Santharian Development

Santharian World Development => The Santharian Bestiary => Topic started by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 03 December 2009, 19:27:53



Title: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 03 December 2009, 19:27:53
Ok - I cleaned this up drastically, mostly with the excess information which didn't really belong here. If you are looking for the 'full' list I had previously, it is here (http://www.santharia.com/dev/index.php/topic,14050.msg177778.html#msg177778) for my future notes once I get to them.



The Mythical (Legendary) Dragons
It is written in ancient passages and spoken of in legends, that there are Dragons of unimaginable power and knowledge, believed to have moulded and shaped the culture of their kin. Their deeds of good or evil are renowned throughout the races, yet the truth of their existence has been lost to the passing of time but not forgotten. Almost every mention of them, be it by word of mouth or written on ancient scrolls, portrays magic, wisdom, knowledge, and superiority over their kind, though this may not necessarily be true for all.

  • Drakona (http://www.santharia.com/bestiary/drakona.htm)
  • Resonance Dragon (http://santharia.com/bestiary/resonance_dragon.htm)
  • Shapechanger Dragon (http://santharia.com/bestiary/shapechanger_dragon.htm)
  • Spirit Dragon (http://santharia.com/bestiary/spirit_dragon.htm)
  • Sunset Dragon (http://santharia.com/bestiary/sunset_dragon.htm)

Legendary Wyrms
  • Lindorm (http://santharia.com/bestiary/lindorm.htm)

The Dragons
Dragons are magnificent and enigmatic creatures of ancient power and profound wisdom, deemed by many to belong to the most noble race in Caelereth. Their complex language and magical ascendancy baffles many who attempt to study them, as they have spent centuries building and perfecting their methodologies. They are respected by their lesser kin and all other races for their knowledge and abilities, having commanded armies of Drakes and other lesser races in past battles. The unity amongst the creatures is nearly unbreakable, despite the individual differences between many of them.


Dragons
  • Blue Drake (http://santharia.com/bestiary/blue_drake.htm)
  • Earth Drake (http://santharia.com/bestiary/earth_drake.htm)
  • Fire Dragon (http://santharia.com/bestiary/fire_dragon.htm) and Fire Drake (http://santharia.com/bestiary/fire_drake.htm)
  • Gold Drake (http://santharia.com/bestiary/gold_dragon.htm)
  • Ice Dragon (http://santharia.com/bestiary/ice_dragon.htm)
  • Ivorine Drake (http://santharia.com/bestiary/ivorine_drake.htm)
  • Sea Dragon (http://santharia.com/bestiary/sea_dragon.htm)
  • Red Drake (http://santharia.com/bestiary/red_drake.htm)
  • Shadow Drake (http://santharia.com/bestiary/shadow_drake.htm)

Wyrms

The Drakes
Unlike their ancient cousins, Drakes are much more of a commonality in Santharia and are considered to be beasts in the Draconic family. They come in three varieties: Wyverns, Wyrms, or Drakes. Each retain some physical aspects their larger and more powerful counterparts, but they lack the speech, power, and literacy which give the Dragons ultimate superiority. The kinship they feel with the Dragons, is reflected in the willingness to do their bidding, rarely acting in defiance against their wishes.

Drakes
  • Demon Drake (http://santharia.com/bestiary/demon_drake.htm)
  • Desert Drake (http://santharia.com/bestiary/desert_drake.htm)
  • Feathered Wyvern (http://santharia.com/bestiary/wyvern_feathered.htm)
  • Frost Dragon (http://santharia.com/bestiary/frost_dragon.htm)
  • Gale Drake (http://santharia.com/bestiary/gale_drake.htm)
  • Horned Dragon (http://santharia.com/bestiary/horned_dragon.htm) and Horned Drake (http://santharia.com/bestiary/horned_drake.htm)
  • Lightning Drake (http://www.santharia.com/dev/index.php/topic,13948.0.html)

Worms
  • Ancythrian Bladeserpent (http://santharia.com/bestiary/bladeserpent_ancythrian.htm)
  • Hydragon Worm (http://santharia.com/bestiary/hydragon.htm)

The Netherdrakes
Whispered legends speak of two varieties of drakes whose origins are believed to be within the Netherworld. The Netherwyrm is a creature whose very existence has long been a subject of debate. What is known of the Netherworld is little, but some dark elven myths claim that creatures the likes of a dragon can be summoned from the dark world of Coor, and likely the very nature of these Netherwyrms is more akin to demonic than actual dragonkind. The Dravilonia is another beast of the Netherworld, but smaller, and is said to have aided the dark folk during the Third Sarvonian War. These drakes were used as mounts for the dark armies and were summoned by powerful clerics of Coor. Like many other creatures said to call the Netherworld their home, the Netherdrakes are not defined by actual fact, but by myth, and their true existence is still debated by scholars.

  • Dravilonia (http://santharia.com/bestiary/dravilonia.htm)
  • Netherwyrm (http://santharia.com/bestiary/netherwyrm_dragon.htm)

The Dracoids
Dracoids are creatures which have drake-like qualities, but do not have any true Draconic blood flowing in their veins. Despite this, many races still attribute them as being descendants of the greater beasts. There are many different varieties scattered throughout the world. People find them intriguing and often attempt to domesticate them in hopes of owning, what many seem to believe, a direct yet small cousin of the Dragons.

  • Drakelet (http://www.santharia.com/dev/index.php/topic,13933.0.html)
  • Eingana Whelp (http://santharia.com/bestiary/eingana_whelp.htm)
  • Falserock Lizard (http://santharia.com/bestiary/falserock_lizard.htm)
  • Skyter (http://santharia.com/bestiary/skyter_dracoid.htm)
  • Vól'aél (http://santharia.com/bestiary/volael_drake.htm)
  • Winterdrake (http://santharia.com/bestiary/winterdrake.htm)


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 04 December 2009, 18:40:10
Ready for opinions, and hope I didn't botch anything too terribly. *hides behind her piles of notes*


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Ta`lia of the Seven Jewels on 04 December 2009, 19:57:37
*cries*

Quote
Falserock Lizard - Needs a spellcheck

How many spellchecks do I need to find all errors??

