Alright, I also wanted to get my opinion in without bumping an ancient thread with an offtopic post
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/thpt.gif)
Anyway, I've seen Figarou, among others, say that their idea of a werewolf has pure born werewolves being stronger, more powerful, more contagious, etc. than those who contracted lycanthropy from a bite. While this gives wonderful oppertunity for things like discrimination among werewolves, I can't really say I agree with it. Here's what I'm thinking: a pureborn werewolf would either have a natural instinct for controlling their shifting, or learn how very quickly; a bitten one would have significantly more trouble learning this (I wonder how many studies have shown that younger people learn quicker?), but would still eventually gain the ability. As someone else said, they'd be genetically equal. To add in a little more similarity to Figarou's idea, perhaps a freshly made werewolf would be weaker, having only just gained the new forms. and over time build up the strength of a pureborn werewolf through use of them. Perhaps a werewolf who remained in human form almost constantly would have a very weak gestalt and full wolf form for the same reasons, no matter whether they're pureborn or bitten. Thoughts?