#i like creating species and speculative biology

[infinity-on-ri]

Made an entire alien species to have lore behind my "space angel" alien motherfucker because now he just needs his story and I'm set

I want to figure out organ systems and dietary components and base elements (non-carbon based life forms) and other life on their home planet and much much more, but I'll do that later

[jayrockin]

Found your blog recently, and I have to say, the world you’ve created is some of the best speculative biology/alien stuff I’ve seen on this site. I absolutely adore your attention to detail with each species and how you give them their own unique idiosyncrasies. I was curious, I’ve been taking a few self-defense classes, which made me wonder about how other aliens with physiological structures separate from ours might go about fighting. Do you have any ideas about the martial art styles or fighting styles your alien species might have developed over time? Do some of them not have any sort of fighting ability or style, and would instead try to flee? (I can’t imagine the scuds would do well in most physical altercations)

I continue to be disinterested in martial worldbuilding for the most part but I would like to confirm that scuds fight like chickens. They're not particularly powerful attackers but I doubt it would be fun to get kicked or bitten by one.

[elbiotipo]

I'm trying to develop my worldbuilding but have run into a problem. I don't want to do what usual fantasy settings do where specific "races" have very specific personality and cultural traits, so I'm trying to make a setting with different anthropomorphic "races" coexisting to different extents. The problem is, anytime I question myself on how somehow could've happened or how the different species ended up in their current sociopolitical climate, I don't know when to stop. If it were for me, I'd go as far back as the discovery of fire. How do you know when to stop?

Ideally you never stop, but I understand that sometimes you want to get on with a story. And that's another thing about worldbuilding, once you start creating a world different from Earth, you start asking yourself... well, why this world had the same evolution as Earth, wouldn't different geography result in different species? And then you go into speculative biology and speculative evolution and that's a rabbit hole you will never get out of. And more, you can say, why should this world have the same day length, year length, axial tilt, size as Earth... and THAT'S when you do worldbuilding for real, the worldbuilding never ends.

But here's a tip to make it easier. If you don't know something, if you don't know how to stop, you can always draw from real-life Earth. For example, let's say that you don't want to do the entire evolution of life. You have a cheat sheet; you can use the Biogeographic Realms, and mix and match fauna and flora, and you can assume evolution took a relatively Earth-like turn since your world's continents formed. You have all the life you would expect from regular Earth, and you add your own twists as needed.

For example, in one project, I wanted a Southern hemisphere vibe, so I created a world where the flora and fauna are Neotropical (South American) and Australasian, with some extinct creatures from those places, which is totally justifiable because many species can stay alive for a long time even extinct elsewhere. I just assumed that evolution followed roughly the same path there, which for a fantasy world with actual gods is more than fine.

If you are stuck in certain places on how to create your civilizations, you have literally all of human history and culture to draw from. If you don't know how civilizations in jungles develop, for example, it's time to learn about the Maya and wider Mesoamerica, Srivijaya and Majapahit, the kingdoms of Western Africa like Dahomey, Benin, Oyo, the cultures of the Amazon... Every place in this planet is full of vibrant history, culture and solutions to problems that make for great worldbuilding. You have to be careful about taking inspirations from real life cultures, but it's better that you learn about them rather than not doing research at all!

This is why I insist that people learn about real-life geography and history. Not because CINEMASINS DING, but because once you do, worldbuilding becomes easy and fun. Once you learn the rules about how the real world works, you can twist them and break them as you wish.

[giulliadella]

Speculative Biology of Euclydeans (and Bill Cipher) part 5

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, UPDATE

I have never in my life imagined that I will continue this series, but I am doing it, thanks to some of my insane fans who asked for this. In this part I will talk about developmental biology of Euclydeans which is probably the biggest challenge so far.

As always, this analysis is based on two assumptions:

Before Bill Cipher became a demigod, he was a biological, living organism and so were the rest of his species.

Even after Bill Cipher became a demigod, he still retained some physical characteristics of his biological form.

And a fair content warning: This contains anatomy illustrations. This isn't anything gory, but there are people who are squeamish, so you've been warned.

Click on the images to get better quality!

And without further ado, let's begin.

Euclydean Body Plan

A body plan (also called Bauplan) is a morphological quality of an animal which can tell us clearly to which phylum it belongs. An arthropod will have a very distinct body plan from a vertebrate for example. Body plans are coded by Hox genes in animals and they determine the way an animal's body is going to develop from embryonic stages to adulthood. Euclydeans are aliens, so they don't have Hox genes, but they probably have something similar. Even if they don't have DNA (and they most likely don't), they still have some way of passing their traits to their offspring, which is essential for every living organism. Since I don't have any other option, I will call them genes and genomes.

The body plan of a Euclydean is relatively simple. They are bilaterally symmetrical, shelled, invertebrate organisms. The shell can take three distinct shapes: a triangle, a trapezoid and a rhombus (or a square, but remember, squares are rhombuses that have all four angles at 90 degrees). I haven't found mentions of any other polygons anywhere, but if you did, please tell me.

The shape of the shell was a status symbol within Euclydean society, with triangles being the lowest and squares the highest class. I was thinking about why that would be and after spending an insane amount of researching, I think I found a plausible (although most likely not true) answer: Polyploidy.

Polyploidy is a phenomenon in which the entire genome duplicates. It's very common and often encouraged in plants, since it makes fruits larger or fruiting period longer. Wheat, tomatoes, strawberries, corn and many more plants that we grow are polyploid. In most animals, poliploidy is lethal. It is lethal in humans. But some species or annelids, mollusks, insects, fish and amphibians can be polyploid. My favorite example of polyploidy is in green toads (Bufotes spp.) where polyploidy forms a species complex.

I won't go too far into toad genetics here, but in central Asia, there is a species of green toad that is diploid (like humans - it has one copy of its genome from the father and one from the mother) and one that is polyploid (4n - tetraploid - has two genome copies from each parent). When these two hybridize they create a third species which can be either, but it often has characteristics that place it "in between" the two other species. This hybrid species is fertile and can mate with the other two and that's how you get a species complex.

I believe that Euclydeans are a similar species complex. Triangles would be diploid in that case and rhombuses would be 4n tetraploid. (Because a rhombus basically is two triangles stuck to each other. Duplication of an entire genome could result in something like that easily.) Trapezoids would be a hybrid between the two.

