I hate cat-people, dog-people, lion-people, etc

[Gundark]

Let me guess... Your hatred extends to all of these as well?

Hyena-people (gnolls)
Frog-people (bullywugs)
Lizard-people (lizardfolk)
Horse-people (centaurs)
Fish-people (merfolk, sahuagin, locathah)
Snake-people (yaun-ti, naga)
Octopus-people (mindflayers)

Many of the standard creatures in fantasy have been inspired by races with aspects of various animals. I don't fault them for keeping up the trend.

I realize that I wasn't clear in my first post, I thought I clarified myself in later posts. What bugs me more is lazy designers than the animal people themselves. There are examples (Warhammer fantasy) of really well done animal people. It's when the designer makes a race that is obiviously uncreative or just doesn't "fit" the setting (lion people in star wars)

 

[Hand of Evil]

Oh, don't get me started on that whole cleavage issue!

I have an issue with the shear number of humaniod monsters (not including undead), everytime a new monster book comes out it is filled with them!

 

[edbonny]

And don't forget:

Giff - hippo-people
Dracons - dragon-people
Loxo -elephant people
Thri-kreen - mantis people (xik-chil are mantis people too)
Abeil - bee-people

Personally, I am no fan of fishy-people (mermen, sea elves, locathah)... or are they peoply-fish?

- Ed

 

[ivocaliban]

Animal-people go back a long, long way. From satyrs and centaurs to naga and lycanthropes, mythology is overflowing with man-animal hybrids. Some of them are so commonplace that we don't think of them as necessarily odd, but I believe that's mostly a matter of choice.

While I do agree that creating Platypus-men simply for the sake of it doesn't work in a serious campaign, I've nothing against the concept of creating such hybrids in itself. Some could consider the concept the product of a poor imagination...but an equal argument can be made that it's a very old tradition among storytellers. Either way, I think the animal + man equation isn't going anywhere and it's just a matter of personal taste as to what's acceptable and what crosses the line.

 

[edbonny]

Animal-people go back a long, long way. From satyrs and centaurs to naga and lycanthropes, mythology is overflowing with man-animal hybrids. Some of them are so commonplace that we don't think of them as necessarily odd, but I believe that's mostly a matter of choice.

While I do agree that creating Platypus-men simply for the sake of it doesn't work in a serious campaign, I've nothing against the concept of creating such hybrids in itself. Some could consider the concept the product of a poor imagination...but an equal argument can be made that it's a very old tradition among storytellers. Either way, I think the animal + man equation isn't going anywhere and it's just a matter of personal taste as to what's acceptable and what crosses the line.

Peoples are peoples. That's what I say. Doesn't matter if they got on whiskers, claws, floppy ears, fur, tusks or what have you. They're still people and a good DM can make 'em fun in their game. That's what I say.

Game and let game.

- Ed

 

[BryonD]

I'm not much interested in animal hybrids as major races. I don't see any reason to hate them, but they don't greatly appeal to me.

I do think that having them exist in the world is one thing and having them be routine is another. I find the idea of a nation of cat people completely uninteresting. A former campaign I ran included a dreaded race of cat-men that were stealthy and very deadly. They were so rare that they were talked about frequently as a plot point, but never actually appeard on screen before that game ended up folding.

In my last campaign before the current one, my wife's character ended up re-incarnated into a centaur. And tribes of centaurs were known to exist out in remote areas. But again, there were no great communties of centaurs.

I also wrote (and was published) a paladin PClass that essentially becomes a were-lion.

But in all these cases the animal men are exotic and special. Elves and dwarves and halfings are all human enough that nations of them work well and they make the backbone that defines the culture of a setting. Animal-men, among many other things, are the spices that add to the adventure. Making them be the culture undercuts everything that makes them interesting to me.

And I agree that books I have seen presenting these races as culturally dominant, tend to be fairly lazy. They give you the stats then spend a few pages telling you what you already assumed by the very description of the race.

I don't want them to be the center of a campaign any more than I want a ketchup sandwich.


IMHO
YMMV

 

[Arnwyn]

Anyhow anybody agree? Disagree? What bugs you about RPGs?

I agree.

Anthropomorphic sucks!

 

[Arravis]

Add me in to the "I hate furries" camp... ugh.

 

[tarchon]

I agree.

Anthropomorphic sucks!

I think virtually all of my campaigns have been dominated by anthropomorphic races.

 

[Ghostwind]

Obviously, the Oathbound campaign setting would not be your cup of tea then. Lots of alien races there that have a fundamental resemblance to animals in one form or another. But then, they aren't humans with fur, feathers, scales, etc. either...