Don't worry, I'l give it in your hands, then I'm happy again :)

The last four - why not make up a category "Dragons with special abilities/characteristics, or what ever might fit to get all under the heading.

Are all the dragons in the dragon category so sentient and wise as you described them? Then we do have many. Or have they all died in the dragon storm?

Please add a drake: The Norrak, though I do not have more than the overview.

(Norong'sorno drake= Norrak)

It lives on the slopes of the Norong'sorno, say, five peds long, pitch black,  a sly and cankered beast, trying to kill travellers (if there are any) , just because they are there. They like to bath in saline little ponds...

I wonder, in an overview, could there be mentioned drakes without entry, but with a future in mind?

And yes, there are already more drakes in the Rahaz-Dath as I thought!


The categorisation looks fine to me, but I have spent not much thoughts about it, so there might be holes. Question: Do we need to write up/list  all those dragons without entry?


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Altario Shialt-eck-Gorrin on 04 December 2009, 22:42:35
Hmmm..... wonderin if that unentried black dragon entry could be reserved as a Doom Dragon?  Black dragon is sooo pedestrian. :D


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Azhira Styralias on 05 December 2009, 02:20:20
Nice job here, Kali!  :clap:

Goodness! We have more dragon varieties than we do canines! And, where did those others come from? Black, Copper, Green, Purple? Do we need so many?

I'll say it again...I personally think the Hydragon should be a monster and not classified as a Drake. But ask Alysse about that one. Are we classifying any "lizard or snake" beast as a drake/dragon? By that logic, we can also call the Tsor-Shota a drake as well? My thought is that have a specific set of classifications for dragon/drake. Others can be monsters. My spine wyrm, for example, is not a drake species. Its a mutated snake!  :shocked:

Maybe a Nybelmar dev has an opinion on the Lindorm as the original author is long gone I think.

I wish I could revise that Netherwyrm, as I do not like how it is described in the entry (all my love to Morc, so not meaning to offend!) Thus is why I haven't used them in any of my Osthemangar related entries. And, I think it should be Mythical.

Also, the Drakona (http://www.santharia.com/bestiary/drakona.htm) is a mythical little dragon.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 05 December 2009, 03:58:18
*cries*

How many spellchecks do I need to find all errors??

I merely said those things just in case, not saying that it is necessarily needed as I skimmed over many of Dracoids as they were properly classified in a general respect.

The last four - why not make up a category "Dragons with special abilities/characteristics, or what ever might fit to get all under the heading.

Because I don't really see them being sentient, so they wouldn't be dragons. A couple of them would work under mythical, but I would rather try and ask the authors before categorising them as I don't quite understand the entries all together.

Are all the dragons in the dragon category so sentient and wise as you described them? Then we do have many. Or have they all died in the dragon storm?

As with any race, each individual will vary to a certain degree, and some are definitely more common than others. The purpose of the recategorisation was to bring sentient dragons 'back from the dead' so to speak. Santharia deserves to still have such creatures in existence and possibly within the reach of those who are determined enough to find them - but not common enough they are simply walking around in populated areas.

Please add a drake: The Norrak, though I do not have more than the overview.

(Norong'sorno drake= Norrak)

It lives on the slopes of the Norong'sorno, say, five peds long, pitch black,  a sly and cankered beast, trying to kill travellers (if there are any) , just because they are there. They like to bath in saline little ponds...

Done done.

I wonder, in an overview, could there be mentioned drakes without entry, but with a future in mind?

Absolutely! If anyone has an idea for a Drake, I will more than happily add it to the list. The only reason I had not added any was because they are more bestial and monster than the Dragons, who are generally more sophisticated in nature.

And yes, there are already more drakes in the Rahaz-Dath as I thought!


The categorisation looks fine to me, but I have spent not much thoughts about it, so there might be holes. Question: Do we need to write up/list  all those dragons without entry?

The reason I listed Dragons without entries is because I do want to restrict them a lot more than the Drakes. They are sentient beings and having *too* many of them can be chaotic. I don't want to put such restrictions on Drakes however, as the possibilities for them are really endless when a person's imagination comes into play.



Hmmm..... wonderin if that unentried black dragon entry could be reserved as a Doom Dragon?  Black dragon is sooo pedestrian. :D

They can all have alternate names, but for categorisations sake, I wanted to list them as such. You have your basic Chromatic and Elemental Dragons on the list. I doubt the list of Dragons will grow much beyond what it is right now, simply because I want to keep them restricted because of their sentient nature.



Nice job here, Kali!  :clap:

Thanks. I wanted to get it up for opinions, even though it is still somewhat incomplete. Glad it didn't flop! :D


Goodness! We have more dragon varieties than we do canines! And, where did those others come from? Black, Copper, Green, Purple? Do we need so many?

They came from my desire to have entries for them. I expanded the Chromatic Dragon list, and the Elemental Dragon list. The reason I listed so many without entries was to expand the list of Dragons, but make it so it is also restricted to those listed. I haven't gone through all the Dragons mentioned in overviews yet, but some of those may qualify as mythical and be even more restricted than the Dragons. Drakes didn't have any additional listed because I wanted to keep it open for just about any sort of ideas.