So, triangles are 2n diploid, rhombuses are 4n polyploid and trapezoids are 3n hybrids. Each of these can mate with any other, but the offspring will be different, depending on the pairing. Two triangles will always have a triangle child. Two rhombuses will always have a rhombus child. A triangle and a rhombus will always have a hybrid trapezoid child. Two trapezoids, however, will have a trapezoid child in 50% of cases, whilst 25% will be triangles and 25% rhombuses. A trapezoid and a triangle have a 50-50% chance of having a child trapezoid or a triangle. A trapezoid and a rhombus will have 50-50% chance of their child being either a trapezoid or a rhombus. I made you a graphic, so you can understand easier:

What this essentially means, is that whenever someone mates with a triangle, their ploidy (the numbers of genome copies they have) will lessen, whilst mating with a rhombus will cause it to increase. Since Euclydean society valued more symmetrical and more polygonal rhombuses, this was probably the reason why triangles were the second class citizens. Trapezoids have only 25% chance of having a triangle child, so their marriage might be scrutinized and policed if that was the case (maybe that's what Bill's erotic novel was about?)

Embryonic Development

This was requested by one of my fans (all of them credited below) and it was honestly the biggest challenge ever put in front of me, but I don't give up easily!

One thing that we certainly know about Euclydeans is that they are bilaterally symmetrical. This means that they have a left and a right side. Since this is the case, their ancestors were probably like this as well. But, Euclydean shells also have radial symmetry (which means that you can draw symmetry lines from one tip of the angle to the other, or to the base of other side from every angle). Luckily for us, Earth has something like that too: Echinoderms (sea stars, sea urchins, sea cucumbers and some other groups).

Echinoderms are almost all radially symmetrical, but they have evolved from a bilaterally symmetrical ancestors. This is further proven by their larvae being bilaterally symmetrical too. I believe that Euclydean embryos probably look more like a bilaterally symmetrical organisms, similar to bipinnaria larvae of sea stars. But, as the embryo further develops, they become more "shaped" and gain the radial symmetry as well.

As we all know now, Euclydeans reproduce sexually. Their embryos develop inside a uterus of a parent (which could be both a male and a female, since many people pointed out to me that they are very likely hermaphrodites, which absolutely checks out). Since Bill claimed several times that both Ford and Mabel should have eaten their twins in the uterus, I proposed the idea of oophagy (or adelphophagy) as the means by which Euclydeans feed their offspring in utero. This is further proven by that silly image from thisisnotawebsitedotcom.com where Bill drew himself as a baby in uterus, but he had a bottle of milk in one hand. He obviously doesn't know much about humans and placental mammals, but since he was older than 16 when his dimension was destroyed, it's very likely that he had sex education in school, so he knows how Euclydean babies feed in uterus.

Oophagy simply means that the mother produces many yolk rich eggs that her baby will be able to consume as it grows. If some of those eggs are fertilized, besides the one that will become a baby, then we're talking about adelphophagy where one, strongest embryo hunts down other embryos as food. Sharks are probably most famous for this, but several species of wasps and marine snails also practice it. Bill might have had a slight advantage over his other siblings because his eye (and consequentially his mouth) were larger due to his unusual mutation.

Euclydeans are shelled, but their shell does not develop fully inside the mother. Similarly to some species of oysters, young that grows inside the mother begins to develop shells (in oysters, this stage is referred to as "veliger larva"), but they are expelled out before the shell fully hardens. This is in order to protect the mother's insides. Unlike oysters, Euclydeans have just one (or maybe very rarely two) children at a time, so their baby is large. Judging from the size of the vaginal slit, it's probably around a third of their parent's size. That's very big (average human baby is just about 6% of the mother's weight), but Euclydean babies are born fully developed, with the exception of the shell. The shell fully develops when they begin to molt and so it hardens, looking more triangular (or any other shape, I don't know how to say that in English).

Here's the anatomy of the embryo and fetus in various stages of development. I don't know the specifics of anatomy of any Euclydean besides Bill Cipher, so it's him depicted here. Who asked for baby Bill's organs? Nobody, but you have them now:

So, this was everything I have proof of. But, in my shitty fanfiction "Bad Triangles Go to Therapy", I proposed that Euclydeans could have periods. I did this as a joke, but they could. Probably.

Since adelphophagy is extremely taxing for the mother, she would have a baby only every few years. But, if she somehow skipped this fertile period, she would have to expel all of the eggs that her body formed. This could be, or feel like, a menstruation, but they wouldn't shed uterine lining, just the eggs. Alternatively, a mother could simply reabsorb the eggs. This way, she would keep all of her nutrients inside her body and recover faster for the next fertile period. This is completely up to interpretation, because I have no idea.

@aroacejedi was the one who asked for embryonic development of Euclydeans, whilst @equilateralbill was the person with whom I discussed the logistics of Euclydean reproduction in more detail. They are the ones you should thank for this bullshit.

As always, anyone is free to use this for anything, just link to the post, or any other part of this series. Have fun, love ya!

[literaryvein-reblogs]

do you have any tips for writing speculative biology?

Speculative biology—(also referred to as "speculative zoology", though it is by no means limited to animals) is a sub-genre of science fiction which combines speculative fiction (i.e., Science Fiction, Fantasy, Alternate History and everything in between) with creature design, and deals with evolution in the future, on other worlds, or in alternate timelines, the same way that many other sci-fi works discuss technology.

This is one of the most fun sub-genres to explore. Here are just a few writing tips.

Read/watch a lot of media that plays with this sub-genre, and learn from them. Examples:

A Memoir by Lady Trent - Marie Brennan describes a low fantasy world with largely the same culture and animals as real life, but also home to very diverse dragons. The dragons are given extensive analysis through the character of Lady Trent, a naturalist dedicated to studying their taxonomy, anatomy, behaviors and ecology.

Dreamwork's How to Train Your Dragon - sometimes dabbles in this, displaying different types of Dragons as different species with a couple overlapping traits, implying that they evolved from a common ancestor. This is most prominently shown in Book of Dragons which describes at least 6 major taxonomic families of Dragons that most dragons in the franchise belong to.

Doctor Who: "The Lazarus Experiment" - has Richard Lazarus being mutated into a fearsome giant centipede/scorpion-like monster after an experiment with an anti-ageing machine goes wrong. The Doctor describes the monster as a creature of evolutionary potential — something that evolution could have turned humanity into if it hadn't gone the "two arms and legs, ten fingers and toes" route — lying dormant within Lazarus' genes.

