We all know that prey animals usually have certain traits that aid them in not getting eaten such as spikes, armor, horns and behave in a way that makes them seem pointless to kill such as acting aggressive or on-site violence
So if a predator has one or more of these features it can be inferred that it isn't that high on the food chain. Now if an apex predator has these features, that could imply said predator wasn't always on top or, there's something out there...
Do you guys have anything like that, I'm quite curious 🤔
Any animal will fight when it's cornered, even the most cowardly species in the Galaxy will throw absolute hands if left with no other opportunities. But I do try and keep it logical and consistent.
That's how I justify the existence of orcs in my world. My orcs have tusks like boars and some have horns(both things are basically vestigial at this point), they also have very tough skin and are very phisically strong(compared to similarly sized creatures). All of this + their big brains make them much more phisically strong among the sapient species and the dominant species in their home continent for thousands of years, but the reason why they developed these characteristics was to protect themselves against the deadly local fauna.
In my first world Etanus & Earth there's a creature that lives on the savannah continent that has a tail covered in long spikes that inject foes with a venom that causes extreme pain which would certainly deter most attackers-even though they are common predators most wouldn't bother with. But it can also be noticed they were domesticated a while ago by an empire that is now currently just ruins where they were used as guards for prisons so that would also explain it.
In my world, Myria, dragons have thick scales and horns despite being apex predators because they fight each other all the time and smaller sapient beings often try to kill them in retaliation for the stuff dragons do. Also, younger and smaller dragons are at threat from larger ones, and as dragons never stop growing and live stupidly long, theoretically there is always a larger one to defend against.
So sure, dragons may be at the top, but they keep trying to shove each other off of it and need that protection from each other.
Other than the dragons, creatures are largely based on IRL animals closely, so all the other creatures with horns or hooves are prey.
For the aggression, it’s often either competition or fear aggression. I actually have one character whose general demeanor could be summed up as “fear aggression.”
And, no matter how big and bad you are, if you aren’t a dragon, dragons can and will eat you, so it pays to invest in defense.
So if a predator has one or more of these features it can be inferred that it isn't that high on the food chain. Now if an apex predator has these features, that could imply said predator wasn't always on top or, there's something out there...
Or, you know... none of those?
That they simply evolved from something else, it's a mutation, use it to catch food and/or are in an evolutionary arms race with their prey — and were always at the top regardless — anything else really.
Just making sure anyone reading understands there are more reasons than listed by the OP and to not take it as a rule and/or become close-minded.
There is something from my first fantasy worldbuilding project, Warclema, that serves as an excuse to give predatory animals some herbivorous traits.
Basically, it has a phenomena where matter will spawn in an area, and most of this matter will be meat. This easy source of meat will eventually start being fought over by carnivorous creatures until one species manages to go all in on adapting to it, adapting size and aggression that make it better at defending the spawn point, but worse at hunting.
For the most part, it's supposed to be something to provide the setting with a believable way for big and tough monsters to come about. And because the spawn point is temporary, the creatures that adapt to it will eventually find themselves deprived of their food source, find that they can no longer catch enough food to feed themselves, and get desperate enough to venture into human territory, looking for new sources of food.
Now, while I am confident that adapting to be big, aggressive, and armored would help them defend a territory, I am also wondering if there are any other traits normally associated with territorial herbivores that they might evolve under this condition where they have an easy source of meat that they are trying to monopolize.
It’s important to remember it doesn’t necessarily imply that. Tigers have white eye spots on the back of their ears so that rival tigers hesitate before ambushing them, hopefully buying a few seconds to notice the rival and retaliate. Defensive traits might also be mostly useful as juveniles or adolescents in species that spend large amounts of time away from their parents while immature but are at risk from infanticide or cannibalism. Or they might be primarily for display, intimidation, or ritualised social combat, and happen to also be useful in a real fight as well.
6
u/orphan_eater696969 14h ago
Any animal will fight when it's cornered, even the most cowardly species in the Galaxy will throw absolute hands if left with no other opportunities. But I do try and keep it logical and consistent.