D&D General why do we lack a canine race?

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not convinced that werewolves actually fill the niche, though it's not a terrible working hypothesis. Might explain why rat-based races are also scarce in D&D outside of 3e OA and nezumi. Though why weretigers wouldn't similarly suppress Tabaxi becomes a question.

And for canid races - we did have dog hengeyokai back in the days of OA - as well as a few other shape changing animal forms.

Rats are associated with plague, death, ugliness, trash, etc. They're wonderful animals as pets, but wild rats have a very bad rep. That alone means a lot of people have no interest.

Also, IMO, hengeyokai are just a cultural variation of werewolves. They're shape shifter people, some of whom happen to be dog/wolf/fox type.

Like I said, the werewolf (specifically wolf) is just...a presence. It spreads to cultures that don't have it distinctly (see the Japanese love of exploiting and reinterpreting Europen werewolf stories). It's an archetype and a dozen potential dichotomies or open questions all balled up together.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I think it is certainly worth thinking about what early A/D&D looked like. Most of the PC races looked like something that falls within the actual phenotypes of humanity, aside from a few minor quirks like pointy ears (and by '77 half-orcs being the default exception). Playing as anything else certainly started early enough, but it was always rather haphazard and DM-fiat-y. Aside from alternate settings (ex: the hengeyokai and such in OA), I don't recall a consistent normalization of that until Complete Humanoids for AD&D (2e) and the Gazetteers/Creature Crucibles on the D&D side. Slowly a bunch of MM entries started being playable, but that was more 'there's no reason someone couldn't play as this,' and less 'let's fill out all potential options for playable species,' so it all conformed to what was already present in the monster manual (gaps and all). And when it comes to antagonist roles, I think werewolves and gnolls (yeah, yeah, feiliform. doesn't change feel) filled that role for most groups. At least enough that a specific dogfolk antagonist race didn't take off.

Part of that might also be that there maybe isn't a clear-cut single concept of what people want out of a dogfolk (as antagonist monster or as PC option). Like, I think we know what we want out of wolf-folk (maybe a split on whether they should be the fearsome or noble) or cat-folk (quick and agile and stealthy with tigers maybe being bigger and stronger but still stalker-ish more than brutes), or bird-folk. What defines dog-folk? Loyalty? Gregariousness? Playing fetch?

teamwork and clannishness are probably like lizard folk in that they can go either way as monsters or NPC allies.

In addition to the other reasons, it's probably because people want to have dogs, but they don't want to be dogs.

In terms of animal stereotypes, with a cat, you're an aloof, independent agility monsters. with a dog you're a obedient follower with maybe a good scent ability.

outside of the aristicats and furries I do not know many who wish to be a cat and the second would still buy dog folk.

 

[Alzrius]

Rats are associated with plague, death, ugliness, trash, etc. They're wonderful animals as pets, but wild rats have a very bad rep. That alone means a lot of people have no interest.

Redwall, Secret of Nimh, the talking mice of Narnia, the Great Mouse Detective, the Rescuers, etc. suggest that rep isn't a factor for a lot of people. Sure, that's conflating mice and rats, but most fantasy fiction doesn't draw much of a distinction anyway (besides one being more aesthetically appealing than the other). It's why Paizo keeps making official ratfolk races for their games, and why 5E has several homebrews out there:

 

[Minigiant]

Because of werewolves.

Not even joking. Werewolves take the wind out of the sails for any canine-like race. And you don't have to look far to see this in gaming, either.

Elder Scrolls? No dog-people, but there are werewolves, tied to Hircine, Daedric Prince of the Hunt.
World of Warcraft? I mean, there's fox-people, but the actual canine race...are literally werewolves. They even have a human form.
Eberron has Shifters, but they're only weakly animal-like...and guess what, they canonically get mistaken for werewolves!

Werewolves are simply such a presence that there's really nothing else that can challenge them. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if "werewolf" actually becomes a race in 6e or 7e. WotC is trying to capture the animal-person thing with their new race that I can't remember the name of, but I'm not sure it's gonna stick.

And the thing is, the only other proper canine besides wolves would be dogs, which has...unfortunate implications.

This

It's usually dogs or wolves. And Wolves end up winning and superceding dog traits due to the iconic status of werewolves.

Dogs only win in comedy settings when you are expected to do dog tropes.

And you only see wolf people and dog people where you want to display the differences of the two and can't use bears or felines due to their different social tropes.

 

[Morrus]

the dog I know would sell and we even have a historical real world term for dog-headed men so naming would be easy?

Make one and sell it then.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Diamond Throne (Monte Cook's Unearthed Arcana setting) had the Sibeccai, but that was OGL in the 3E era...
There, they were basically uplifted by the Giants.

 

[Mind of tempest]

This

It's usually dogs or wolves. And Wolves end up winning and superceding dog traits due to the iconic status of werewolves.

Dogs only win in comedy settings when you are expected to do dog tropes.

And you only see wolf people and dog people where you want to display the differences of the two and can't use bears or felines due to their different social tropes.

not much difference between wolves and dog past cosmetics and what we messed with a dingo is just a dog turning back to a wolf

 

[Minigiant]

The other reason why there is no official one at least in 5E is that racially 5e has mostly been just recreating the old or converting MTG.

More than a few races only have official rules because they are major aspects of converted nostalgia or MTG settings.

 

[Mecheon]

Though why weretigers wouldn't similarly suppress Tabaxi becomes a question.

Weretigers are way more obscure, plus Tabaxi artwork puts them clearly in the leopard/jaguar side of things

Also, IMO, hengeyokai are just a cultural variation of werewolves. They're shape shifter people, some of whom happen to be dog/wolf/fox type.

Hengeyokai could easily be split into about 5 different races completely, they're the equivilent of squishy pretty distinct creatures together into one. They're honestly way different given werewolves have the whole spreading bite thing, whereas hengeyokai moreso play similar roles to the fey. The beautiful woman who comes out of nowhere and has a mystery to her? Out west that's a troll or huldra, but that's also a bunch of kitsune stories. A bunch of kitsune stories you absolutely couldn't swap in any other thing grouped under hengeyokai for, because a tanuki has a whole entire other set of things it does, and likewise a bakeneko does an entire whole other set of things

They're the equivilent of going "Yeah, fairies, dwarves, elves and gnomes? They're all the same source, so they're all just the one thing"

 

[Vaalingrade]

outside of the aristicats and furries I do not know many who wish to be a cat and the second would still buy dog folk.

Everyone is secretly furry.

Especially those who try to deny it by responding to or quoting this post. They doth protest too much.