Research a lot. Here are just a few resources that may help you in writing this sub-genre, particularly with creature design:

Here's a really good article that discusses some evolutionary rules

A brief resource on Evolution Rules

This article called, "Rules of evolution"

A Wildlife Fact Sheet

After doing all the research, and the devouring, and the hoarding of all the resources you can get your hands on, hoping they'll bleed into your story once you start writing, because admit it, you are procrastinating by asking this question—here is the writing tip that pervades all genre: let go. "Good writing is often about letting go of fear and affectation. Affectation itself, beginning with the need to define some sorts of writing as ‘good’ and other sorts as ‘bad,’ is fearful behavior." —Stephen King

So let your soul colour the pages. Particularly with this genre, allow your imagination to run free. Be as creative as you can. Because "when you write, you want to get rid of the world, don’t you? Of course you do. When you’re writing, you’re creating your own worlds." —Stephen King

Sources: 1 2

Hope this helps. Please tag me, or send me a link if it does. I would love to read your work!

More: Fantasy ⚜ Writing Notes & References

[sinful-lanterns]

On the topic of monster breeding, I would like to add in some more interesting information:

Do be wary though, this is pretty much a lore dump post for my AU 😅

There are only two ways to be a monster. 1. You were naturally born as a monster, or 2. You were unnaturally created to be a monster.

Monsters who are naturally born, are monsters who can be conceived by sexual intercourse, just like any other animal. However, there is a whole other category of monsters who are unnaturally created, those who weren’t born monsters but instead, were humans who have become monsters. Think ghosts, vampires, automatons, golems, chimeras, etc. beings who were created and changed into entities who aren’t considered human.

Most monsters who were unnaturally created are unable to produce offspring, even when having sexual intercourse with the same species or a human. An example of this would be that it’s impossible to be born a ghost, as ghosts are dead spirits that were formerly human.

This does of course mean that not every monster woman can “breed” with the Researcher, but adoption exists and many of them are alright caring for the other children that are procured from other monsters :)

Some extra detailed info about specific monsters and outliers:

- Fallen Angels are former Angel monsters who have committed grave sins and have become corrupted. Even though Fallen Angels are considered unnaturally created, they are still able to breed. Their offspring however, will be Angels as their parent was formerly an Angel. Whether or not they become Fallen Angels depends on what they do in their life.

- In this AU, Devils/Demons and Angels are not former humans. They are born as what they are, so they are able to procure offspring naturally.

- Eldritch Beings (such as Deren) are unable to produce offspring. It is currently unknown and impossible to find out how Eldritch Beings form, so many speculate they just exist.

- Plant-type monsters reproduce using sexual intercourse rather than how plants usually reproduce.

- Witches are just regular humans who are born with the capability to use magic. Because they are biologically still human, they are able to breed naturally with humans and different monster species alike.

- Luvia Ray specifically, who is a “Jekyll and Hyde” monster, is also able to produce offspring naturally. Although she is considered an “unnatural creation” her biology is still mostly human other than the fact she can transform into a monstrous “Ray” when provoked.

[bonefall]

Hi! How would you draw a tool-evolved cat paw?

Aeons ago I wrote some speculative biology thoughts on what a tool-focused cat would begin to look like, and mentioned the way that a caw's paw might evolve. I can try to draw it out as a sketch; but fair warning that I put my art style points into cartoony anime stuff SO you're not gonna get a realistic drawing lmao

Evolution doesn't "think." It's many changes over generations that snowball into bigger ones. So I tried to look at WHAT exactly is happening between an animal with less sophisticated tool use (chimp) and one that COMPLETELY relies on tools (human) to predict where the cat's paw would end up in a few thousand generations.

Please note! My paw would still be a "link" between the ancestor, and something even more reliant on tool use. This proposed species would still be 100% capable of doing what the cats in-canon do, like hunt alone. It's for a feline species that is tool-ADAPTED, not tool-RELIANT.

(In that way, it's more comparable to, say, a lemur and a chimp. But lemur palm refs were hard to find and I did this quick because I've already thought about it.)

This paw would exist in-tandem with a "tool tooth;" A V-shaped gap in the jawline that a single fang would nestle into. Early tool-using felines would likely use their mouth to "break" or "shear" their crafts, leading to broken teeth that would make them less successful. So there would be a lot of evolutionary pressure to have better, stronger teeth.

Evolution doesn't do "one thing at a time," so if you happened to port yourself into a group of these cats and watch them craft stuff, you'd see them using their mouths as well as their paws!

Finger Size + Tool Claw

When you see real cats batting stuff around and manipulating things, and when you look at canon where they like to "hook things on a claw," it's usually the index "finger" they favor. In fact, they do a LOT of "poking," even when a cat bats at something they seem to mostly explore with the tip of their paw.

So I figure that would actually be a big difference between this species and humans.

Unlike us, who usually have our middle finger as the longest (though there are exceptions) so we can "stabilize" the things we grab, I'd give these guys a "Tool Claw" which is not involved in grappling at all. It's longer, more deeply grooved, but also more fragile than the "hunting" claws.

When at rest, the Tool Claw would stick out from the rest of the foot, straight upwards. The fur is able to "sheathe" the other three, but the index's would be too long to be fully hidden.

Because one of those fingers is now mostly taken out of combat, the pinkie would probably thicken up to compensate. Another difference from the human hand. I can imagine that if the trend continues, they might end up supporting their full frontal weight on the pinkie pad to free up the other fingers for tool use.

(But evolution's not always predictable! They might end up becoming more "back heavy" like raccoons, or rely on the invention of shoe/gloves, or just abandon silent hunting all together to become tool-reliant.)

Paw Pad Changes

Cats use the pads on their paws to move silently. As long as the species is relying on silently stalking prey, they will need to have these pads in contact with the ground to be good hunters.

So instead of the digital pads sliding down to create the "top" of the palm, I figured the metacarpal pad would split in two. So now there's a snug, dipped "shape" with which they could nestle an object into as they work with it, but also there is ALWAYS still pad in contact with the ground.

The amount of fur in-between the bottom (metacarpal) and top (supercarpal) pads probably just depends on culture and genetics. It wouldn't really have enough of an impact on the paw to be selected for to be furry or hairless.

I can imagine some groups being weird about it and thinking it should be shaved or braided or something, lmao. Or cats who live in muddy environments clipping it for hygiene reasons.

[craftingcreatures]

Today I want to talk about the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus (Octopus paxarbolis).

