Humanoids

[Roman]

What are the characteristics of a Humanoid? When does a humanoid cease to be a true humanoid and becomes a monstrous humanoid? For example, how come Kobolds are still considered to be humanoid even though they are reptilian?!?! Conversely, why are giants not considered simply large, huge, etc. humanoids? I am looking more for a flavour and biology/anatomy/shape explanation than a mechanics explanation...

Also, what humanoid sub-types do you think are archetypical to fantasy and legends?

Obviously we have:

Humans
Elves
Orcs
Dwarves
Halflings/Hobbits
Gnomes
Goblins

Is there anything else?

Also, are these creatures actually 'grounded' in old legends?

 

[Desdichado]

Answer; the distinction between humanoids, monstrous humanoids and giants is somewhat arbitrary, I think. They don't have any specific traits that set them apart (except that giants are bigger, but there's no reason you can't simply have larger humanoids; you do for every other type.)

When they moved from 3.0 to 3.5 they did sink animals and beasts together because there wasn't a mechanical distinction between them; I think in this case, they probably should have done the same.

As for "archtypical" fantasy humanoids, you did leave off orcs, but other than that, I think you've got a pretty comprehensive list. That varies depending on what you consider "archtypical", of course, and using all of them means that "archtypical" and "D&D" are almost interchangeable.

All of those humanoids, except orcs have mythological/folklore roots; orcs are mostly a creation of Tolkien. Granted, he didn't invent the word per se, but the concept of orcs is all his.

EDIT: Whoops, you do have orcs on your list after all. My bad.

 

[Roman]

Well, I know I am missing at least one archetypical fantasy/legend/myth/story humanoid, but I do not know what it's called in English. Basically, it is a very small humanoid that tends to do mean pranks on people. In case you are interested, it is called 'skriatok' in the Slovak language. Now that I think about it, though, perhaps gnome is the English name for it... hmm. Still, I am surprised there aren't more such humanoids that I am missing.

Also, I am very surprised that Tolkien created Orcs - I would have thought that he would simply have taken them from past legends. I believe Goblins existed in past legends, no?

 

[Desdichado]

Well, I know I am missing at least one archetypical fantasy/legend/myth/story humanoid, but I do not know what it's called in English. Basically, it is a very small humanoid that tends to do mean pranks on people. In case you are interested, it is called 'skriatok' in the Slovak language. Now that I think about it, though, perhaps gnome is the English name for it... hmm. Still, I am surprised there aren't more such humanoids that I am missing.

Well, the challenge there is that you could come up with other names (brownie, pixie, fairy, imp?) but are they really any different? I mean, what you describe could be elfs, dwarfs or goblins from folklore.

Also, I am very surprised that Tolkien created Orcs - I would have thought that he would simply have taken them from past legends. I believe Goblins existed in past legends, no?

Well, there are no orcs in past legends. The word existed, and there a couple of compound uses of it in Beowulf. It's also a cognate with Orcus and ogre, so the concept was sorta around, but Tolkien really coined the usage of the word. Also, prior to Tolkien, there wasn't really the idea of armies of "evil humanoids" to begin with; that's a pure Tolkienism.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Yup, the goblins in folklore were more fey, less monstrous hordes of savagery. I'm thinking that the D&D races were in large part taken from Tolkien; witness the 1E halflings called hobbits, for example. The dwarves are fairly obviously Tolkien. Yes, I know that Tolkien was in no wise the only inspiration for D&D, but it sure looks like he contributed most of the races. I mean, how likely is it Gygax and Arneson would have included a fair folk or Tuatha de Danaan race without Tolkien?

Man, that was OT. Yeah, the distinctions are in many cases arbitrary. IMC, Giants are Humanoid (giant), trolls are Monstrous Humanoids (something WotC has apparently been thinking about; the War Troll from MMIII is a Monstrous Humanoid.).

 

[Wolf72]

I thought any humanoid with more than one starting HD was a monstrous humanoid ...

as for fluff, no idea.

 

[Roman]

Hmm, what about humanoids like 'Gnolls' or 'Kobolds' or 'Lizardmen'? Are they completely made up by WotC/TSR or do they have any prior (pre-D&D) basis in myth, legend or fantasy?

 

[Desdichado]

Hmm, what about humanoids like 'Gnolls' or 'Kobolds' or 'Lizardmen'? Are they completely made up by WotC/TSR or do they have any prior (pre-D&D) basis in myth, legend or fantasy?

Kobolds, anciently, was a word that was pretty much used interchangeably with goblins, elfs and dwarfs to represent little, mischevious fey-like creatures. Lizardmen aren't really all that unique; lots of S&S writers and cultures have variants on them, although the D&D specific take on lizardmen is kinda unique.

Oddly enough, apparently the original writers of D&D don't know the difference between reptiles and amphibians either. Few lizards are aquatic, and lizards in general are actually highly adapted to dry habitats.

Gnolls are a trickier subject, as it's not clear exactly what inspired them. Dunsany wrote almost a hundred years ago about gnoles, but they weren't very gnoll-like in most respects.

 

[Psion]

What are the characteristics of a Humanoid?

Vulnerable to charm person.

Paltry HD (or, depending how you look at it, unburdened by the level cost of lots of hit dice.)

Also, what humanoid sub-types do you think are archetypical to fantasy and legends?

Obviously we have:

Humans
Elves
Orcs
Dwarves
Halflings/Hobbits
Gnomes
Goblins

Is there anything else?

Aquatic
Reptilian
Insectoid
Feline (non-WotC)
Canine (non-WotC)

 

[Roman]

Kobolds, anciently, was a word that was pretty much used interchangeably with goblins, elfs and dwarfs to represent little, mischevious fey-like creatures.

Interesting - I wonder why D&D designers decided to make them reptilian humanoids. Were they in any manner reptilian in legends/stories?

Lizardmen aren't really all that unique; lots of S&S writers and cultures have variants on them, although the D&D specific take on lizardmen is kinda unique.

Were lizardmen found in pre-D&D legends? I would wager yes, but I am unsure. Also, it is interesting that lizardfolk too are considered humanoids by D&D and not monstrous humanoids.

Oddly enough, apparently the original writers of D&D don't know the difference between reptiles and amphibians either. Few lizards are aquatic, and lizards in general are actually highly adapted to dry habitats.

True, but there are certainly lizards that are aquatic. Some iguanas come to mind, but these tend to live near the sea rather than in marshes. Nonetheless, there are many non-lizard reptiles adapted to life in water - many types of turtles, crocodiles and snakes, so I suppose it is not that out of place.

Gnolls are a trickier subject, as it's not clear exactly what inspired them. Dunsany wrote almost a hundred years ago about gnoles, but they weren't very gnoll-like in most respects.

Very interesting

BTW: What about Troglodytes and Locathahs?