Forum:Succession infoboxes and non attackable monsters
Template:Succession was recently added to the Spirit Beast article describing the Spirit Beast to be the strongest monster. I have since removed it because we define monster to be an attackable character. Since the Spirit Beast cannot be attacked in any way, it is not defined as a monster based on that article.
What we need to decide is whether articles on these characters should be treated as monster articles or NPC articles. If they are to be treated as NPCs, they should follow that format. If they are to be treated as monsters, they should follow the format of a monster article. I personally suggest treating them as NPCs because they cannot be attacked. And if they are to be treated as monsters, they should not carry the succession infoboxes. Dtm142 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree. Conversely, some people consider "monsters" to be a sub-set of NPCs. Personally I think they are separate classifications, monsters being any person or creature that can be engaged in combat, and NPCs being any person or creature that players can talk to. But consider someone like Sigmund, who is an NPC at most times, and a monster during Death to the Dorgeshuun. I think there will be exceptions as well as rules, but the Spirit Beast should be called an NPC IMO. Leevclarke talk 19:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe we should call these non-attackable monsters as NCMs (as in "Non-combat monsters"). NCMs should have a combat level indicating their strength, but unfortunately they cannot be attacked. I think NPCs should be reserved to talking characters without any indication of their strength (combat level). So, Spirit Beast is a NCM, while Sigmund is an NPC. This should clear-up the disputes over NPCs and non-attackable monsters. (P.S.: What's wrong in having the succession box in the Spirit Beast article? Spirit Beast should hold the title of having the "Highest combat level in RuneScape" 05:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- It is potentially misleading and confusing to players because the character cannot be attacked yet is being treated as if it could. I think that simply having a level does not mean that it should be defined as a monster. Dtm142 00:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)