OK, so for those who don't know, the PNW Tree Octopus was an internet hoax created in 1998 consisting of a website detailing the animal's life history and conservation efforts. It's completely fake - saying that up front. This animal never existed.

But if you look at this from a speculative biology standpoint? It's genius.

There is one, and only one, thing preventing Octopus from colonizing and being hugely successful in terrestrial environments in the PNW, and that's the fact that no cephalopod has ever been able to overcome the osmotic stress of inhabiting freshwater. We don't know why this is; other mollusks evolved freshwater forms just fine. But if you hand-wave away that one, single limiting factor, the PNW is just primed for a terrestrial octopus invasion.

The Pacific coast of North America is an active tectonic boundary, meaning the coast transitions pretty much immediately into the Cascade and Coastal mountain ranges (contrast with the east coast and its broad Atlantic plain). It's also a lush temperate rainforest, with very high precipitation. This means lots and lots of high-gradient mountain streams with lots of waterfalls and rapids and cold, highly oxygenated water, and not as many large, meandering rivers.

This has important consequences on the freshwater fauna. For one, there are not many freshwater fish in the Pacific Northwest - the rapids and waterfalls are extremely hard to traverse, so many mountain streams are fish-free. There also just isn't much fish diversity in the first place - there's sturgeon in the big rivers, salmonids, a few sculpin and cyprinids and... that's pretty much it. These cold northern rivers are positively impoverished compared to the thriving fish communities of the Mississippi or Rio Grande.

Few fish means few predators, and depending on the size of the first freshwater octopus, salmon and trout just wouldn't be much of a threat. And while these rivers don't have much in the way of fish diversity, there's lots of prey available - crayfish, leeches, mosquito larvae, frogs and tadpoles, water striders, and other aquatic insects, just to name a few. So the first Octopus pioneers to invade the rivers would be entering what essentially amounts to a predator-free environment with lots and lots of food and no competition. Great for colonization.

These ideal conditions get even better once you get up past the rapids and waterfalls, since there's no fish whatsoever in those streams. Octopus, with their sucker-lined arms, are perfectly equipped to navigate fast-moving, rocky-bedded streams and climb up cliffs. They'd also be well able to traverse short stretches of dry ground to access even more isolated pools and ponds. In fact, once Octopus overcome the osmoregulation problem there's nothing at all preventing them from colonizing land in earnest, since the PNW rainforests are so wet; there's no danger of drying out.

Finally there's the question of reproduction. Octopus are famously attentive mothers, because they need to keep the water around their eggs moving and well-oxygenated. In a mountain stream, this wouldn't be an issue, because the cold, turbulent water holds lots and lots of oxygen. Breeding in high mountain streams would be ideal, and the mothers might not even need to attend to their eggs, freeing them up to evolve away from semelparity and allowing them to reproduce more than once in their lives; their populations would thus increase rapidly and dramatically.

I think, if octopus managed to invade freshwater ecosystems in the PNW, it would dramatically change the ecology much like an invasive species. They'd be unstoppable predators of frogs, bugs, slugs, maybe even larger animals like snakes, birds, and small mammals. Nothing would eat them except maybe herons, and things like bears and raccoons would give them a wide berth due to their venom. They would rule that landscape.

The tl;dr is that the PNW is primed for invasion by cephalopods, if only they could manage to overcome the osmoregulation problem and live in freshwater. If the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus really did exist, it wouldn't be a shy and reclusive species on the brink of extinction; it would be a pest, an invasive, overpopulated menace you couldn't get rid of if you wanted to. I can just imagine them crawling up onto people's bird feeders and either stealing the nuts or luring in unsuspecting sparrows and starlings. They would sit in the trees and throw pinecones at hikers for fun. They would be some unholy mixture of snake and slug with the personality of a magpie and I am incensed that they only exist in fiction.

[generalb]

Throughout all my life I’ve always been interested in nonhuman creatures. When I was young and my autism was in its rawest form I would often pit the ancient ancestors of animals against their modern equivalent, either in comparison or in battle(I remember doing a Rhino versus Triceratops once). As I grew older, and the internet allowed me to learn of the creatures of horror movies without being horrified, my attention shifted to that of the alien. I loved learning about the Xenomorphs and Predators, or the aliens from A Quiet Place. Recently, however, a new alien species has taken my interest, though not from horror film, but kinky horror fanfiction. I am of course, talking about the Affini from the Human Domestication Guide, created by GlitchyRobo.

The Affini of HDG are such an interesting species. Despite their peace-desiring nature we have to assume they were the top of the food chain wherever they came from. The strength to do what they do is built into their very biology. Super strength, ability to run absurd speeds, even the regeneration—their origins, whatever they are, were NOT peaceful, guaranteed. Not to mention the biological drugs that exist within them that can be used through either their flowers or needles hidden within their vines that can pierce human skin almost unnoticed. Another noteworthy trait is their ability to mimic or exist as different species of plants, like a fern Affini or a rose Affini. This level of adaptation mixed with the usage of drugs suggests that their origins could have been as prey, which would match with our known plants, unable to move from predators and thus evolving traits to deter them. The strength and speed, however, are things I’m not smart enough to explain away. Once they gained them, however—combined with their adaptation and ability to deceive using drugs, they would’ve been near unstoppable, similar to how ancient humans hunted megafauna and old predators such as the Sabertooth to extinction thanks to our newly evolved adaptive nature.

Their personality is curious, however—for a species in Post-Scarcity, I can understand the want and desire to help other aliens, including humans. But the specific pet dynamic they desire seemingly clashes with their message of helping sophonts(universal term for a non-Affini) be the best they can be. It almost seems instinctual, similar to humans and their pack-bonding ability. They desire other species to be at their peak, but refute certain things that don’t align with their idea, such as humans free will to make bad decisions at the cost of others and/or themselves. While modern human morals would agree with not wanting bad things to happen, the moderate to great usage of drugs the Affini are known for is less than acceptable.

The unfortunate fact is, any and all speculation about the Affini’s origins or why they do what they do is unknown. Given their extremely advanced technology and knowledge, it could be difficult to even know if they were a plant based species in the first place, or if becoming immortal through reblooming as vine creatures was a scientific advancement or not.

Granted, I’m analyzing a species from a hypno kink universe, and I shouldn’t expect crazy world building, but it’s just so much fun!

Edit: @arkkaxe has included a link to a site detailing the Affini in the replies, and it has been very helpful!

