Talk:Elsepeth

I'm putting this question here because it's a good example, but it's a question that impacts the entire wiki. What's our rule for categorizing things? Specifically, should a page be in:

• a) the lowest-level category possible?

or

• b) should it be in ALL levels of category?

Example: Elsepeth is currently in Category:Demons,Category:Fiend, and Category:Outsider. But shouldn't she also be in Category:Monster and Category:NPC as well (option b)? OR rather, should she ONLY be in Category:Demons (which should actually be Category:Demon, but let's move on for the moment.) Since all Demons are Fiends and all Fiends are Outsiders and all Monsters, Demons is the lowest-level subcategory. (option a) For the record, this (option a) is how wikipedia does it.

What's the difference? you may ask. Well, it impacts how the category pages look, whether Elsepeth appears on the Category:Fiend page, for example. And it impacts how the pages themselves look (which categories appear on the bottom of the page.) While it is kind of nice to see all the Fiends on the category page, it's kind of overwhelming to see all the monsters on the Category:Monster page, isn't it?

(Whether all Monsters are NPCs is another question, by the way. My opinion: no. NPC should be a label applied to specific individuals, which can be in addition to a creature-type. Plains Cat should be a monster, but not an NPC, for example. And if Monster were a subcategory of NPC, it would be. All creature species should however be subset of Monster, which might have to be renamed to Creature or something like that. (lest regular Humans be called Monsters. Which is OK for Vlad Drakov, but kinda weird for Van Richten, no?)

Discuss.... -- Gonzoron 15:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really to provide any answers, but take animals, especially of the (mostly) inoffensive type. Given a druid's relation to them and the existence of spells to summon them, they deserve their own category, not to mention on natural philosophy grounds. Now it indeed does seem strange putting, e.g., the wholly inoffensive Vaasi garter snake under both Monster and Animal, but much less so with a Wolf.

Equally, the Gentleman Caller, may be a monster and he is an instance of an incubbus, but it seems strange to put him, an individual, under monster, whereas it seems right to list him as both a fiend and a demon.

Perhaps there is a question of excess running about here. The monster list is so long, or will become so long, that it is not very useful. Whereas the fiend list will be sufficiently short that it is just convenient to see fiends of all types, without/before exploring them in terms of their alignment/nature.

I'm of the opinion that "monsters" and "NPC's" are mutually exclusive. That is, an individual is an NPC, even if it is of a species (and category) listed under Monster. DeepShadow 03:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but even if an individual doesn't have the Monster category, he/she will still be indirectly under that category if he/she has a monster species category. What I mean is, suppose the Gentleman Caller only has Category:Fiend, Category:NPC, and Category:Demon on his own page. In this case, he will not show up on the Category:Monster page, but if you go to that page and click on Outsider, then Fiend, he'll show up there. So in that sense, he is both an NPC and Monster. If you're saying that he just shouldn't be labelled with Category:Monster, that's reasonable to me. -- Gonzoron 15:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Animals being Monsters, you can thank the Monster Manual for that. :) But Cure raises a good point about the utility of having short lists. The fiend list may be short enough that it would be useful to see them all. But the undead list would almost certainly be too long and confusing if every undead were there.

Also, there's the issue that it's somewhat confusing and jarring (to me at least) to have individuals listed alongside species in a list. I mean am I the only one bothered by this list of "undead" in Category:Undead?

A Azalin Rex C Count Strahd von Zarovich S Skeleton T The Last Mistress

Now imagine that list when all other types of undead are on there, alongside all other undead NPCs. Weird, no?

What do you think of a guideline something like this:

1. The only items in Category:Monster are the "top-level" cetegories Category:Aberration, Animal, Construct, Dragon, Elemental, Fey, Giant, Humanoid, Magical Beast, Monstrous Humanoid, Ooze, Outsider, Plant, Undead, & Vermin. *** Or am I thinking too "3e". Is this categorization still valid in 4e? ***
2. All species are categories, not individual pages.
3. All species categories are grouped into whatever sub-category trees are logical (such as Demons->Fiends->Outsiders or Golems), as well as the correct top-level category
4. Somewhere in the sub-category trees should be all the "Van Richten Monster Categories" (Vampires, Ghosts, etc.) The only one that may be tricky there is Mist Creatures, which doesn't fit cleanly into a top-level category, so it can be just in Category:Monster, I guess.
5. Humans and demihumans naturally fall into Category:Humanoid.
6. Individual NPCs get labelled with their species, and every category above that UP TO THEIR "Van Richten" CATEGORY. That should hopefully keep the lists small and useful. If an individual doesn't have a Van Richten category (like Blackroot), they ONLY get a species category.
7. Individual NPCs that are "augmented" former humanoids get their humanoid category too. (Axrock gets Category:Dwarven Vampire, Vampire, and Dwarf, for example.) Any real weirdo template monstrosities like Venrith Chole would be similar.

How's that for a start? any suggestions? -- Gonzoron 15:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No objections on my part. But I really need to see things like that in action to fully wrap my brain about them.

But I will throw out an example that has been bothering me. The Bad Wind is a unique individual of a species that probably doesn't otherwise exist in Ravenloft. Equally, the probability of a party interacting successfully with him in a non-violent way is approaching zero. This led me to not label him as a NPC and rather label him a monster and a fiend. Was my thinking flawed and how would the Bad Wind fit into your proposal? Thanx. Cure 19:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)cure

Sadly the only way to really see a plan like this in action is to do it.  :) That said, with that search and replace module installed, changing things once they are in place will be easier... or maybe I should say, less crazy time-consuming.

I would say that the violent or non-violent nature of a creature is not an indicator of whether it's an NPC or not. If it's an individual creature, it's an NPC. You won't get much conversation of Aggie, but he's an NPC. Similarly, even if there's only one of a species in Ravenloft, or only one named NPC in that species, they still get a category. Both for consistency and future expansion. If Mistipedia were around pre-Gaz II, we would've had Shadow Dragon as a species category even though Ebb was the only one. Then when Gloom came around, he'd have a box already to fit in.

Anyway, under my proposal, The Bad Wind would be in: Category:eolion, Category:fiend, & Category:NPC. (Things are a bit tricky because Category:eolion would be in Category:Elemental, but I'm not sure if it would be in Category:fiend or not. Clearly Category:Elemental is NOT in Category:Fiend, but I'd have to re-read the CotN:D explanation of what makes a non-outsider a fiend to puzzle that one out.) He would still be a Category:Monster, but indirectly, because he wouldn't have it on his page, but Category:elemental would. -- Gonzoron 21:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, very good. And Deepshadow has added an excellent description of what a fiend is on the Fiend page, which will perhaps spare you the time of consulting CotN:D.Cure 00:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)