Forums of the Megaverse®

The issue really doesn't come up in the setting; though it is touch upon in the alignment section as attitudes towards cannibalisms (eating other sentient beings).

I'm not sure if Erick just didn't want to make that aspect of animal social behavior a major part of the game, or wanted to leave that aspect up to individual GMs to decide if they wanted to incorporate it into their games, but I have to agree that it would take the setting in a direction a little to hard-core sci-fi for most peoples tastes. IMHO.

Still, I have run a couple games where a group of mutant carnivores (usually wolves) go feral and start attacking other mutant animals for food. You could also have a Hannibal Lector type menace - someone who is totally unassuming but has taken to eating other mutant animals for fun. If you've seen the Torchwood episode Countrycide, that would make for a good cannibalisms story.

"'Cause it made me happy." *shudder*

I suggested this on the Systems Failure board, but take a look at S.M. Stirling's "Dies the Fire", "A Meeting at Corvallis" and "The Protector's War". It talks about a "Change" wherein all electricity and high-pressure chemistry is rendered inoperable in 1998, and the breakdown and build-up of society after that.

Personally, I have no problem with a AtB world where you have both sentient mutant animals along side a large stable non-sentient animal population. Otherwise certain mutant psionics would be rather useless (animal control and animal speech). Giant herds of non-mutant (well, non-sentient, there might be the odd random mutation here and there) cattle roaming the plains. Sheep and pigs wandering wild in the forrest. Ferral cats and dogs in the ruined cities. So plenty of meat for the non-evil meat eaters.

I did a farmer background write up a while ago (in this thread here... viewtopic.php?t=73007 ) where I did touch on some of the ethical dilemas of mutants raising livestock. Generallly I don't see mutant Cows raising herds of beef cattle. To much chance where that cow you're butchering might be a cousin. Though I don't see mutant Cows complaining when their carnivor buddies order a steak or hamburger. It would be like going to a resturaunt and the people next to you order roast chimpanzee. You might think "yuck" and never consider ordering it yourself, but would you really make a fuss?

Here's a video I found today showing that animals that are classically supposed to hate each other can get along:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D85yrIgA4Nk

macksting wrote:Hmm. I've been wondering where I got the idea that all remaining animals were mutated, and all I can figure is I must've made the assumption from reading the timeline, the twists that is, of Tranny TMNT. The Mutagen Planet twist, two twists from the 1980s, does seem to imply that the normal lifeforms of the world are mutated strangeness with a remarkable degree of competition. (For more about mutagen planets, see TMNT's Guide to the Universe.)
I do seem a bit too attached to this interpretation. It appeals to my fondness for Kommandi, the Last Boy on Earth, so I'm apt to keep the interpretation that all animals are in some way mutated, and most often toward a sentient, tool-using ideal, and often to a psionic mutant monster ideal regardless.
Still, the population levels even in a post-apocalyptic setting seem a bit too small, and I'm not even talking about the pockets of humans.

First, Transdimensional TMNT isn't 'technically' an After the Bomb book. I'll admit, that's nit picking, but something to keep in mind.

Second, the Mutagen Planet twist is over a century AFTER the After the Bomb timeline, and is built on the assumption that whatever caused the mutations in AtB kept going and in fact accelerated (hmm...interesting idea for a campaign, EoH tries to undo the mutations, players try to intervene, somehow accelerates mutation process, GM gets to add more and more BIO-E to the NPCs as the campaign progresses ).

So, yes, in the Mutagen Planet everything from the plants to the bugs to the happy squirrel in the tree is now taking your presence rather personally and will in fact carefully explain this to you in detailed English as they try and kill, eat, and/or mulch you. But AtB isn't there yet.

Also consider, there are a LOT of animals out there. If EVERY ONE stood up and started acting like humans, building cities, rebuilding tech, well the rushhour taffic would be HORRIBLE.

Also consider how much human instincts are present in sentient mutants. Just because an animal is known for occasionally eating their young, doesn't mean that a mutant of that species tends towards canablistic infantiside.