It appears that the low gravity environment the Affini hail from caused the evolution of prehensile limbs, and the xenodrugs might be related to their pollen from earlier days of reproduction using “beeple.” Speaking of that subject, their use of beeple lead to the cultural urge of master/pet dynamics, which slightly confirms my original belief that the desire felt more instinctual than purposeful.

I’m glad to be so pleasantly surprised at all the lore of this world! I take back what I said about the world building, there’s obviously enough to get its own website!

[artihunter]

I’ve seen things recently talking about how the scugs can’t have fur because they have slimy sounds in game and are depicted with no fur in the official arts, which is fair. However! As someone who likes random animal facts and both weird irl animal biology/speculative biology, I want to share some of my own thoughts and ways to interpret the whole thing.

That and I like to encourage creativity of all types especially with strange fictional species! So here’s some thoughts:

Option A, of course is that they are referred to as small rodents in game. Rodents are mammals, so fur would be possible then! As for the slimy noises, the Slugcats are—safe to say—pretty adapted to pipes, so it could always be some sort of natural oil they secrete to be so slick. As for why they don’t have fur in the art? Idk artstyle is like that sometimes could just be that.

Option B, which is my preferred option: sea slugs have these things called caryophylldia on their bodies. It is not fur or hair, however, it does appear to be like fur or hair. Caryophyllidia are from what I can read basically tubular structures that act as a sensory organ. With this knowledge, basically it is fair to assume that if the scugs are in fact weird sluggy guys, then it is possible for them to have “fur” or something that mimics it.

Option C is just splatoon logic “hair.” Chuncks that look like fur. Why? I dunno I didn’t think that far. The other option is a sort of “whisker” but since whiskers are also sensory organs, it semi goes back to Option B.

Option D, a second favorite contender, is basically: there are biomechanical beasts in the ocean that have hydraulic presses as mouths along with robotic gods messing with genetic code to create scugs like spearmaster who has no mouth and must scream so I don’t think it’s really that cowardly if people decide to draw the scugs like baby’s first warriors fanart its fun.

And that’s basically it! Unlike Spearmaster I have a mouth and I will scream.

[gallifreyinstituteforlearning]

sooo. the untempered schism. they say some people are inspired, some run away, and some go mad. the latter certainly happened to the master, and all three likely happened to the doctor.

my question is this: how and when was that thing discovered? why and when did a tradition of plopping little kids in front of it start? seems pretty odd, though i wouldn’t know. as my friend says, i have a “startlingly similar mind to my simian ancestors.” (things are going great on that front, by the way. he’s jury-rigged some sort of space radio and is trying to make contact with a distant tardis while i distract the authorities. fun times!)

What is the Untempered Schism?

The Untempered Schism is a naturally occurring (maybe) rift in space-time located on Gallifrey, specifically in a crater called the Caldera near the Capitol. It allows anyone standing in front of it to see the raw, unfiltered Time Vortex.

The Tenth Doctor called it a "gap in the fabric of reality", which is very well could be, but it also could be more of an open wound.

🧬 When Was It Discovered?

The answer depends on whether you like your timelines neat or nightmarish.

One theory is that the Schism predates the Time Lords entirely—formed naturally (or by the mysterious Constructors of Destiny) billions of years before Gallifrey was Gallifrey.

Another theory states that the Caldera—and by extension the Schism—was created during the 'Anchoring of the Thread,' a key event during which Rassilon activated the Eye of Harmony. In the resulting metaphysical whiplash, creatures from another universe (the Yssgaroth) punched through, destroying the anchoring machinery and ripping open the Caldera, leaving the Schism as a kind of open wound.

So either:

It's an ancient feature of the planet.

It's a side effect of the Time Lords messing with things.

It's both. Because on Gallifrey, that's allowed.

👶 Why Show It to Children?

Now we get to the really sound educational philosophy.

From the time of the Dark Times onward, the Schism was part of an initiation ceremony for young Gallifreyans entering the Academy. At the age of eight, they were marched (in total silence) to stand before the Schism.

If a child failed to reach the Schism on foot (the walk was long, silent, through some pretty hot terrain while wearing thick ceremonial robes), they were carried back to live out their life in shame.

If they made it, reaction options included:

Being inspired. (Top of the class, probably ended up important.)

Running away. (The Doctor. Also several others, see below.)

Going mad. (Take your pick.)

Earlier in Gallifrey's history, this 'initiation' was more literal: some children were thrown into the Schism, which resulted in their physical form being 'splintered' across time and space, so you can see why the practice was phased out, wisely replacing being splintered across eternity with traumatising exposure therapy.

🧠 Does It Actually Do Anything?

That depends on your definition of 'do'. Some Gallifreyan historians credit the Schism with accelerating Gallifreyan evolution, claiming that long-term exposure to the Time Vortex nudged their species toward what would become Time Lords. This is all very noble and mythic and not peer-reviewed.

That's more long-term speculative biology than immediate function, though. Practically, it's a pedagogical sledgehammer. The Schism isn't about unlocking latent potential so much as confronting children with the scope of their future duties.

You see, staring into the Vortex through the Schism is the first time a young Gallifreyan truly understands what it means to wield time.

For a human comparison, it's like showing a human toddler a live feed of all global crises, climate collapse, death, war, the heat death of the universe, and then saying, 'Deal with it!'

🧒 Why Keep Doing It?

You'd think, after several notable figures went spectacularly mad, they might re-evaluate the curriculum. They didn't.

The ceremony survived billions of years, regime changes, and at least one apocalypse. Even after the Time War, Gallifrey was still hauling Drylands kids to stare into the Vortex.

🏫 So…

The Untempered Schism's origins are a little murky, but it's most certainly a cultural trauma engine. It may have existed before the Time Lords. It may have been caused by their first act of time-tampering. Either way, it became one of their most sacred traditions, because nothing says educational excellence like a psychosis roulette wheel for eight-year-olds.

Related:

💬|📱🕸️What does the Web of Time look like?: Overview on the Web of Time and its relevance.

💬|🏡🌀Do Chapter traits affect how kids respond to the Untempered Schism?: How your pre-programmed chapter traits may impact how you react to the Schism.

💬|🪐🚪Would the Untempered Schism still exist if Gallifrey was destroyed?: What would happen to the Schism in the event of Gallifrey’s destruction.