I'll say it again...(1)I personally think the Hydragon should be a monster and not classified as a Drake. But ask Alysse about that one. (2)Are we classifying any "lizard or snake" beast as a drake/dragon? By that logic, we can also call the Tsor-Shota a drake as well? My thought is that have a specific set of classifications for dragon/drake. Others can be monsters. My spine wyrm, for example, is not a drake species. Its a mutated snake!  :shocked:

This is true. 1) I would leave it up to the author (if possible) as to where they would like it to be classified. Sometimes their ideas for the creatures aren't always as evident in the entries as we think. 2) Not necessarily. I merely took the ones which were under "Dragons" in the Comp. I have problems with 'snake-like' creatures often when trying to categorisation. I believe, in mythology, wyrms had wings, but not necessarily any other appendages. I still consider Drakes to be fairly intelligent, but not nearly as much as your Dragons. They are indeed more monster than Dragon, but their appearance is more closely related to the larger cousins than anything else related to them.

Basically, I would honestly leave it up to the author on where they would prefer to have it categorised, as they would have a clearer idea than we would more than likely.

Maybe a Nybelmar dev has an opinion on the Lindorm as the original author is long gone I think.

I hope so, as I don't see it being a sentient being, but basically a large and powerful snake. I know it is based off the Basilisk, both from D&D, but also Harry Potter. In this case, it would be a serpent and nothing draconic. 

I wish I could revise that Netherwyrm, as I do not like how it is described in the entry (all my love to Morc, so not meaning to offend!) Thus is why I haven't used them in any of my Osthemangar related entries. And, I think it should be Mythical.

I really wasn't sure what to do with it, especially since it is a summoned creature and not one which was created by Avá. (Ooooo a peek into my ideas). If you want, feel free to email Morc and discuss it, as I am sure he would love to work with you on it.

Also, the Drakona (http://www.santharia.com/bestiary/drakona.htm) is a mythical little dragon.

Cool - thanks!



Thanks you guys! Gave me a bit more to work on with this, and eliminated some of my initial fears. I will see what I can get done over the next day or so on this :D



Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Altario Shialt-eck-Gorrin on 05 December 2009, 05:09:39
Actually, it will prolly be a Doom Drake, as I don't want to deal with the whole sentient part.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Ta`lia of the Seven Jewels on 05 December 2009, 05:15:21
I don't know, if Ishilir based the Lindorm  (lindworm!) on D&D, it is such an old mythical creature, very well known in Northern Europe also. There is no need to do so.

And:  It lives on Cyhalloi, not in Nybelmar. Kalina, be careful! We don't want the Nybelmarian conquer Cyllahoi, we would be encirceled! How terrible!

..> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindworm

Why don't you just make a category "uncategorisised"? ;)

Just fond a nice one here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Klagenfurt_Lindwurmbrunnen_2009.jpg)


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 05 December 2009, 07:24:30
Ah, I didn't read the entry careful enough. You are right, it is more of the Basilisk from mythology and not purely serpent. In this case, it is possible to put it in the Mythical for now, and possibly play with it later.

Thanks for the info, Talia!

@Alt: I don't blame ya lol


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Rookie Brownbark on 05 December 2009, 18:05:15
Having a look at your overviews! :)

The Mythical Dragons
These Dragons are creatures of unimaginable power and knowledge, believed to have molded and shaped the culture of their kin. Their deeds of good or evil are renowned throughout the books and tales, yet the truth of their existence has been lost to the passing of time. Almost every mention of them portrays magic, sentience, and superiority over all their kind, though this may not necessarily be true. <- this last clause (the blue bit) seems clumsy to me.  I'm not sure you need it, because you've just said in the last sentence that they're mythical.  It'd also be cool to say something about their situation now; are there rumours of some still living in secluded and unreachable places, or do the stories all put them way back in the past?

The Dragons
Creatures of sentience and power, they dominate their lesser kin in all aspects of intelligence, power, and knowledge. Having been around since the creation of the Elves, they have watched the world change through time. Reaching ages of near immortality, they are considered to be one of the wisest and most respected races. Their race has all the aspects which makes the Children of Avá, who they are: Religion, Language, and Culture. With this power, they have the ability to command their lesser kin as desired, but find it to be trivial work unless absolutely necessary. The only suggestion I can think of here is to maybe tell us something about how rare they are?  What sort of territory they might inhabit?  Just to give the readers an idea that they're not walking around the streets in the middle of all the other races :P

The Drakes
Unlike their sentient cousins, the Drakes are much more of a commonality in Caelereth and are considered to be 'savages'. <-- maybe "beasts"? Savages sounds to me like human "savages" i.e. tribal culture, not-really-that-savage?  But that could be because I did a load of stuff on "the noble savage" in french last year.  They come in a variety of types: Wyverns, Wyrms, or Drakes. Each retain aspects of their larger and more powerful counterparts, but they lack the intelligence, power, and culture which give the Dragons superiority.

The Dracoids
Dracoids are animals which have drake-like qualities, but are not necessarily direct descendants of the draconian line. There are a great many scattered throughout the world in hard to reach places, since they are typically small and not always easy to find or catch, though some have been able to be domesticated to a degree. <-- Maybe "though some have been more or less tamed in certain regions" or something?  Just thought the last clause sounded a bit off, but it's a stylistic thing so ignore if you don't agree!

Hope that helps a little - it's looking great and I really can't wait to have some proper dragons around (in suitably secluded places of course).  I know it sounds weird but they really feel properly fantasy to me, unlike anything else.  Plus it's nice to have a sentient race that aren't mammals and don't walk on two legs with two arms!


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Azhira Styralias on 06 December 2009, 12:45:28
I am not going to update any dragon entry, especially the Netherwyrm. I'll end up re-writing the entire thing and I don't need anymore controversy.  :P I do recommend that it be mythological. If I were to cross-reference the Netherwyrm, I would say that one has not believed to have been seen since the days of the Battle of Osthemangar in 5000 b.S. By now, the creature has long passed into myth. There is not even rumors of one in the Mists or the Shadespell as far as I am concerned.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Miraran Tehuriden on 06 December 2009, 20:01:26
Quote
but are not necessarily direct descendants of the draconian line.

Sounds a bit evolutionary to me.. maybe "direct members of the draconian family"?