In AtB2, by defalt, a mutant animal is an omnivore (like a human), unless they purchase a vestigial disadvantage of diet restriction (carnivore, herbavore, insectivore, ruminent).
Page 73, right column, second paragraph from the bottom, incase anyone is wondering. So it's perfectly normal for a mutant lion to order a salad with his steak, or even to become a vegetarian if he so chooses.

I've always just used insects as the staples of the diet. I don't allow intelligent mutant insects or plants in my games. And now, with meat potato plant or whatever they're called it's almost a moot point. In the early days of gaming in campaigns where I wasn't GMing I'd see GMs let this go and the story would just take a back seat to some jack ass's attempt to have his mutant wolf eat someone else's mutant pig, thus disrupting the game.

Good catch on the mutant animals being Omnivores; that is the main way they cover the issue of "cannibalism". But what about those guys who took the Vestigal: Carnivore? By definition that means they must eat meat, not insects (that would be Vestigal:Insectivore). I guess that guy better love meatpotatos....

But there do seem to be non-mutated or maybe not-so-radically mutated animals out there, so maybe they do eat them. As to the reactions of mutant prey/livestock animals to seeing non-mutant cousins being eaten; well that would probably be decided by the alignment of the character and the call of the player/GM. I know that in some places people eat primate, and that grosses me out, and if I was someplace where they were casually eating Monkey, especially when they could be eating something like chicken or fish, I would be rather upset.

But, if they were, as I've seen in news reports, refugees with no other source of meat for their families, then I would still be disgusted, but now both that monkeys were being eaten, but also because people would be in that situation. Perhaps I would try to find a way to help these people, or the monkies. Maybe I would try to bring enough food with me next time I passed through the region to keep them from killing apes. Or maybe I would just not stick around for supper......

Oh, and Rali...Countrycide was the creepiest thing I ever saw on a tv show. A great way for a sci-fi show to go in another direction and totally fake out the audience.

"If God hadn't meant for us to eat the Free Cattle, he wouldn't have made them out of steak!" - Anonymous graffiti in New Kennel

The lack of horsemanship always bugged me a bit too. Of course it could just be the mutant Horses complaining about the subjugation of their non-mutant brothers. In ATB2 there's sporatic referances to non-mutant animals (animal control and animal speech psionics, teamster apprenticeship, trapping skill, veterinary medicine skill, teamster/wagoner skill, a few results on the random encounter chart, etc).

Also consider the tech level of the main setting. Carnania has a "mid-50's" tech level. Not a whole lot of people riding horses as their main means of transportation back in the 50's. Though I'd stick all the outlaying villages in a 1900's tech level (with a smattering of higher tech devices and weapons popping up now and then, the Anime series Tri-Gun comes to mind), but that could just be me.

On the otherhand, I do envision there being more mutants with little or no human features than some people. So if you need to travel somewhere your buddy who's a mutant horse with no biped and no hands could offer you a ride. Heck, he probably runs his own taxi service.

Thyfur wrote:So here is an ethical question. If your character has Horsemanship (of any kind), and your bought mount is intelligent (or semi-intelligent) would there have to be alignment penalties or restrictions for keeping the mount. After all it is a form of enslavement if Mr. Ed want his freedom, but you just cannot give him up after spending $2000 Americorp Dollars for him.

I suspect I would handle it on a case by case basis, but I think, even for the semi-intelligent mount, that Honorable would have to make a deal with the mount or suffer crisis of morality, and good alignment should suffer even more. Evil would laugh and ask if he had anymore at home like him. Selfish would argue the cost to buy him off the block.

I could see intelligent mounts hiring themselves out as transportation/sidekicks. Not like they have the physical capabilities (no-hand, no-biped) for most apprenticeships and occupations. They cover this a bit in the Teamster apprenticeship description (the hiring of sentient mutants for pulling wagons). I might take a stab at writing up a system for rolling up NPC or PC mount/sidekick character. Of course, since it's intelligent it doesn't neccesarily need to be a horse. Hmmmm...possibilities rolling around in my mind

macksting wrote:If AtB2 has clear references to nonsentient animals in random encounter rolls, that's really, really important.