Hope that helped! 😃

Any orange text is educated guesswork or theoretical. More content ... →📫Got a question? | 📚Complete list of Q+A and factoids →📢Announcements |🩻Biology |🗨️Language |🕰️Throwbacks |🤓Facts → Features: ⭐Guest Posts | 🍜Chomp Chomp with Myishu →🫀Gallifreyan Anatomy and Physiology Guide (pending) →⚕️Gallifreyan Emergency Medicine Guides →📝Source list (WIP) →📜Masterpost If you're finding your happy place in this part of the internet, feel free to buy a coffee to help keep our exhausted human conscious. She works full-time in medicine and is so very tired 😴

[nazrigar]

Helloooo I just discovered your Beast Fables worldbuilding and I need to say that it is very impressive, interesting and inspiring !

I've picked up writing recently and one of my story features mythological creature protagonists (only, no humans) so I'm doing à lot or research on chimeras and lesser-known creatures sur as the sak, akhlut or the alphyn (or at least creatures that I didn't know about before doing researches).

The way you share your worldbuilding is short yet efficient, and the illustrations really help ! I especially like your megafauna posts. I've had some troubles defining precisely how to differentiate "animals" from "intelligent creatures", because there are still our known animals but also more. I have questions like "should jackalopes be animals or should they also have a society like griffins or unicorns ?" etc. I also struggle à bit with figuring out biology/evolution. For examples, griffins and hippogriffs are related but still different species. However, opinicus and keythongs would be sub-species of griffins. Etc.

Anyways. I love what you do !!

Thank you so much! I'm glad my work can inspire others!

Well, my best advice is think about the direction of what you want for your fantasy or science fantasy story in question. Does the presence of more or less human-level intelligent characters or societies work for your setting?

For example, in the development of Beast Fables, there was supposed to be "regular" humans, werefolk, and merfolk... but I felt that the entire setting felt more unique when every human is some sort of werefolk, because it opens up a LOT of storytelling opportunities, and helped them turn into a thematic counerpart to the merfolk, who are all based off sea critters.

Based on what you've created for your world so far, and the characters you have set up, think of the lines of "how important it is to establish now?" and "can I save this for later?". That way it helps set up priorities of your worldbuilding and lore.

Now on evolution and biology? Speculative evolution works best, at least in my own opinion, is if it works under the realm of the "plausible". Evolution is after all a series of "good enoughs", and how much of these "good enough" solutions work for whatever niche the creature you have filled. If you can explain well enough why a lifeform adapted this or that, then it should be satisfactory.

BUT, it's always good to research on evolution and natural selection itself to give yourself familiarity on the subject!

[leohtttbriar]

i don't disagree that the snw plot idea of "turn non-vulcans into vulcans" resulting in those non-vulcans speaking monotone and ""logically"" is, on an immediate read without the full context of the full episode narrative, silly and maybe not very thoughtful. but i think part of the reaction against that idea comes from a habit of people reading star trek and star trek aliens on a purely representative level; and, related to that, the reaction also partly comes from a reluctance to read the "logic" aspect of vulcans sincerely. in fan spaces, i've noticed, "vulcan logic" is always a metaphor and always a pretense--something more akin to prayer and religion than a more material way of interacting with the world.

obviously there are metaphorical aspects to the aliens created for the star trek world and stories. i'd say the vast majority of alien depiction on star trek is meant to be allegorical. so it's a sound response to see the "drink vulcan juice and speak all logical" plot element as a misunderstanding of culture to the point of ignorance, since aliens in star trek, through whatever narrative position, largely represent variations in human culture interacting with each other. and, like, they can't really be more than representative of what we know of culture since we have yet to meet an actual alien in reality. the fact that most star trek aliens are humans with some sort of makeup on their nose or forehead to indicate "not from earth" only reinforces this interpretive entry point. additionally, anyone with any proper understanding of human culture is going to rationally react against anything that implies a bio-essentialist culture/intelligence. being "close to nature" or "mind dictated by the body" is typically the first way any human being or culture has been dehumanized since the beginning of human civilization.

but i think sticking solely to this read, to thinking of star trek aliens only as different cultures instead of also different biological beings, can elide some of the more interesting aspects of alien-species speculation as well as ignore all the ways that human beings are bodies and how that's not an inherently degrading truth. our cultures are largely sourced in material realities of our bodies. they don't arise from the abstract. and yes, i'm definitely aware that star trek itself doesn't do much to speculate on the planet-histories implied in the biological realities of aliens, but maybe this particular snw plot is doing a little bit of that work, in the smallest of ways.

so, a good-faith attempt to interpret what snw is implying about the "drinking the become-a-vulcan potion makes non vulcans speak like vulcans and use logic" plot:

if becoming a vulcan means, without training or prompting, automatically labeling things logical or illogical then that labeling things logical or illogical is encoded in the vulcan body, somehow, so

to allow for this, there's two parts: a) a biological mechanism for interpreting what is or isn't logical and b) "logical" means something more specific than what we mean by "logical"

exploring part a): this seems like a very silly thing to build into the biology of a made-up alien and also sort of goes against a lot of established vulcan-ness in star trek canon. but, imagine: rather than say vulcans have deep "emotions", let's say that they instead of have deep "sensations". and maybe there's just been some confusion of translation for a hundred years over this distinction. vulcans in canon are telepathic through their hands and have a lot of control over pain reception. control over more unconscious aspects of their nervous system means that maybe these aren't really unconscious aspects at all--they can control because large parts of their nervous systems are voluntary. like, whales have a voluntary breath mechanism, unlike us whose brains force us to breathe without us deciding to. for vulcans, they could have a less expansive autonomic nervous system--or maybe the distinguishing in their nervous systems is more complicated than our somatic/autonomic divide.

so a greater breadth of conscious sensation leads to a greater ability to control that sensation. this control could be something that is simply a part of how their bodies evolved, which you can then apply to the fact that, in canon, vulcans used to be violent and colonizing until they embraced logic. maybe "logic" is a control over sensation, here. as in--it's the natural interpretive experience of having a vulcan mind. their brains evolved to order the endless amounts of information in a different way than a humans: we ignore a lot of the information that's coming in, consciously, and our brain regulates all this without us having to put conscious effort towards it; for vulcans, maybe they didn't evolve to ignore it but evolved to order it in a logical way.

