PDA

View Full Version : Afflicted Lycanthropes (Or Therianthropes if you want to be technical)



Destro_Yersul
2007-07-22, 03:39 PM
Simple question. Can anyone think of any reason afflicted lycanthropes shouldn't be able to spread lycanthropy? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Jack Mann
2007-07-22, 03:41 PM
To help explain why therianthropes aren't more common.

palindrome
2007-07-22, 04:31 PM
Perhaps because the lycanthrope blood isn't as potent as in someone that has possessed it since birth?
I don't know. I'd just house rule it otherwise.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-07-22, 05:15 PM
Lycanthropy is a magical disease, and therefore works as a curse rather than a biological disease (you don't get it if you share a drink with a werewolf.)

Why it it is only spread by true Lycanthropes is part of the magic of it;
which I'm aware isn't much of an answer but unfortunately it is just sort of that way, just as there isn't a "real" answer for why it is connected to the full moon or mammals.

Kiero
2007-07-22, 06:30 PM
Easily reasoned as something like true lycanthropes, by virtue of genes carry some contagious strain of the disease. Those infected by it, however, take on a weaker one which only afflicts the carrier.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-07-22, 06:36 PM
To help explain why therianthropes aren't more common.This is really the big reason - everything else frames this goal.

Consider your typical movie zombie. One bite and you turn into a zombie... but they're also slow and stupid against humans that typically have some useful resources -- guns, barricades, and so on.

Now consider a D&D lycanthrope. One bite turns you into a lycanthrope. Also, they're stronger than normal people, faster than normal people, and battle against people with typically inferior resources -- pitchforks, torches, and whatever's handy. They're pretty clearly superior to zombies in every way (except in style points, obviously).

Now consider that the zombies often win.

If there weren't something keeping the spread of lycanthropy in check -- and the ridiculous lengths you have to go to to get rid of it certainly don't do the job -- the entire world would be covered in 'thropes by the end of the month.

BrokenButterfly
2007-07-22, 08:38 PM
Why it it is only spread by true Lycanthropes is part of the magic of it;
which I'm aware isn't much of an answer but unfortunately it is just sort of that way, just as there isn't a "real" answer for why it is connected to the full moon or mammals.

Lycanthropy is not just confined to mammals, although it seems that way judging by the examples chosen in the MM. I have a few 2nd Edition Monstrous Compendiums that have the stats for crocodiles, sharks and spiders (among other things). I think it can be applied to any sort of animal or vermin. Oops, after checking the current MM it can only be from the animal category. Guess they must have changed that slightly between editions. So no were-locusts anymore then...

My suggestion for why the afflicted cannot pass on their curse is that they must not have as strong a connection to whatever power creates natural lycanthropes in the first place. The reason that lycanthropy fails to spread like a normal disease is because it is not one, even outside of the definition of a magical disease.

But these are just my own thoughts and speculation, probably more campaign writing than anything else. I think of natural lycanthropy as having a source (probably divine, like Malar), rather than as a condition that springs up out of nowhere.

EDIT: I entirely agree with Merlin's above post too. Although wraiths and shadows are capable of taking over the world, it must have been felt (from a writing point of view), that the increased power of the template meant that a cap had to be provided.
For my own divine theory, the chaos provided by one god's magical "blessing" has to have a cap, to balance the world's pantheon. Too many were-things would swell their creator's power astronomically and upset the gods themselves.

TheElfLord
2007-07-22, 08:52 PM
Oops, after checking the current MM it can only be from the animal category. Guess they must have changed that slightly between editions. So no were-locusts anymore then...


I believe they created the vermin classification for 3.x, so that explains the difference.

And as to the OP i agree its a population control thing.