Creature Types & Definitions a.k.a. Defining a Humanoid...

[Roman]

I am wondering about how to define creature types based on shape. I am looking at it from a metagame perspective, because I find it interesting, although I know it has little practical relevance for the game, so please avoid comments such as "it is irrelevant", "a creature has whatever type the designer wants it to have", or "just eyeball it".

With the above in mind, the question is, how would you fully define each type in terms of shape?

Let's look at a humanoid (the only 'type' that has been confirmed in 4E thus far) as an example. One could say that a humanoid is a creature with an upright posture, a bipedal locomotion, two upper limbs and a head. This would indeed describe the physical shape of most fantasy humanoid creatures, but I think it does not cover them all. Would a creature with multiple upper limbs/appendages really cease to be a humanoid? I don't think so and neither would a creature (such as a genie) that does not have bipedal locomotion and has a whirlwhind in place of legs. Even a centaur with four legs is a humanoid creature (regardless of the monstrous humanoid classification in 3E - I doubt this classification will make it into 4E anyway). The Centaur does not even necessarily have an upright posture, depending on interpretation it is about as long as it is tall and creatures that satisfy all other humanoid criteria but like to crawl (perhaps inhabiting underground passages) would still be humanoid.

So, what is it that makes a humanoid? I suppose, the creature has does not need to meet any single criterium of physical shape, but must meet a sufficient number of the ideal humanoid criteria to qualify. I would say it needs to meet at least two (2) of my above four (4) criteria.

What do you think?

 

[Roman]

Nobody is interested in defining the various creature types according to shape?

 

[DreamChaser]

This is a very Platonic thread. What is "humanoid-ness"

I think of three (maybe 4) physical types:

humanoid (those creatures that share enough physical resemblance to a human that they tend to be viewed as "him / her" or "person" rather that "it" Chester Centaur is a "he" but Mr. Ed is an it.)

beast (animals and the like. it's basic form is stooped or quadrupedal (multipedal) and it tends to be though of as a "not person" even if ultimately it is smarter than most people)

(vermin as a type is possible too but I think it could be a variant of beast)

amorph (those creatures with a basic form that defies clear description, either due to lack of clear definition (oozes) or lack of recognizable order (aberrations)


more complex than this and I think we are splitting hairs. What is the real difference in 3.5 between fey, giants, humanoids, and monstrous humanoids. All four are anthropomorphic to a great extent, possess greater than animal intellect / reasoning, and the ability to fashion and use tools. The second and fourth are distinguished only by size and animalistic features respectively; the first by origin.


in 3.5 we have animal, vermin, magical beast, and dragon all of which describe the same basic shape and principle: animal or animalistic creatures that are not anthropomorphic (perhaps therionomoprhic) and generally not tool using by nature. the latter two are generally smarter and more magical but that is generally a result of other aspects of their origin.

aberrations run too broad a range to even work as a category (elan?) while oozes are clear.

construct, elemental, fey, outsider, plant, and undead are all descriptors or origins.

as I posted in another thread, I think the following breakdown (or one very similar) is on the way.

Type A (Origin): aberrant, artificial, elemental, fey, immortal, mortal, plant, and undead
Type B (Form): amorph, beast, humanoid

Examples:
Aberrant - amorph (beholder), beast (aboleth), humanoid (mindflayer)
Artificial - amorph (raggamoffyn), beast (effigy), humanoid (warforged)
Elemental - amorph (water wierd), beast (arrowhawk), humanoid (flame archon)
Fey - amorph (will'o'wisp), beast (unicorn), humanoid (eladrin)
Immortal - amorph (lemure), beast (nightmare), humanoid (spined devil)
Mortal - amorph (black pudding), beast (wyvern), humanoid (dwarf)
Plant - amorph (violet fungus), beast (phantom fungus), humanoid (myconid)
Undead - amorph (blood ooze), beast (jahi), humanoid (lich)

just my .02

 

[Roman]

This is a very Platonic thread. What is "humanoid-ness"

Intentionally so!

I think of three (maybe 4) physical types:

humanoid (those creatures that share enough physical resemblance to a human that they tend to be viewed as "him / her" or "person" rather that "it" Chester Centaur is a "he" but Mr. Ed is an it.)

beast (animals and the like. it's basic form is stooped or quadrupedal (multipedal) and it tends to be though of as a "not person" even if ultimately it is smarter than most people)

(vermin as a type is possible too but I think it could be a variant of beast)

amorph (those creatures with a basic form that defies clear description, either due to lack of clear definition (oozes) or lack of recognizable order (aberrations)

You know what? I like this... a lot. Those three types are progressively broader, but that fits the focus of the game on humanoids quite well.

As to vermin, I don't think they would make a good type. If we wanted a fourth type, I would go along with 'Insectoids' (not just insects, of course, arachnids and the like would fall here too). Form-wise, these would be distinguished by an exoskeleton (though I am not sure this really is an aspect of shape), segmented bodies, multiple-legs. This may be different enough from what we consider beasts to qualify as a separate type.

more complex than this and I think we are splitting hairs. What is the real difference in 3.5 between fey, giants, humanoids, and monstrous humanoids. All four are anthropomorphic to a great extent, possess greater than animal intellect / reasoning, and the ability to fashion and use tools. The second and fourth are distinguished only by size and animalistic features respectively; the first by origin.


in 3.5 we have animal, vermin, magical beast, and dragon all of which describe the same basic shape and principle: animal or animalistic creatures that are not anthropomorphic (perhaps therionomoprhic) and generally not tool using by nature. the latter two are generally smarter and more magical but that is generally a result of other aspects of their origin.

I agree completely.

Type A (Origin): aberrant, artificial, elemental, fey, immortal, mortal, plant, and undead
Type B (Form): amorph, beast, humanoid

Interesting thoughts - replace mortal with natural though, as we know this origin will exist from the posts based on the Worlds and Monsters book.

Examples:
Aberrant - amorph (beholder), beast (aboleth), humanoid (mindflayer)
Artificial - amorph (raggamoffyn), beast (effigy), humanoid (warforged)
Elemental - amorph (water wierd), beast (arrowhawk), humanoid (flame archon)
Fey - amorph (will'o'wisp), beast (unicorn), humanoid (eladrin)
Immortal - amorph (lemure), beast (nightmare), humanoid (spined devil)
Mortal - amorph (black pudding), beast (wyvern), humanoid (dwarf)
Plant - amorph (violet fungus), beast (phantom fungus), humanoid (myconid)
Undead - amorph (blood ooze), beast (jahi), humanoid (lich)

Good examples!

 

[Roman]

BTW: Who is "Mr. Ed"?

 

[glass]

BTW: Who is "Mr. Ed"?

A talking horse from a (very) old US TV series.

"A horse is a horse, of course, of course.
"And no-one can talk to a horse of course.
"Unless, of course, that horse, of course,
"Is the famous Mr Ed!"


glass.

 

[Roman]

A talking horse from a (very) old US TV series.

"A horse is a horse, of course, of course.
"And no-one can talk to a horse of course.
"Unless, of course, that horse, of course,
"Is the famous Mr Ed!"

Thanks!

 

[KoshPWNZYou]

A talking horse from a (very) old US TV series.

He doesn't just talk. He drives. Well. Uses turn signals and everything.