it's not ridiculous to think that a brain would do this since our brains sort of do this. depth perception comes from our brain calculating based on two different images from two different eyes. we fill in gaps unaware that we're doing so, reading or puzzling or anything. if we can speculate that vulcans do this with complete awareness than their sense of the world naturally comes through pathways of step-by-step calculations. thus, thinking necessitates logic. and if this biology is given to people who already have training in abstract rational thinking, like the snw characters, and have exposure to language, they would be able to experience what it is to naturally live in a body that naturally interprets the world through logic. whether or not it's sound or valid logic is then the product of education and language-acquisition for vulcans (and therefore anyone randomly turned into one).

for part b): i personally have to imagine this is canon every time i watch star trek because star trek writers aren't very good at writing logic. sometimes it makes sense (janeway saying "logic can be used to justify anything") and sometimes it's just a vulcan saying "that's not logical" to something that definitely has a logic which just makes the vulcan sound bitchy. which, that's fine. but as someone who thinks rational thinking is the best thing ever, this annoys me. so i've basically come up with this idea to get me through these moments that "logical" sometimes means something very very specific. sometimes when a vulcan says "that's not logical" logical means what we think it means: a conclusion soundly following from sound premises. and other times when a vulcan says "that's not logical" they mean it doesn't follow from a specific philosophical "logical" that is based largely in logical principles but is also based in principles of cultural and ethical value. so like, they're vegetarian, i think: the logic there could be to cause no harm to sentient creatures. but the ethic of "cause no harm" isn't inherently rational. that logic had to be argued and decided based on principles that had to be argued and decided. and those underlying principles are sometimes the source of a vulcan character deciding something is logical or illogical.

so, since i don't expect network tv show characters to speak in syllogisms as the vulcan-alien-conceit implies to someone who cares about that stuff (me), i just decided on my lonesome and for fic writing purposes that this distinction is case dependent, distinguished in writing by capitalization. "logical" is traditional understanding of logical, and "Logical" is in what ive called the Temporal case--and words that are declined in this case refer to abstract principles that aren't immediately sourced in material fact.

"logic" is the sensory mechanism vulcans can be born with; "Logic" is the abstract practice that is taught. and they're related but not the same.

with those two parts of this good-faith interpretation in which i do quite a lot of imaginative and world-building work for this silly tv show, the "joke" of the humans acting vulcan can be a little more interesting and make a little more sense.

[would-this-pokemon-be-a-friend]

I'd like to know how a Porygon-Z would do as a pet. My favorite little creature :)

As with this species' pre-evolutions, porygon-z are a curious pet candidate. These pokémon are artificial, mostly digital beings, which makes them about as rare as they are behaviorally peculiar. If you do manage to adopt a porygon-z (or provide your porygon2 a Dubious Disc to allow them to evolve into one), I’m afraid there aren’t a lot of resources out there to help you with caring for them. It takes some pretty advanced programming to bring about a porygon-z, so finding one to adopt can be pretty expensive or will require some advanced computer engineering skills. This blog’s primary source of information, the pokédex, has hardly anything to say about this species. Because of this, this post may feel a little… cobbled together… but I’ll do my best to provide you with all the speculative information I can. The bottom line, though, is that porygon-z might make good pets for some owners, but their unpredictable behavior and abilities may make them more than most can handle.

Let’s start with the easy stuff. Porygon-z are a good size for a house pet. They’re far from too heavy, and their ability to levitate makes it easy for them to comfortable get around, even in smaller living spaces. You’re probably already wondering, though: how big a risk is there of a porygon-z wandering off into other forms of space. Porygons, after all, have the fascinating ability to traverse digital space, which can cause some issues when it comes to owning one as a pet (see the porygon post, linked at the bottom of this one). Porygon-z are created using porygon2s as a base, meaning that many of their programmed behaviors and abilities can be inferred by looking at the information we have about their predecessors. These related pokémon are so similar in some ways, in fact, that many pokémon scholars don’t even consider porygon-z an entirely new evolution of pokémon (Shield). It is fair to assume that porygon-z have a similar ability to traverse cyberspace like porygons, but it doesn’t end there. Porygon-z seems to have been designed to traverse and work in even stranger dimensions of reality, described vaguely in the pokédex as “alien dimensions” (Platinum, HeartGold/SoulSilver). This was supposed to make them a “better” and “more advanced pokémon” (Diamond/Pearl, Scarlet), an absurdly subjective and frankly insulting goal (porygons and porygon2s are perfect the way they are). Whether or not this programming worked seems to be up in the air, but no matter what you will want to take precautions to avoid them wandering off into cyberspace. This is, of course, easier said than done. When it comes to porygons, which have very predictable programming, there isn’t a lot of risk of them popping off without permission. Porygon-z, by contrast, are quite erratic.

As a result of the programming they’ve been given in order to turn them into interdimensional travelers, porygon-z are unpredictable both in their movements and their behavior (Diamond/Pearl, Sun, Moon). This may make porygon-z difficult to train and to contain, and could even make them dangerous. Like their pre-evolutions, these pokémon are capable of using some pretty gnarly moves, like Tri-Attack, Double-Edge, and Hyper Beam, which could easily prove lethal in the wrong context. Given the lack of information about this species’ behavior beside it being “odd”, it is difficult to recommend them to someone unless they are aware that caring for them might look different every day.

On a positive note, these pokémon have a pretty good ease of care. Porygon2s, which porygon-z get most of their programming and physical “biology” from, can survive in the vacuum of space, after all! The problems with caring for a porygon-z don’t lie so much with a danger to them but to a danger to you and the risk of their getting lost. They are also, mostly likely, highly intelligent and social, if those parts of their porygon2 programming remain. They are likely much more adaptive than porygons, for better and for worse.

All-in-all, it is about as hard to recommend porygon-z as a pet as it is to explain exactly why I can’t. While their needs are very simple, their formidable ability to cause harm and run away from home, combined with their notoriously erratic behavior, makes them a pet that only the most experience pokémon (and preferably, porygon) owners to handle.

The Porygon Post:

[critters-world-being-rained]

I’ve been cooking an au that I doubt I’ll write but I certainly have been drawing.

I’ve been working on it for weeks now but finally have thought of how I want to start sharing it. For now, I can show the end results of hours and hours of messing with speculative biology and deciding the roles and plot.

The basic idea as far as this post will show is the iterators are bio mechanical creatures combining iterators and orca whales created by an aquatic race of ancients. Local groups act as pods but Suns was separated from his and joined Moon’s. I had tons of versions (mouth placement and where to start or end the whales and how iterator to make them verses how human or how whale) but I think I like where the concept ended up.