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Valan Nonesuch on 06 December 2009, 22:17:08
With Mira on this point,
Perhaps
"Not trully draconic in nature" I mean, we can do looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flaps like a duck but if one creature is a giant intelligent scaly monster, another is a rather large scaly monster and the third is feathered, tiny, or downright stupid, it makes sense not to group them together.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 12 December 2009, 11:30:40
After a long, helpful, and entertaining discussion in IRC about "sentience", I am working on revising the Dragon, Drake, and Dracoid overviews almost completely! Should be up in the next couple of days!

All were 'rough drafts' for me to work off of, as this really distant from completion - but not too far to be discouraging! :D


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Ta`lia of the Seven Jewels on 14 December 2009, 21:08:33
Quote
Children of Ser'asha's and Enal'ther's passionate whispers, Dragons are magnificent and enigmatic creatures of ancient power and profound wisdom.

Kali, I don't think, that this fits in an overview, as it is myth. You need to say much more about it  - elsewhere - who are these, who say , that these are gods - the elves/humans, or the dragons themselves? And how would we know about this - why should the dragons share their beliefs with us little folks?


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 15 December 2009, 00:48:16
Patience Talia. :) That particular overview is incomplete. They are the Draconic High Goddess and God (Your Ava and Coor equivalent) for Dragons. I have lots of notes on them, but now isn't the time for me to be working on them as I need to finish this categorisation and the Overview as a whole.

It doesn't belong in a myth, as Dragons aren't mythical and giving a peek into their creation in their overview isn't a bad idea. ^.~ That particular overview has been giving my head a roundabout in how to present it with the "sentience" of the creatures. Trying to define sentience without using the word and applying to creatures other than humans is no easy task, but I am working on it. The Gods will help give me a base to work this over a little bit easier. :)

Quote
why should the dragons share their beliefs with us little folks?

That is very old mentality. You make the assumption Dragons are all "High and Mighty", which most will not necessarily be. This is only the categorisation, and so much will be explained in the actual Overview, which I haven't really started on because the categorisation is a project in and of itself at this time.

Oh, and to answer your question, they are fascinated by them. Just like the Children of Ava are fascinated by other things of the world. This is nothing different, just the from the viewpoint of yet another complex species.

There is still *A LOT* left to be done even withe overall Dragon Overview, so my work is far from finished on this.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Ta`lia of the Seven Jewels on 15 December 2009, 00:55:26
No, I don't want to discourage you! 

Just wanted to point out, not to mention them as "fact" in an overview, but as belief.

Quote
That is very old mentality. You make the assumption Dragons are all "High and Mighty", which most will not necessarily be.

Was so far in the Santharian context, or not?


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 15 December 2009, 01:03:15
I have done research out to my ears on Santharian Dragons, and the biggest problem I had was the amount of inconsistency within them. There was no guiding line in their creation, and because of this, everyone has a different idea about them.

This is where I step in and create a solid definition for them, this way it isn't floating around and being pulling and twisted by different people just to make their particular creature or idea fit. The problem with Dragons, I am going to have to lay down the law then poke holes in the ancient entries. (Granted, most entries which mention Dragons do so vaguely.)

Azhira, Rayne, and I have had some thorough discussions about this problem in the compendium, and it hasn't exactly made doing this project any easier. I can build off ideas and try to make them all correlate together, but then I am making things impossible.


Thanks for your input, Talia! I don't want to appear ungrateful that you had dragged yourself to this mess of a place!

P.S. - Don't worry, not discouraged yet! Just have wanted to punch a few things here and there over this. Lol


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Azhira Styralias on 15 December 2009, 01:31:20
In order for this categorization project to succeed, Kalina will need to altar some old entries and change some of the original inconsistent visions from Compendium authors long gone. The problem is that the dragons were created by several people without a single guiding hand to oversee their development, placement and culture. I suppose Morcaanan started this, but never stayed to finish it.

So I hope all of us members can give Kali the support she needs to really organize these wondrous creatures that have for too long been scattered everywhere. So let's try to keep an open mind about this as we may have to change some (notice I said some and not all  ;)) of the age old perceptions we have concerning dragons.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Ta`lia of the Seven Jewels on 15 December 2009, 03:22:05
Whom did you give an answer, Azhira?

Kalina, I don't see a mess when looking at your entrance post, so, seems you have done already quite a good work, right ? :)

Note, this was the only "critic" I had! ;)

("We as developers do not know, if (the) gods exist and won't assume anything, can't proof their existence or not-existence")


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 15 December 2009, 03:24:20
I did take your advice and I am working on changing the opening sentence. I think I have the overview basically complete this time, but it needs some little loving before I put it up here.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 16 December 2009, 16:42:23
*bumps for critique*

*glances about nervously before running off into the shadows*


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Ta`lia of the Seven Jewels on 16 December 2009, 20:22:27
Some quick notes, Kalina, just random thoughts.


Quote
The Mythical Dragons
These Dragons are creatures of unimaginable power and knowledge, believed to have moulded and shaped the culture of their kin. Their deeds of good or evil are renowned throughout books and tales, yet the truth of their existence has been lost to the passing of time. Almost every mention of them portrays magic, wisdom, knowledge, and superiority over their kind, though this may not necessarily be true for all.


I would add a „it is said“ or something in the beginning as well, maybe even be a bit poetic:

These creatures out of dreams and imagination are.. (please find a better phrase)



Quote
The Great Dragons
Dragons are magnificent and enigmatic creatures of ancient power and profound wisdom. Their complex language and magical ascendancy baffles many who attempt to study them, as they have spent centuries building and perfecting their methodologies. They are respected by their lesser kin and all other races for their knowledge and abilities, having commanded armies of Drakes and other lesser races in past battles. The unity amongst the creatures is nearly unbreakable, despite the individual differences between many of them.

Here I would stress in the beginning, that they count to the sentient races! Maybe like this:
Dragons are magnificent and enigmatic creatures of ancient power and profound wisdom, believed by many to belong to the most noble race on Caelereth..

