Markup View

Author: Morgenthaler

May 3rd 2013 at 8:42:21 AM

^^^^ If that's the direction it should go in, than we need to make sure that appearance is not stressed over nature in the description.

There is a problem, though. If it's more about the being's monstrous nature than their humanoid appearance, that unfortunately starts to bring HumanoidAbomination back into the fold after all the effort to seperate the two. Even EldritchAbomination's more succinct current description sums that trope up as [emphasis added] "a type of ''monster'' defined by its disregard for the natural laws of the universe as we understand them." (although I think calling [=EAs=] "monsters" is simplifying that trope too much; I would prefer "entity" or even "alien" as a proper shorthand) So while not strictly about appearance, I do think it's a useful measuring stick.

That's a very useful distinction with UncannyValley, which I agree with. That means borderline cases like J.D. are excluded off the bat.

As for the upper limit (when creatures become too monstrous to be recognizably humanoid) that will probably remain a bit more fuzzy, but it may be helpful to note with a supertrope as wide as this that not ''every'' vaguely human-looking biped counts. Or would that be too much stating the obvious?