A deeper explanation is bellow but know that, beyond the speculative biology I had a lot of fun with, it does involve discussion of real world and in-universe animal cruelty. Specifically Orcas in captivity and how they have been shown to suffer- not for long or in much detail but certainly could be upsetting.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On mobile the more doesn’t show here so pause and check the warning the warning above before reading

!!!!!!!!!!!

In one of my discussion based environmental science classes, the professor was having us discuss Orcas in captivity because she recently published a paper on it and, as is typical for me, I cope from how completly tragic and upsetting a topic is by relating them to my hyperfixation of the time.

Orcas in captivity are some of the only other animals known to self harm. They also notoriously harm eachother and their trainers. One of the main reasons they suffer so much is because they are so A)smart and B)social. The lack of stimulation and enrichment combined with being locked in a too small space, removed from their natural environments and purpose.

That connected to how I’ve always felt like that reasoning is part of why Pebbles does as mentally horrible as he does. He is a smart supercomputer trapped in a single place, the main consciousness stuck in a single room because the rest of the building is his body so he can’t simply leave it behind. He once had so many processes and tasks, taking care of the ancients and seeking the great solution- created late enough to have certainly been effected by his creators’ impatience. He’s also a rare case of not being fully in charge of himself and is limited on resources due to his location. His existence was also controversial. When the ancients left he was left with too much time and processing power and not enough to do with it. His self isolating habits certainly would not help. Even though they are stationary nobody can convince me iterators don’t couldn’t as social species when they were made to collaborate with each-other and their citizens.

He hurts others (especially moon) and himself because he feels frustrated and trapped. Orcas hurt themselves and others in captivity for similar reasons. Orca health deteriorates horribly in captivity, Pebbles is not physically or mentally healthy for any of the time we see him in canon. Pebbles is practically in captivity, he would do horrible in it. The dehumanization would also hit hard, he would have being treated like a simple animal- and Orcas being treated like simple animals when they are so smart and social is horrible. It just- it just clicked in my brain and now this au is clawing its way out of my head!

Thinking of those parallels lead to wanting to make an Au where Pebbles is an orca in captivity. I went back and forth on if the other iterators would take the place of humans or if they would be Orcas as well (and if they would also be in captivity) and the roles of the slugcat characters a lot. But I decided to have a modern/anthro au for Slugcats and scavengers on the surface and the iterators all remaining in the ocean until Pebbles is captured.

In future art I will go more into detail on the plot and other characters but that’s it for this one. Tho, feel free to send me asks about the AU! Since it’s not planned to be a fic I don’t have to be coy with plot points and don’t have a real way to share details outside of Tumblr :p

Just call it “the rotting in captivity au”, “orca au” or “captivity au”

[gems-of-jungle-moon]

I'm pretty bad at drawing dragons, could I have a tip on drawing them.

I don't think there's such a thing as "being bad" at drawing dragons, to be honest.

Dragons can have such a large variety of designs, especially when artists, modern or not, imagine them as something other than your standard fire breathing reptile. Folklore can't even be consistent on what a dragon is. To me, they're not too different than designing a creature from scratch, whether or not you want to make it biologically plausible (aka spec bio). So I can't specifically give you dragon design tips because I use the same process for all creatures I make.

Instead, I'll offer some things I learned about creature design in general from studying animals and from other creature designers.

It all comes down to two questions:

What is the character of this design? And what do you like to design?

It sounds vague but hear me out.

Designing a character and designing a creature aren't that dissimilar. Because by creating a creature, you also focus on what makes its shapes unique from others as you would in a lineup of characters. Think of how you can identify different real life animals based on just the silhouette alone, and the features that give it that silhouette. For example you can tell a giraffe apart from a whale just by the silhouette, right?

What I like to do is make designs that give a good idea on how the creature lives, speculative evolution, and that involves a lot of research into animal biology. Evolution is the most unhinged creature designer, after all.

Ostriches and emus convergently evolved to be built for running rather than flying, and occupy a similar niche in their environments. But if you reduce them down to a single silhouette, you can easily still tell them apart.

Here's two of my own designs to demonstrate this same idea. The left I designed from bears, wildebeest, african wild dogs, and gorgonopsids. It's a pack-hunting species that lives in warmer grasslands. Its arms are also comparatively long for the rest of its body.

On the right is a polar relative, designed from a polar bear, a seal, arctic fox (summer coat), white tailed deer (tail shape), and basilosaurus (for the teeth). Compared to the first design, it's less lean and has more bulk for keeping warm. The ears are also diminished and the snout is way shorter. Despite that they look like they are related species from different climates.

Sometimes I tend to exaggerate a part of the design, such as the neck fluff on the polar guy and the length of the nose on the left one. Even small changes can make a big difference, and sometimes unexpected features can give you the exact design you were looking for. Don't fear ugliness or uncanniness in a design.

Because another fun exercise I like to do is take the body plan of a creature and stretch another creature to fit into that body plan. It may look ugly and cursed but sometimes that's what I want.

If researching anatomy and biology isn't your thing, you still have options. You can always apply chimera rules.

I've also seen this being described as "frankensteining", where you stitch different animal features together without much adjustment. This design strategy isn't invalid, but I don't prefer it.

I know I went with a standard "dragon" look for Pink (and the other diamonds' corrupted designs are getting an overhaul), but that's because that look happens to work for what I wanted.

An easy way to approach any of these methods is to draw small thumbnails in a sketchbook or on a digital canvas while zoomed out. With references handy of course. Being able to find distinct shapes when it's smaller makes them not rely on the littler details to be recognizeable. That way you can iron out the rest once you find something you like. And hands off ctrl+z/eraser (or use it sparingly). I know it's tempting, but try and resist.

I like to use a ballpoint pen for this when on paper, because it makes me commit to the lines so I'm not constantly erasing. I get no progress if all I'm doing is erasing. If I don't like it, I take what I like about the other thumbnails and move on to the next. This process whittles away the features I don't prefer. Notice the little note I left next to the dog in the upper right.

If something isn't working out, that's completely fine. Look at references, build your visual library. Don't get discouraged. Try things out just to see how it looks, even if you end up not liking it. You still learned something from that attempt.

Hang the code. Embrace chaos. Draw and design dragons how you want to.

And to finish this off:

Don't compare yourself to others and let that make you feel bad about your art. In fact, stop comparing altogether. It's okay to be inspired, but you are on your own artistic journey. Give yourself credit for your own progress and let that motivate you.

I see too many people do this, especially when they have every reason to feel good about the stuff they made.