Somehow I miss a sentence about their not always good relations to the other races, or a word about the dragonstorm which killed most of them? (You don‘t get around that fact in history)



Quote
The Lesser Drakes
Unlike their ancient cousins, the Drakes are much more of a commonality in Santharia. They come in three varieties: Wyverns, Wyrms, or Drakes. Each retain some physical aspects their larger and more powerful counterparts, but they lack the speech, power, and literacy which give the Dragons ultimate superiority. The kinship they feel with the Dragons, is reflected in the willingness to do their bidding, rarely acting in defiance against their wishes.

And here a note, that they classify as beasts?


Looks good - do you plan to add a short description to each of your subcategories?


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 17 December 2009, 00:06:09
I hadn't quite decided if there will be sub categories, yet.

Quote
Somehow I miss a sentence about their not always good relations to the other races, or a word about the dragonstorm which killed most of them? (You don‘t get around that fact in history)

Okay, also keep in mind that because of the Dragon revamp, the amount of Dragons may not have been diminished as much as originally thought, and they would've been able to rebuild themselves. Secondly, this is a mini-overview, and the big one should be attached to the little one. The big one will go into depth on history and relations. The minis are meant for people to have a bit more insight on them as individuals.

Thanks a bunch, Talia. With the Dragon Overview, I think you fix the issue I had for two weeks.

I will make changes after breakfast....


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Seeker on 17 December 2009, 00:26:36
Kalina, even though I do not have expertise in the area of dragon categorization (and thus no critique) I wanted you to know I am very interested in how this all turns out.  As I read through the dragon entries for picture ideas it is apparant that your work here is needed. 

Aura + from me for tackling an organizational problem even though you may have more interesting things to do..


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Ta`lia of the Seven Jewels on 17 December 2009, 00:31:51
Sorry, I didn't mean subcategory, but if each dragon would get a line of description, or would this then go in this huge description you are talking about.

It might be a problem to revive the dragon species as a whole again to more than a few. And relativise the dragonstorm.

Hmm, just looked at that entry

Quote
The city High Council gathered and it was in the end decided to call the help of the priests of Foiros, God of the Sun. And the god heard their prayers and at dusk that day the sun was seen for the last time that year. A dark blanket was folded over the lands of Vardýnn and the rest of the world, and a cold wind took control of the air. It was freezing now without sunwarmth, and neither human nor dragon could resist or ignore it. The dragons were forced to return home and they left, but the Voldarians were barely able to survive as well in the upcoming months of hardship.

There is nothing said, that they all died. But from somewhere I know it. (Katya story?) And it said, that all around Caelereth died due to the absence of the sun for one year. (Which as far as I remember, was seen as a developer's fact, therefore the Nybelamrians wanted to have it just a bit diminished, so that it would not be entirely dark,as dark as in Southern Sarvonia. It is in many entries mentioned)

Maybe you should discuss that in the forum in an extra thread - how many sentient dragons should be living in our time, and most important, in areas, where they actually are seen or meet people.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Azhira Styralias on 17 December 2009, 00:46:36
Sorry, I didn't mean subcategory, but if each dragon would get a line of description, or would this then go in this huge description you are talking about.

It might be a problem to revive the dragon species as a whole again to more than a few. And relativise the dragonstorm.

Hmm, just looked at that entry

There is nothing said, that they all died. But from somewhere I know it. (Katya story?) And it said, that all around Caelereth died due to the absence of the sun for one year. (Which as far as I remember, was seen as a developer's fact, therefore the Nybelamrians wanted to have it just a bit diminished, so that it would not be entirely dark,as dark as in Southern Sarvonia. It is in many entries mentioned)

Maybe you should discuss that in the forum in an extra thread - how many sentient dragons should be living in our time, and most important, in areas, where they actually are seen or meet people.


You are right, Talia. I brought this up to Kalina once before and I think she is aware. Here is the entry part you are referring to:

Quote
The dragons were finally driven back by the mysterious Year of Darkness, a year where the Injčrá, the Caelerethian sun, descended below the world for a whole year, and many humans and dragons were killed alike in the bitter cold.

I would agree that is important to know how many dragons survived this Year of Darkness and how many are known today. I would think dragons would age very slowly and not reproduce so often.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 17 December 2009, 01:41:12
Yep! The year of darkness was brought up and I am aware. Yet since this was just the categorisation and not the main overview or history (I may have a separate entry explaining all of this beyond the overview), there isn't a need for it to mentioned in the mini-overviews when there is a time and place for the rest. :)

The actual dragons shouldn't necessarily be mentioned in the overviews. The only reason they are listed right now, is so the entries can be moved around in the compendium in accordance with the updates being made. I can write a small description for each and every dragon, but since a lot of them need updates and complete rewrites, this may be more of project than expected. I'm trying to keep things as simple as possible with these guys, because it would be quite easy to make this more than it needs to be.

^.~

Thanks for the comments, guys :D



Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 17 December 2009, 15:35:45
My wording changes are in blue. I am feeling *really* good about the mini-overviews at this point!

Thanks for your aid, guys. :D


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 19 December 2009, 12:31:11
Ok - All the creatures have been placed into their respected categories. After a discussion with Morc through emails, I have decided to create a 5th category for the Nethers. I haven't written up an overview for it yet, but this also depends on the entries and any updates which may come from this.

The actual overview for them, I will put in the Draconic Overview (http://www.santharia.com/dev/index.php/topic,14096.msg176557/topicseen.html#new), which is currently in the works.

*is pleased to have completed this task at last*


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Eldor Delrossa on 19 December 2009, 12:36:38
Simply splendid! You've put a lot of hard work into this, and it shows. Lovely entry. Aura +1 from me!


