/mg/ - Rethinking taxonomy from MGE

Name
Subject
Message	Max message length: 20000
Files	Drag files to upload or click here to select them Max file size: 30.00 MB Max files: 5
More
E-mail
Password	(used to delete files and postings)
Misc

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?

Anonymous 02/15/2024 (Thu) 11:54:51 No. 7914

>>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

Anonymous 02/15/2024 (Thu) 16:30:13 No. 7916

>>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

Anonymous 02/16/2024 (Fri) 11:35:53 No. 7936

>>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

Anonymous 02/17/2024 (Sat) 02:46:33 No. 7968

>>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.

Anonymous 03/30/2024 (Sat) 15:25:26 No. 8887

through discussion on /monster/ I/we came up with this so far.

Anonymous 07/02/2025 (Wed) 05:20:34 No. 28431

>>7909 The best way to arrange them would be by the little icons on KC's website, and not the subtypes in each of their entries because that part is confusing as fuck as shown in the OP. It would put Dwarves and Elves as Demihumans for example (the red icon), while classic demonic looking mamonos like succubi, imps, etc would fall under Demons (the purple icon). More human looking ones would fall under Majin (icon not in this image). This does mean arachnids are also placed in the same category as insects though, but I feel like this is where the subtypes come in handy. They should be used as descriptors rather than a category.