She makes a good action/romantic heroine, Kinslayer summed it up nicely.
One hole to be filled is her sudden jump from noble daughter to a frontline warrior. There should be a mention of where she gained the skill (also a potential for plot hooks). The rest flows straightforwardly on, no surprises there: drama and adventure awaits. Go to Comment
Plausible backstory? Check. Graphic description, both physical and social? Check. Distinctive character colour? Check. No eye-rolling moments reading the write-up? Check. Motivation independent of the pc's? Check. Good potential for interaction with the pc's? Check. Distinctive and memorable? Check. Go to Comment
Not terribly. Usually if provoked, they'll run off, and they're not very territorial either. But if one were to rile an aerophin up enough, it could fight back and cause some nasty bites. Go to Comment
You can't say "evolutions" it implies a unit, and I don't think it is a word. Try saying derived. The use of the word "beyond" works if you have a defined starting point, an intermediate and a end point. Go to Comment
I knew what he meant, and that is exactly why I think he can't use the term "evolutions". My understanding is that evolution is on going process, and that during this process organisims derive novel traits that will eventually seperate them for their genetic ancestor or even their contemparies. You can't say a tree is several growths taller than another tree. Go to Comment
I suppose you could say evolutions if you are talking about several discrete paths. For example "Anaylsis of the gene pool of spotted moths, nonmigratory pigeons, and the common mouse species Mus musculus indicate that both moths and pigeons have been under intense selective pressure since at least 1700. The Mouse population however has maintained a degree of diversity predicted by our null hypothesis. The evolutions of the moth and pigeon population....."
Here you can use plural because you are discussing two evolutions, the evolution of the moth and the evolution of the pigeon. Above he is wants to state that his space dolphin shares a common ancestor with the earth dolphin. He a discussing a macro evolution relationship, the use of the terms "evolutions" and "beyond" should not be applied.
If the creature evolved from a dolphin population or reached a dolphin like state via convergent evolution then you are simply discussing the evolution of that population. They did not go through multiple evolutions. Beyond is unfortunate because it suggest a linear relationship, when really it is a branching relationship between related species. Beyond isn't wrong, I just think it should be used carefully.
Writers of speculative fiction deeply effect the general publics understanding of science. When discussing a topic such evolution is it not important that one deals carefully with academic question and considerations? Go to Comment