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Azhira Styralias on 15 January 2010, 09:58:39
One mythical dragon that I cannot believe I failed to mention is my own Ezorrak'ladan. It's basically an undead dragon haunting the Mists. In truth, he is an ancient Ice Dragon who rebelled against the powers of the dark portal and was cursed. I do not have much described of him beyond a section in the Mists entry. I mention more tales and myths surrounding Ezorrak'ladan, but are not onsite yet. I just thought he might deserve a mention in the dragon categorization

Quote
The Ezorrak'ladan (lit. "Death Mist Lizard")
Another, even more dangerous and terrible beast, is the dragon known in the orcen tongue as "Ezorrak'ladan" (lit. "Death Mist Lizard"). The myth surrounding this monstrous beast is long, but legend has it that the dragon no longer lives as a mortal soul. Instead, it is rumoured to be a living dead creature forever cursed to haunt the Mists as punishment for the dragon's rebellion during the Third Sarvonian War. No known researcher has lived to study its eating habits (if it even eats at all) or its other ways of (un)life. Almost nothing of fact is known of this creature with only few scant stories that are hundreds of years old. Certainly no one recent has ever seen this dragon and lived to tell of it. For now, most only think of this beast as a myth created by over-imaginative explorers.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 15 January 2010, 15:37:35
I will put it here and in the Overview, which would've been a better place to post this lol :)


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Azhira Styralias on 15 January 2010, 23:48:04
I will need to rewrite that overview though before you post it. I don't think of dragons as "mortal souls". What I meant to say that he was no longer a living being. And, I'll need to have a myth concerning him at some point that hints that he was a dragon. Otherwise, how does anyone know? But, the myth is not required now.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 16 January 2010, 00:19:31
Ok - Rayne and I had this discussion about "Mythical" Dragons. My view is, they had existed at one time, yet for some reason some of the information had been lost about them - perhaps in the WotC. This is mostly just an perception on how I can properly address them rather than changing the entire existence of them.

 Just post it in the Legendary Dragon Overview after you rewrite it so I can add it in the appropriate thread.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 23 January 2010, 19:33:55
Ok, I went ahead and cleaned this up to the point where only the creatures with entries are listed.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 20 February 2010, 01:39:05
Would there be a way to organize the menu so at least the creatures are listed appropriately to eliminate some confusion?


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Artimidor Federkiel on 20 February 2010, 03:09:10
Unless there are any major objections, this can be done, yup. A few things, though:

1) Maybe that was covered already somewhere, but question: Why is the Blue Drake (size ca. 2 peds) listed under "Great Drakes"? Any special reason?

2) As the "Legendary Drakes" are referred to as "Mythical Drakes" throughout the site I would suggest to keep the name "Mythical Drakes" for these.

3) Also, the descriptions should now replace/update the categorization in the Dragons entry, so we should have at least a paragraph for the new category "Nether Drakes".


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 20 February 2010, 04:15:06
1) Blue Drakes will be changed to Dragons. Size doesn't matter when in the differences between Drakes and Dragons as much as their Sentience, which is an addition to be made to the Dragons in the categorization, hence the overview.

3) I will try to write up an overview for the Nether Drakes, but I don't understand enough about them and their comings/goings to write much more than a sentence or two.

2) There was a discussion about "Mythical Dragons" and how the name can be misleading, and I was trying to find a better name for them in the overall, since the entire system was worked on being revamped. The two names can be interchangeable, but the categorization was the first step in the whole revamp process.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Azhira Styralias on 20 February 2010, 11:12:29
The Netherdrakes are supposedly a dragon from the Netherworld...but I personally do not like that concept. I think perhaps the creature should be something wholly different, such as a Mystran variety, but really huge with the belief that is a dragon taken from various myths and ancient journals. I do not believe them to be "true" dragons.

But, it is not my entry and in my development mind, I don't recognize Netherdrakes as something existing in Osthemangar, the Mists, Shadespell or anywhere except in a lost forgotten corner of the Netherworld.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Azhira Styralias on 22 February 2010, 13:13:22
I took the liberty of writing up an overview of the Nether Drakes:

"Whispered legends speak of two varieties of drakes whose origins are believed to be within the Netherworld. The Netherwyrm is a creature whose very existence has long been a subject of debate. What is known of the Netherworld is little, but some dark elven myths claim that creatures the likes of a dragon can be summoned from the dark world of Coor, and likely the very nature of these Netherwyrms is more akin to demonic than actual dragonkind. The Dravilonia is another beast of the Netherworld, but smaller, and is said to have aided the dark folk during the Third Sarvonian War. These drakes were used as mounts for the dark armies and were summoned by powerful clerics of Coor. Like many other creatures said to call the Netherworld their home, the Nether Drakes are not defined by actual fact, but by myth, and their true existence is still debated by scholars."


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 24 February 2010, 02:30:43
1) Maybe that was covered already somewhere, but question: Why is the Blue Drake (size ca. 2 peds) listed under "Great Drakes"? Any special reason?
I am doing a rehaul of the entire system, and this will include renaming to ensure consistency with creation and rewriting entries especially. I can help with going through and changing the instances where "Great Drakes" are found. There is going to be a defining line between Drakes and Dragons, hence my overviews.

2) As the "Legendary Drakes" are referred to as "Mythical Drakes" throughout the site I would suggest to keep the name "Mythical Drakes" for these.
See part of response to number 1. I will keep Mythical for simplicities sake for now.

3) Also, the descriptions should now replace/update the categorization in the Dragons entry, so we should have at least a paragraph for the new category "Nether Drakes".
Thanks to Azhira, (THANK YOU!), the Nethers have an overview. I don't plan on touching this area of draconics, but it would be unfair to leave them out completely.

