Often in fantasy settings you'll see a clear distinction between "civilized lands" where people live and "the wild," where monsters reside. However, in real life there are quite a few communities that are able to peacefully coexist with dangerous creatures.
What dangerous fantasy creatures would humans be able to live alongside, assuming domestication is impossible?
None.
That's boring.
Monsters are by definition a step above just dangerous creatures
bugbears
cure croccer op
That's accurate.
If kumihos didn't eat people they wouldn't be called monsters and would be able to live peacefully near humans.
But they don't because they're fucking monsters.
None. In real life we are the top of the chain, in fantasy, we are not.
Owlbears
Probably any monster that is two real world animals fused together
Probably any animal that is functionally part bull/bison/cow (wasn't there an NPC in some splat that had a pet Gorgon (the scaled bull variety))
Any beast/magical animal small sized or smaller could probably be corralled or handled but not necessarily tamed. I imagine Basilisks/Cockatrice could be treated similar to venomous snakes and used for anti-venoms or exterminating the various magical pests that would fuck the ecology.
Anyone saying LOL CAN't LIVE WITH MONSTERS is an unimaginative fop
What about "dangerous fantasy creatures" in general, not just ones so unrelentingly vicious as to fit your personal definition of "monster?" That's what the OP seems to be asking about.
>Average Floridian Child Held By Tourist
If they're as dangerous as the megafauna of our own history then humans still wipe them out.
If they're docile enough they're tamed like monster hunter's aptonoths, moofas, and gargwas.
>average Florida youngster held by bucktoothed monster
None. It'll be like in real life, where humans wipe out some cool animals, and then hundreds of years later cry and complain about how we don't have this cool thing anymore because we were dumb and made them extinct.
I'm pretty sure dodo-birds have never been called "cool" in any capacity.
Why would the dodo be the first thing you think of?
dat 90s nostalgia
Yeah man, the giant man-eating lizard would have totally made Australia less of a third world country.
A domesticated, beast-of-burden class.
Trained war animals.
Perhaps a noble class composed of monsters - not only are they more powerful fighters than human knights, their hereditary advantages are more deeply engrained.
>If kumihos didn't eat people they wouldn't be called monsters
That's demonstrably wrong, because of how many creatures have been called monsters by us in the past despite not actually being out to get us.
>What dangerous fantasy creatures would humans be able to live alongside, assuming domestication is impossible?
Few if any. Look at what happened to the Megafauna. Outside of Africa, they got BTFO.
It depends on the setting.
In the Witcher stories, Geralt doesn't like to kill intelligent monsters who can be reasoned with, but other Witchers (notably Lambert) have no such compunctions and slaughter them.
So even within the setting it varies depending on a lot of factors. Geralt describes to Dandelion the problems with being a Witcher in his time, which includes local barons specifically asking Geralt not to kill a 'dragon' because their daughter likes to see it fly, villagers begging Geralt not to kill their "field spirits," etc.
It's sort of put on its head (on purpose) when Geralt is forced to kill a half dozen bandits to save a town and they run him off for it.
So you tell me: aren't you already living with monsters?
It's not demonstrably wrong at all, they were called monsters for perceived evils, and actual monsters perform those evils and worse.
So no, a shitty liver-eater is still a monster.
Those are called idiots, not monsters.
That's not even how it works in real life.
There are plenty of animals that were literally considered monsters at one time or another and still exist while not being domesticated.
This is either just lazy over exaggeration or unimaginative autism.
Well, in my own setting, what defines 'monsters' is usually anything that's been tainted by the blood of Humbaba The Godslayer. And usually, anything tainted by the blood of Humbaba is fucked and will inevitably become a shambling, screeching, overly-aggressive lunatic.
Outside of this though, as for what might traditionally be seen as monsters in other settings that people in my own are willing to live along side include:
>Cait Sidhe
A special breed of cat which is though to be intelligent and capable of creating various minor, magical illusions. Of course, it's also wondered if they're really intelligent or just good at creating the illusion of intelligence (or even casting the illusion of ignorance). Either way, they've become welcomed into all manner of households and are especially adored by magical scholars trying to understand how animals began to naturally tap magic.
>Giants
Giants are technically not a race of their own as they're too few. But they are seemingly arbitrary children spawned from otherwise normal parents regardless of race. Giants are fast, tough, and stronger than even their size would suggest and are the only things capable of taking on a dragon in a one on one fight. Giants often end up heroes to their region, but they tend to suffer from a short lifespan before suffering massively from senility and dementia, often degrading into upright animals. Often enough, giants will try to die before this sets in.
mirror knights
It's not overexaggeration, abos torched Australia to kill megalania.
Not him
They are monsters, clueless animals due to how detrimental they are to society
I generally use monster as a classification of something that will murder eat you. If it is a "monster" that you can live near without constant threat like I don't know aurochs or some such, then it's just a magical/super(extra)natural beast.
>Claim: creatures wouldn't be called monsters if they weren't actually out to get humans
>My reply: There are creatures that have not been out to get humans that have still been called monsters at various points in history, therefore the previous claim is false
>You: No it's not false
Maybe you misread something? I'm not sure, but your logic is flawed here
They were out to get them in some form or another.
I dare you to not call the mongols that raped your village and burned your mother monsters, or that man that was trying to supplant your religion a monster.
Yes absolutely and anyone who says otherwise is an imagination-lacking drooge.
>What dangerous fantasy creatures would humans be able to live alongside, assuming domestication is impossible?
Griffons.
Yeah they exist. In the wild.
Demigryphs, pegasi, slavs, and halflings.
Bugbears are sentient, no? They wouldn't count.
The only reason monsters have become such a threat is because of western imperialism, meddling with monster lands, overthrowing legitimate monster governments and funding monster extremist groups, all to assist the Dwarves, who we coincidentally don't consider monsters, so that they can have a legitimate excuse to take over and colonize lands that have belonged to monsters for centuries. And isn't it funny how Elves are our "Ally" so we don't consider them monsters, even though many of their practices are just as terrible?
Monster Extremism are the Human Kingdom's fault, Monsterphobia is short sighted and ridiculous.
T. Halfling who is happy to host 3 Orc refugees. I'm doing more to fix monster '''problems''' than any of you neo-murderhobo clowns!
The way I see it, a monster is anything out to get you for a purpose other than food or territory who also isn't intelligent enough to reason with.
I know this picture shows domesticated dinosaurs, but if dinosaurs count as monsters we could totally live alongside a lot of species without domesticating them.
I wasn't talking about humans. If I were, I would not have used the word "creature." Yes, most mythical monsters were in some way based on some aspects of humanity.
Look at what's happening to Europe. There's your answer.
Eh, this means the bandits who want to kill and loot you are "monsters", but the mimic that simply wants to eat you isn't a "monster". Also, a demon is definitely a monster, even though it is intelligent and might even negotiate with you.
I tend to define "monster" as any creature that satisfies at least 1 of the following:
>Thing that wants to eat you
>Thing that wants to harm you for fun/pleasure/instinct or some other innate reason
Yes, this means lions, bears, and wolves are monsters. Also, serial killers.
Keep political shit in /pol/ please.
Man, it took me a long time to realize that your post is not, in fact, claiming that lions, bears, and wolves are technically serial killers.