Are Animals in D&D Too " Eurocentric " ?

[Griego]

The real world is a gold mine of unusual flora and fauna that can really spice up your setting. There was a documentary on Madagascar on the BBC, IIRC, narrated by David Attenborough, that showed some really cool plants and animals that would fit in nearly any fantasy world. I've always felt the American southwest is also a great source of material for Dark Sun or any campaign with a desert. There are places there, that while technically are deserts, that are teeming with interesting plant and animal life.

 

[Aeolius]

These creatures are excluded from both monster books and from game art because they have nothing to contribute to an adventure game, not because of where they come from.

Though in other games it may be somewhat important, whether it was an African or European swallow.

 

[Corathon]

Though in other games it may be somewhat important, whether it was an African or European swallow.

And whether or not they can carry coconuts.

 

[nedjer]

First handy 10,000gp never goes to waste on a made-up war elephant. Armoured howdah to camp in, cross most rivers unaided and plenty of drums for signalling.

 

[Rechan]

Being that I am from within the paradigm I am talking about, I may not even be the best person to say, but I can look for some possible answers:

Anteater, the previously mention Capybara, Kinkajou, Ocelot, Pudu, Tapir, Serval, Allen's Swamp Monkey, Blind Snake, Tarsier, Takin, Serow, ...

Animals that end up in D&D fall under three small categories.

1) Can it pose an actual threat to 1st level PCs (people with armor and swords, not untrained, unarmed peasants with 2 HP)?

2) Can it be used as a mount?

3) Can it be a familiar? (Note: This list is usually very small, and is not so much not diverse based on country of origin as it is, well, just small. I've seen a Dragon article that had a parrot, monkey, and otter in the same article - one is NA/Europe, two are not. Usually it's a small category like snake, bird, rat, toad, and other world-wide, non-specified common species).

If it does not fit into any of these, then no, it doesn't go into the books.

And for the record, I don't really recall that much art of any mundane animals period.

 

[Nightson]

It's weird because this point is way, way more persuasive when looking at race choice, class choice, magical creatures, etc.

In fact I think animal selection might be the most non-eurocentric thing there is.

 

[S'mon]

I expect the animal lists in a quasi-medieval-Europe set game to be Eurocentric; I find the presence of eg black bears and other North American animals quite disconcerting. In fact I demand Americans end their Americocentric animal listings and adopt a fully Eurocentric zoology!

 

[Kaodi]

I expect the animal lists in a quasi-medieval-Europe set game to be Eurocentric; I find the presence of eg black bears and other North American animals quite disconcerting. In fact I demand Americans end their Americocentric animal listings and adopt a fully Eurocentric zoology!

Wikipedia does seem to have pretty amazing entries on " Fauna of <insert continent here> " .

 

[TheAuldGrump]

An awful lot of 'mythical' creatures began as attempt to describe a foreign animal using parts of animals with which the reader would be familiar.

"[It] has a stag's head, elephant's feet, and a boar's tail, the rest of its body being like that of a horse. It makes a deep lowing noise, and one black horn two cubits long projects from the middle of its forehead. This animal, they say, cannot be taken alive."

Behold the Unicorn! (Or, as Pliny named it, the Monoceros.)

Feel free to do the same...

The Auld Grump

 

[Aeolius]

An awful lot of 'mythical' creatures began as attempt to describe a foreign animal using parts of animals with which the reader would be familiar.

Who is to say that you cannot have both?

Though I have been known to throw in fantastic versions of the mundane, as well: