/mg/ - Monster Girls

Main monster girl board

Mode: Reply
Name
Subject
Message

Max message length: 20000

Files

Max file size: 30.00 MB

Max files: 4

E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules

[ Return / Catalog / Bottom ]

(959.74 KB 975x667 sistema-naturae.png)
(546.01 KB 2565x778 MGE taxonomy in 1 pic.png)
(49.08 KB MGE taxonomy.pdf)
Rethinking taxonomy from MGE Anonymous 02/15/2024 (Thu) 06:38:03 No. 7909
Ages ago I wrote down all the classification in MGE and came to the conclusion that the whole system is… putting it lightly: shit. Back then I thought a little how to fix it but didn't came up with any decent system. Now I think I have a better shot. Since I'm kinda like the scientists before Darwin, I can only classify monsters based on gut feeling and physical similarities, because a detailed history of all monsters isn't described anywhere. Though KC probably thought about the "science" even less than I did. Regardless, here's what I came up with First category: Heavenly Earthly Within Heavenly there's: Holy (all the good angels and alike) and Fallen (all demon, imps, etc). I'm going with "all demons are just fallen angels" approach. Though you can also interpret it as demons being just creatures on the same level as angels. Within Earthly there's >Magical -Elemental (Gnome, Undine, etc) -Enchanted/cursed (Cursed Sword, Doll) –Undead >Non-magical -pure –land creatures –sea creatures –air creatures -hybrids (Manticore, Griffon) –land creatures –sea creatures –air creatures So for example Zombie would be Earthly -Magical –Cursed —Undead Harpy would be Earthly -Non-magical –Pure —Air creature Demon would be Heavenly -Fallen I'm planning to add more detailed categories later (like limb count, whether they have fur, feathers or bare skin, etc), but first I want some feedback on those most fundamental categories. Is there any monster that clearly doesn't fit anywhere and breaks the system? Are there ambiguous monsters? Do you have better ideas for categories?
>>7909 sounds not much better desu. it would mean that both centaurs and arachne would both be in the same category. and beegirls, werebats and harpies also in the same
>>7914 >sounds not much better desu. it would mean that both centaurs and arachne would both be in the same category. and beegirls, werebats and harpies also in the same >"I'm planning to add more detailed categories later" C'mon man
>>7916 yes i get that but i don't see the point of splitting them up first into categories of land/air/sea and only then later mammal/bird/insect. it'd be better if it were the other way around in my opinion
>>7936 My idea was that I wanted winged creatures to be in one category, though that was motivated by making a system for my card game. Maybe you're right and it's better to first sort them by mammal, reptile, fish, bug, etc.
(47.44 KB 452x664 new mge.png)
through discussion on /monster/ I/we came up with this so far.

[ Return / Catalog / Top ]
Delete
Report