Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-25936766-20170820043030/@comment-26018514-20170827234722

SomeoneYouUsedToKnow wrote:

"Territorial provocations". What do you call "territorial provocations"?

Picking a fight with someone because you want the place? Picking a fight with someone because they are in your place and you don't want them there?

All that tells me is, that Grimm leave them alone unless the animal attacks first (otherwise, worst they would do is growl at them so they don't bother them). Which the animals would if they want the territory, or don't want intruders. It's like walking into a lion's pride.

Since Grimm are stronger, chances are that they win the ensuing fight. Since they won, they "own" the place unless/until they leave. Then we go back to the start; unless something came and provoked them, the Grimm don't give a damn about the animals in their territory. 1. I call "Territorial prvocations" a fight between 2 parties... indicating that both can be at fault... as we've all been pointing out, there is no reason to use "dispute" if one party or the other is 100% at fault all the time.

2. I'd say both of those apply, as well as parental protective instincts(babies are interacting with something dangerous, must kill/get them away)

3. I have no idea why you would infer a particular bias like that at all... remember that this was Observed behavior... so people In remnant are seeing animals attack and being attacked in return out in nature by an eldritch horror that is trying to eradicate all traces of their existence and thinking "huh... it must be a territory thing" rather than "hey, animals hate grimm too" or "OMG the grimm just want to kill everything"... are you seeing why assuming a particular side is instigating all interactions is stupid now?

4. In a world where animals have aura, I don't think that's a safe assumption, while grimm may have a size advantage, Animals are not neccesarily defenseless