From the wilderness encounter table from AtB2:

16-25% Non-Sentient Non-mutated Animal (or for your average carnivor, dinner )
26-30% Non-Sentient Psionic Animal (imagine a skunk that you surprise, and it uses bio-manipulate: paralysis before hosing you down with stink)
31-35% Non-Sentient Animal with Human Looks: Full (includes full bipedal and full hands, but NO human intelligence, a whole different ethical dilema for your players)
36-40% Partially-Sentient Natural-Looking Animal (smarter than normal, but not human level, just enough to cause the players a lot of trouble).

Pg. 164, After The Bomb

"Whoever cooked it up was probably one of the first victims. Within a month, over 74% of the human race died, victims of rampaging genetic change caused by a cell that contained a full set of human chromosomes. once released it wa unstoppable and billions died.
Some animals were affected as well. About 25% of all primates, and 10% of mammals, as well as 2% of other creatures showed symptoms of the disease. of those animals effected, most died, but about a third seemed to mutate as they recovered, gaining human traits"


so only a fraction of animals even were infected, and of those only a third actually mutated.

so that means the following percentages were mutated during the crash.
Primates: 8.3%
Mammals: 3.3%
all others: 0.6%

and the following % died:
Primates: 16.7%
Mammals: 6.4%
all others: 0.14%

and the following were uneffected by the plague.
primates: 75%
Mammals: 90%
All others: 98%

please note that the MAD exchange was probably equally devestating to everyone...which is the whole point of that doctrine.

still plenty of unmutated animals left.

The lack of a horsemanship/equestrian skill was most likely an oversight in both editions of AtB. It's not like that's something new. After all, the Hunting skill was missing from AtB2, and the map mentioned in the "Gun Bunnies and Zombies" adventure was missing from both editions. And don't forget that riding animals is a major taboo with the Free Cattle.

Also, I personally think that the Ride Mutant Insect skill from Mutants Down Under should be available in North America.

macksting wrote:So what I'd really like is a conclusive statement from AtB1 on either side of this issue. It would make clear to me how far along AtB Earth is toward becoming a full Mutagen Planet.

I'm pretty sure that both Kevin and Erick would both say that was a good point, but that it would/should be up to the individual game master as to how they want to interpret the setting.

I know there are some people on the board that feel that the setting should be more clear and detailed, with little room for interpretation. I border on both sides of the debate.

Thyfur wrote:Here in AtB we have many sentient species, several of them traditional prey and predator animals of each other in the same city or location. What happens when Billy Bantam bumps into Edward Egyptian? Does Edward look at Billy as take out? How about Jake Jacobs and Sheba the Tiger, is it another meal on the run?

I found another video on YouTube of predator and prey befriending one another. Or at least on not eating the other...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IG4kceZBWA&NR=1

itnsource wrote:Snakes usually have hamsters for lunch. But when rat snake Ao-chan and dwarf hamster Gohan-chan met at a Japanese zoo, it was love - and not at first bite. Now, the 120-centimetre snake and gray hamster are room mates, living together in a heated glass box.

Here's another one of a cat and crow couple: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JiJzqXxgxo

One more. Here is a picture montage of a polar bear befriending a husky:
http://www.eyje.com/pictures/animals/Hu ... ert_Rosing

I think the biggest factor that would allow for the co-mingling of predator and prey in an anthropomorphic society would be the fact that there are other plentiful sources of food for the predators to choose from instead of having to hunt.

macksting wrote:As a major part of the economy for player characters, the notes on that matter seem lacking.

I guess I've never been in a group that supplemented their gaming income with trapping, farming, etc... I'd recommend checking your area for any pioneering era troupes. You can get a good idea of how much trappers and hunters would get for their goods. If you can't find anything like that, you might try a museum or the local library.