Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 2076241" data-attributes="member: 2067">I think the problem comes in when they are *major races*. Anthropomorphic beasties should largely be the category of "unholy unnatural monster thing," not "buddy with a sword and cliche powers."Historically, D&D has been pretty good about not having cliche animal-humans. In general. Gnolls aren't hyena-humans, they're savage humanoids with a pack structure. Minotaurs aren't cow-humans, they're bloodthirsty, god-cursed beasts who have a mastery of direction. Orcs aren't pig-humans, they're berserk barbarians who are filthy and greedy. Yak-folk are not yak-humans. Hell, even the Kenku aren't just bird-men. Aranea aren't just spider-humans. Merfolk aren't just fish-poeple. If a creature is a little bit animistic, it is a cosmetic thing -- the creature, the power, the unique society comes first, and then the animal appearance is applied on it.  But these are monsters. They aren't people. They are unnatural beasts, abberations, created in no loving deity's image. They are things to fight against. Things you don't feel guilty killing if they try to kill you. They are *not* human. They are *sub*human.Where the cliche comes in is when humans just get animal qualities laid over them and treated as equals. Blech. It's not hard to make a snake-human. It's hard to make a Yuan-ti. A *monster*. An adversary with it's unique society and structure. Cat-humans are a dime a dozen. Rakshasa, though...they're a class all by themselves.</blockquote>

Verification