Done, and done. Anything else? I know there are some doubled up entries, but this will hopefully be fixed when they are combined/updated.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Artimidor Federkiel on 24 February 2010, 03:53:10
I've marked this for integration - seems there's not that much approval of various entries lately, so that should give me the time to focus on menu changes and get things here up to date. Guess we could also do the change to "Legendary Drakes" at least in the menu now, maybe it's not that bad having a different term for these dragons, maybe mythical puts them too much in a really ancient corner - "Legendary Drakes" methinks is a bit of a broader term, which could comprise rumoured drakes (which don't necessarily need to exist, while mythical supposed always had a great historical impact), or even drakes from fairy-tales and what not. So maybe that's a better choice in general, suggest maybe to adjust the description a tiny wee bit in this direction as well, then we have all our bases covered!

Also good that we have a Nether Drakes description as well now, that rounds things up then I'd say! :D


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 24 February 2010, 14:10:29
I'll see what I can do about the overview to tweak it


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Artimidor Federkiel on 27 February 2010, 03:23:43
Well, I tried to start with this, but there are still questions open.

In the current categorization we have "Dragons" and there are two sub-categories. More precisely we have "Great Drakes (Dragons)" as the main category and as sub-categories we have Dragons and Wyrms. That's not the best way to put it, but I guess what makes most sense here would be:

Main category:
Dragons

Subcategories:
- Great Drakes
- Wyrms (=Great Worms)

The new categorization doesn't consider all this and poses problems, as the disction between worms and wyrms (great worms) is gone now. This also results in the fact that there are actually dragons/drakes missing from the new categorization, namely the Sea Wyrm and the Shipwrecker Wyrm.

In the Lesser Drakes overview the wyrms are then mentioned (no mentioning of the worms), and quite naturally the Shipwrecker Wyrm doesn't fit in here anymore.

So: Can we keep the categories as I put it up above and adjust the Lesser Drakes so that they includ worms? I guess there are good reasons why some things were done that way.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 02 March 2010, 04:41:19
The new Categorization only lists what has entries, and the wryms don't have entries yet, but they would go into the Lesser Drakes.

I am trying to make this as simple as possible (I.E. Keeping the categories and subcategories as broad as possible since there aren't that many creatures with entries.)

Been busy so trying to get things lined up as much as possible. The big overviews for each category should address your issues, actually. :)




Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Artimidor Federkiel on 02 March 2010, 04:48:44
Well, personally I don't see how a Shipwrecker Wyrm (http://www.santharia.com/pictures/isilhir/shipwrecker_wyrm.htm) could be put into a Drake category... It's not supposed to be a mythical one, just a rare huge exemplar of its kind....


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 02 March 2010, 04:52:09
Then it would be probably in the Mythical/Legendary category :x That, I believe, with what is available, would make the most sense. With the lack of Wyrms with entries or really mentioned at all, I don't see the real need for their own sub category. Yet, if you wish for me to add subcategories, for the wyrms/worms, I can.

I am so slow :( You had asked for a slightly modified "Mythical Dragon minor Overview".

I made a couple of changes, but wasn't sure of what exactly was expected from its modification.

It is written in ancient passages and spoken of in legends, that there are Dragons of unimaginable power and knowledge, believed to have moulded and shaped the culture of their kin. Their deeds of good or evil are renowned throughout the races, yet the truth of their existence has been lost to the passing of time but not forgotten. Almost every mention of them, be it by word of mouth or written on ancient scrolls, portrays magic, wisdom, knowledge, and superiority over their kind, though this may not necessarily be true for all.

Trying to make them slightly less "mythical" and more "legendary". I hope those changes are satisfactory :)


EDIT: My thoughts are: Perhaps leave as is for now, but as more wyrms/worms are expanded upon - add the subcategories as needed/desired? I am not keen on empty subcategories in the menu.  :buck: I can add it to the Main Overviews for each category, however, there the entire lists of dragons/drakes/wyrms, worms/dracoids are.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 02 March 2010, 11:54:15
I went ahead and added the subcategories. I wasn't sure if that is what you had meant. I can easily add the subcategories to the Overviews, where there will be creatures to put into them.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Artimidor Federkiel on 03 March 2010, 04:11:55
Empty subcategories don't need to be put in the menu, they can be added later on once we get those beasts described. But placeholder with "No entries as of yet" upon opening such a category doesn't hurt either, because it is important to get the structure on site, which then needs to be filled.

And if someone has time on his/her hands and would like to do the Shipwrecker Wyrm (an illustrated entry with some history that should prove to be existing), that would be welcome.

However, all the descriptions for the categories are available in the Dragons entry and these should be updated at any rate. There are alread distinctions in there as far as Wyrms, Worms (both snake/serpent-like dragons) and Wyverns are concerned, and these make perfect sense in my opinon, so why get rid of them? The Chromatic Drakes category doesn't tell us much, so this can definitely go if you ask me, the others however are much more logical to have. A lot of larger serpents with special features can go in these, we just haven't focussed on such kinds of dragons which you find e.eg. very often in Asian culture here on Earth.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 03 March 2010, 04:40:38
Yes, they will be updated in the Overviews, especially since it would be easy to do.

I just wanted to make sure this was what you were looking for, as it was somewhat unclear to me. :-/ I'm trying to keep to some original visions, but with everything scattered about so much, it is almost easier to start from scratch then mold from there.

I hadn't planned on getting rid of anything, just putting subcategories for the menu on hold until there were entries to put there. It made sense to do it that way to me, but you are the one who has to do all the hard site stuff, so it is ultimately up to you. I was thinking for appearances and professionalism, since I know we strive for such things.

Dragons haven't been a focus for a long time, and it shows. Hence why I am starting small and working upwards. More categories and subcategories can be made when there are entries to put into them I would assume. The subcategories would be put into the Overviews with minor overviews of their own. If you didn't see them, it isn't because I forgot, but was trying to focus on the larger issues first ^.~

Sorry if this is off topic, I am trying to understand points of view here. :-/


(I may try my hand at the Shipwrecker Wyrm)


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 20 March 2010, 12:49:19
Added the entried wyrms into categories and changed the Mythical Dragon overview slightly.

