Ranking of monsters

>>/tg/

Ask /a/ but be very humble and don't expose your newfaggotry

>>9228331
thanks anon

File: kitty surprise.gif (1MB, 232x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 232x200px

>>9228310
Having a linear rank is stupid, and you're stupid.

The problem is is that it says that every monster on a certain level is so dangerous, but doesn't describe anything past that. For example, the Inland Taipan is the most venomous snake, but the Black Mamba, is considered more dangerous because it is far more aggressive.

Same thing with comparing snakes and the cape. They're both dangerous, but in different ways, and need to be approached differently.

So you need a scale that's actually descriptive. Let's make some arbitrary categories, with each going from A-Z.

Aggressiveness [A-puppy, playful, Z-Wolf]
Intelligence [A-jellyfish, Z-Human]
Human Proximity [A-deep sea fish, Z-Dog, constantly around]
Size [A-Flea, Z-Blue whale (or whatever the biggest thing in yours is)]
Habitat [1-Flatland, hills, 2-Underwater, 3-Air, 4-Arboreal, 5-Caves/tunnels, etc. Add your own here]
Mobility [A-Sloth, Z-Hummingbird]

Extra (this category is accumaltive(1-teeth, 2-claws, 3-Venom, 4-toxic, 5-Swarm, etc., add your own stuff here)


So, using this system, we can label creatures as such:
Great White Shark: THGT2R1
Tiger: WOIM1S1,2
Kitten: ALYD1M1,2
Komodo Dragon: WIDK1K1,2,3


Or something.
>pic: what OP considers dangerous