IMO, if an adult human could actually handle the transformation from a human into a bipedal, wolf-like creature (seeing as how that's impossible...and don't be optimistic here, it's really not possible at all) then I don't think a child making the TF would be that big of a stretch. To me, it's basically just impossible and slightly more impossible, if that makes any sense.

well here's my 2cents

Instead of little cublits changing into fuzzy cublits, why don't the werechild just minmic wolfish behavior at a young age.
EG: Growling when hungry, infant having psedo-milk teeth and nips while nursing (ouch for brestfeeders). Howling for attention. Growling and baring teeth when anrgy.
So they will have wolfy behavoir that will grow and change over time untill there bodies can handle the phsycal pain of change.

I don't really see why that would occur....it would be really cute, though.

I foresee lots of problems with that, in fact. Wereparents taking their baby with them to the park, and then it starts howling??!!! Would definitely draw a few strange looks.

Excelcia- Have you spent much time around little kids?

It's possible.
I use to do it all the time.
But will be more funny if a couple adopted a werebaby. And this started.

Haha, that would be awesome!

It's just like..."I envy you"

NightStorm wrote: But will be more funny if a couple adopted a werebaby. And this started.

That's what happened with my roleplay character, Mia over at Anubis' roleplay thread.

PariahPoet wrote:Excelcia- Have you spent much time around little kids?

To be honest...I try to avoid them. . Though I've been around my fair share of little kids in my day. Why do you ask?

Actually, a shift with open fontanelles would be easier; it would solve a few anatomic problems. (Ribosomes reading mRNA: "well, that's one down and two hundred million to go!")

A lot of people don't like the idea of kids shifting because of aesthetics; it just doesn't fit with their own images. I'll be the first to admit that children pose all kinds of logistic and philosophical problems in all kinds of venues. They really pop the bubble about my philosophies of self-sufficiency, for instance; they're by design NOT self-sufficient. They undermine the validity of my otherwise sturdy beliefs regarding censorship and freedom, as a young child allowed to do what he or she wants unmonitored is inherantly problematic.

But, kids are part of biology. If we have to come up with a detailed, obsessive-compulsive biological model, we have to factor them in. I used to go with postponing shifting until puberty, a number of years back. (It was a great plot device for my early versions of my novel idea, as an adolescent, to explain why I hadn't shifted until the start of the daydreams.) I later abandoned that premise in favor of shifting even in utero, because I felt the biological model I put together made more sense to me that way.

Still, adolescence does involve physiologic changes, so it's hypothetically still a valid principle.

I'm leaning towards the 'First transformation around puberty' theory myself

Though, maybe young WWs could shift full or partial with very strong emotions. Like when really angry or sad, ect.

When do you think the full moon would start to come into play?

Excelsia wrote:

PariahPoet wrote:Excelcia- Have you spent much time around little kids?

To be honest...I try to avoid them. . Though I've been around my fair share of little kids in my day. Why do you ask?

She asked because you said little kids running around howling would sure get some strange looks. When really, kids already do that, werewolf or not. Little kids are so funny, and so cute when they act like animals.

True...my brother used to act like a duck when he was little. Still, a kid holwing in Winn-Dixie might be a hard thing to ignore. Nonetheless, I see what you mean.

Yeah but a wolf cub howling in Winn-Dixie might draw alot of attention.

I lot of things kids do in public draw alot of attention.
Still it's preparing the body for the big change. Small changes first then the big one.

Scott Gardener wrote:Actually, a shift with open fontanelles would be easier; it would solve a few anatomic problems. (Ribosomes reading mRNA: "well, that's one down and two hundred million to go!")

A lot of people don't like the idea of kids shifting because of aesthetics; it just doesn't fit with their own images. I'll be the first to admit that children pose all kinds of logistic and philosophical problems in all kinds of venues. They really pop the bubble about my philosophies of self-sufficiency, for instance; they're by design NOT self-sufficient. They undermine the validity of my otherwise sturdy beliefs regarding censorship and freedom, as a young child allowed to do what he or she wants unmonitored is inherantly problematic.

But, kids are part of biology. If we have to come up with a detailed, obsessive-compulsive biological model, we have to factor them in. I used to go with postponing shifting until puberty, a number of years back. (It was a great plot device for my early versions of my novel idea, as an adolescent, to explain why I hadn't shifted until the start of the daydreams.) I later abandoned that premise in favor of shifting even in utero, because I felt the biological model I put together made more sense to me that way.

Still, adolescence does involve physiologic changes, so it's hypothetically still a valid principle.

It is more of an aesthetic thing than anything else. If shifting were biological in nature, there would be about as many reasons for each viewpoint as the other, to my thinking. However, I have thought of one way it might work in a don't-shift-until-young-adulthood model.
To imagine this, think about how you might design shapeshifting technology if we had the technological level to do so.
As a basic start, you'd need two patterns: the original human form pattern, and a wolf body form pattern. You'd need a way to store each design and a method to transform between them. I'm just using technology here to help the visualizing process, purely biological shifting would need to follow many of the same basic rules. We assume that the human pattern would come from the human body of the would-be werewolf and the wolf pattern would come from somewhere else (let's not worry about where else for right now).
However, a human pattern that wasn't finished yet, because the human was a kid, would throw a lot of extra problems into the process. The first pattern would have to keep being adjusted for a slightly older kid.
Aging after adulthood was achieved would present a different situation than growing, because that is just wearing out and could more easily happen in both patterns at once, just through the natural course of things. In fact, it might be hard to keep it from happening. Even computer programs wear out eventually.
But the constant adjustment of the growing human pattern would make things much more complex in kid werewolves, and might thwart the transformation altogether.
It is a general rule that problems that would plague us if we created a certain technology would also plague nature herself when a creature exists through biology. For example, a number of the same design problems show up in both airplanes and birds.
Based on these musings, you could say that the virus or whatever-mechanism behind werewolves would find it too difficult to trigger a transformation based on an unstable first pattern. The human pattern would need to become stable first (i.e. the kid would need to reach adult size and stop growing).
In this scenario, you wouldn't have kid werewolves, and the first transformation would not coincide with puberty in most cases. Instead, it would coincide with the later teen years, and happen earlier in girls than in boys. Thus, you'd still have teen werewolves, but only older teens.
This scenario would be easier to believe in if the werewolf's very first transformation is very difficult to trigger, and probably painful, and after that the body adjusts itself in millions of little ways and settles down to being a werewolf.

Jamie wrote: Even computer programs wear out eventually.

I'm not sure what you're talking about there. Computer hardware can wear out. But computer programs themselves don't. Usually a program gets removed from service because the task it does changes.