Let me know if it is satisfactory or not.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Artimidor Federkiel on 21 March 2010, 16:59:26
Worms/wyrms still aren't done properly in the latest concept (as far as categories and descriptions are concerned), so I finished the categorization by combining it with what we already have, thus resulting in the elimination of the term "Lesser Drake" and "Lesser Wyrm" altogether as they are both absolutely useless if we have own names for the larger versions based on the names of the smaller version. So we now have the following:

I. LEGENDARY DRAGONS

II. DRAGONS
a) Great Drakes
b) Wyrms (Great Worms)

III. DRAKES
a) Wyverns
b) Worms (Serpents)

IV. NETHERDRAKES

V. DRACOIDS

P.S. Writing "Netherdrake" is better than "Nether Drake" I'd say, so I went for that.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 21 March 2010, 20:51:13
Sorry :( I had no idea what you were asking, Arti. I couldn't figure out exactly what you expected :( 

What was the purpose of me doing this, if you keeping basically as it was? My purpose with this was to help separate Drakes and Dragons, as they aren't supposed to be the same thing, but you eliminated that with your categorisation.

Please, don't tell me the time I put into the project will be a waste.

*slinks away*


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Artimidor Federkiel on 21 March 2010, 21:25:47
And you want to say that Drakes and Dragons aren't separated in the categorization above?


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 21 March 2010, 21:31:10
They aren't, especially when using "Great Drakes" beneath Dragons.

I don't understand what is wrong with my proposal, and why just talking it through with me was so wrong, instead of just stepping over me and doing it yourself. :( I put a lot of time and consideration into this categorization, and changed it a lot when working on it to have it work just the way people wanted.

I don't think I am disagreeable or unwilling to discuss these things as adults.  :undecided:


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Artimidor Federkiel on 21 March 2010, 21:46:51
I don't see the big problems with fixing the very obvious things here, which were just not handled properly in the concept. And as far as I see it I basically helped out to finally be able to get this in and move the various beasts to their according category.

For example your concept had "Great Dragons" as one category of that, and the first sub category was "Great Dragons". Now that's not the most ideal categorization, you'll have to admit, and that's why I've pointed that out very clearly in my post from February 26th. Same with "Lesser Drakes" and "Lesser Drakes" as sub-category. Also, if you have "Great Dragons" and "Lesser Drakes", this means that there are no "Great Drakes" anymore, and only the Drakes are referred to as "Lesser Drakes". That all doesn't fit together. Therefore the logical way to solve this is to have "Dragons" and "Drakes", and there isn't really any more needed. As for "Wyrms" you now have "Greater" and "Lesser", but it was established already on site that Lesser Wyrms are actually called "Worms/Serpents". Thus keeping the distinction between Wyrm and Worm/Serpent doesn't sound all that wrong methinks.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 22 March 2010, 06:53:55
Ok, I obviously didn't understand what you were trying to say, thus it wasn't altered. Perhaps being more clear and direct in the future will help.

I made some changes to it according to your....comments. A nicer tone would be appreciated, as I almost dropped this completely because of your last few posts.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Artimidor Federkiel on 23 March 2010, 04:00:42
Hey, don't worry, Kalina - we're in this together. I hope it makes somewhat sense what I try to adjust and it doesn't work against your ideas, at least that's what I tried. At any rate you get an aura +1 for your efforts to get things underway.  :thumbup:

It's difficult to balance the new allocations of dragons/drakes with parts of the categorizations that are in place, so I'm trying to keep things somewhat consistent - and that's not an easy job. - But I hope how it is done now in the menu is also something you can be happy with, and that the descriptions in the Categorization part of the Dragons entry make things pretty clear! There's still a lot to do to get the overviews done now properly.  :cool:


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 23 March 2010, 12:34:06
Why Legendary Drakes, and not Dragons? :undecided: (On the menu) As it is Dragons in the "About Dragons", but Drakes on the Menu. Did you not want a wyrm subcategory for the Legendary Dragons?

*confused now*


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Azhira Styralias on 23 March 2010, 23:46:03
It looks to me that Arti made the menu links consistent with the general overviews by Morc and Stormcrow. The next step would be to perhaps assess those overviews for a revision to match Kalina's vision. Until then, if the menus don't match the overviews, it looks confusing.

Also, was the overview for the Netherdrakes going to be added?


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Artimidor Federkiel on 24 March 2010, 02:47:57
The "Legendary Drakes" was actually a mistake, which is now fixed (it's not so easy to have to change multiple menu pages the way we do it and not forget something...). Also the "Legendary Dragons" are split now in "Great Drakes" and "Wyrms". Now everything should be covered. :) I hope...  :cool:

Anyway, yes, there are now multiple pages that need revision, as they don't fit to the menu. If you click on an overview in the menu you will get to a page that doesn't match it anymore. And overviews on Netherdrakes and Legendary Dragons are altogether missing right now. Also the Dragons entry is outdated the way it is - only the overview on the bottom was updated yet at this one. We should try to get one after the other overview now the way they are meant to look like on site.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 24 March 2010, 03:11:20
Working on those as we speak.


Title: Re: Draconic Categorisation
Post by: Kalína Dalá'isyrás on 24 March 2010, 03:37:18
Oh, I just noticed something which we all missed with your categorization, Arti.
Quote
Unlike their ancient cousins, Drakes are much more of a commonality in Santharia and are considered to be beasts in the Draconic family. They come in three varieties: Wyverns, Wyrms, or Drakes. Each retain some physical aspects their larger and more powerful counterparts, but they lack the speech, power, and literacy which give the Dragons ultimate superiority. The kinship they feel with the Dragons, is reflected in the willingness to do their bidding, rarely acting in defiance against their wishes.

With yours, there are no "drakes", just wyverns and worms. Wyverns I have always imagined different from traditional drakes, but I guess that doesn't matter. (as other things) I am changing this to say "They come in two varieties: Wyverns and Worms." to be consistent with what you wrote.