Monstrous Humanoids: fascinating or cliche?

[elliott20]

I love myself monstrous humanoids. The whole concept of creating cultures around this new species that is also sentient, much like humanity, is a very interesting one.

I mean, think about it, we're talking about a race of creatures that are, for all practically purposes, aliens that the human race has to share space with. The very notion itself makes some pretty strong implications about humanity itself.

But what's even more interesting, is the mythos and culture that D&D has built around it. I don't actually find what they write to be all that interesting because quite frankly, most monstrous humanoid races are all written from the same mold: primitive survival-of-the-fittest barbarians with little to no compassion and they probably eat their young. But rather, it's the process and the template that they give which in turn gives US the ability to modify them as we see fit, or even create entire cultures around them so they are not just worth using as some mooks to get cut down, but even explore as a society.

The webcomic "goblins" is a very good example of this. It examines some of the illogical portions of the D&D world and even tries to expand upon the bare bone structure writing that D&D has provided for goblins.

Most of the time, most of these monstrous humanoids are portrayed as no more but different varieties of evil thugs. But then, they never go into why that is, or how they came to be. all we know is that, they're evil, and so it's okay to mindlessly slaughter them.

As a result, many authors (such as the author to Goblins or our very own Rich Burlew) who felt discontent with this kind of shoddy writing end up expanding upon this to make them into a fully realized and interesting race.

So perhaps the bare bone structure was not entirely bad after all. While horribly shallow in it's current form, it also gives many authors a springboard to work off of to create their own versions that are far more fleshed out and interesting. Maybe that was the point? or maybe, the original D&D writers just needed something to give players to kill.

What are you thoughts on this or what have you done with the various monstrous humanoids in your world?

[Indon]

Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, "Monstrous Humanoid" means "Humanoid which the DM will use as a monster".

[Tempest Fennac]

I'd say that they were only really invented to serve as jobbers for the PCs considering the need for something to fulfill that role (I suppose DMs who wanted more variety could use an Eberon-type world where typical racial aligments tend not to apply as much as in other settings if they didn't like the idea of MHs being 1-dimentional cannon-fodder).

[horseboy]

Well, the older I get/more I watch the Hitler channel, I really do have problems with "monstrous humanoids" being some arbitrary raid and pillage plot device. The constant interactions between the two societies would eventually "civilize" them. Kinda like Rome. Eventually they would become humans in rubber masks (or humans would become orcs in rubber masks) as one society would eventually prove superior and the other would become a subset of the former.

[SpikeFightwicky]

When you say 'Monstrous Humanoid', do you mean creatures with the 'Monstrous Humanoid' type, or 'Humanoid' types that look semi-monstrous? (like gnolls, bugbears, goblins, kobolds, etc...)

[elliott20]

When you say 'Monstrous Humanoid', do you mean creatures with the 'Monstrous Humanoid' type, or 'Humanoid' types that look semi-monstrous? (like gnolls, bugbears, goblins, kobolds, etc...)

errr... umm.... LOOK BEHIND YOU! A THREE HEADED MONKEY!!! *runs away*

but seriously, what I meant was the latter. I just looked up the term monstrous humanoid and realized that the term was misleading.

[SoD]

I love monsterous humanoids, the chitine (underdark book) has I think 3 monsterous humanoid HD (maybe 2?) and is my favorite race, personally. A four armed spider thing paladin with a monsterous spider mount in a campaign where the DM and one of the players is aracnophobic? Priceless.

[Xuincherguixe]

(Some) People tend to make up more details for creatures like Goblins and Orcs (they're most common) because they're too dull as is.

The mentality of killing something because it's different doesn't fit to me in a game that's supposed to be about heros. And in the rarer game about villains, you should be smarter than that. You encourage others to hate something because it's different because it's convenient to you *cackles*.

I like the idea of using non humans to represent humanity. And humans for inhumanity. By which I mean cruelty. To actively seek to harm is also a human trait. True inhumanity requires things which are strange. Probably having altogether too many eyes.

[Morty]

I dislike the presentation of monstrous races in D&D. I don't have all that much problem with orcs & c.o being evil -although I find racial alignments stupid- but if we make the race evil, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be fleshed out to be more than just mindless thugs who do nothing but raid villages. Look at drow. They're evil, but there are whole lot about their culture and civilization in books. Why shouldn't greenskins, gnolls, lizardmen and others get the same? I don't use monstrous races in my D&D games, becaue I don't like how they're presented in MM and I don't have time to rewrite them.

[AslanCross]

Mr. Nexx did have an idea regarding a Races of Savagery book that would detail more on Orcs and Goblinoids, but it was sadly turned down flat by WOTC due to 4e being announced a few days after.

It's a shame, because I really wanted to see a book like that. I do think they've at least tried to detail some races--Kobolds, for example, were detailed pretty well in Races of the Dragon.

Hobgoblins seem to get a better deal than all the other typical evil races--their culture is detailed a little bit more than the rest. They at least have a social hierarchy and could be fleshed out into more than just "the angry tribe of orange-skinned humanoids next door."

All the rest, though, get nothing. :(

[Nowhere Girl]

All I'm going to say is this:

Tibbits can turn into housecats indefinitely as a racial ability, and that's why they're the greatest race in D&D. :smallbiggrin:

[Prometheus]

I think a prerequisite of Monstrous Humanoids is not only are they preceived as alien in nature to the rest of humanoid-manity, but they are alien in nature. It's not just a cultural difference or stereotype, they are in fact of a different psychological pattern. For example Mongrelfolk are envious emulators of other races, they can never have a genuine sense of personal pride or identity even if others give them reason to. That being said there are always exceptions and I think monsterous humanoids can make very interesting NPCs or PCs.

[SpikeFightwicky]

The 'Red Hand of Doom' adventure module deals alot with goblinoids of various types. It treats them as more than just 'those things outside of town that need to be killed 'cuz they stole our sheep'. That's probably the most detailed 'monster looking humanoid' background story we'll get before 4th ed. It's not a typical 'hobgoblin encampment' group, though. Before they were unified under one walord, the various goblinoid races (as well as gnolls) were described as 'constantly warring with eachother for control', so they never bothered the rest of the civilized world too much.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

I dislike the presentation of monstrous races in D&D. I don't have all that much problem with orcs & c.o being evil -although I find racial alignments stupid- but if we make the race evil, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be fleshed out to be more than just mindless thugs who do nothing but raid villages. Look at drow. They're evil, but there are whole lot about their culture and civilization in books. Why shouldn't greenskins, gnolls, lizardmen and others get the same? I don't use monstrous races in my D&D games, becaue I don't like how they're presented in MM and I don't have time to rewrite them.

In the web-comic Dominic Deegan, Seer for Hire, the Orcs are actually vegetarians (they cannot eat meat), which from an evolutionary standpoint is a pretty spot on way of dealing with their underbite. Animals with underbites and large tusks are usually forragers for roots and mushrooms.

I like the idea of how orcs are handled in that comic ^_^ it's kinda cool.

[Morty]

In the web-comic Dominic Deegan, Seer for Hire, the Orcs are actually vegetarians (they cannot eat meat), which from an evolutionary standpoint is a pretty spot on way of dealing with their underbite. Animals with underbites and large tusks are usually forragers for roots and mushrooms.

I like the idea of how orcs are handled in that comic ^_^ it's kinda cool.

Oh yeah, I'm reading this webcomic too. Orcs as vegetarians are indeed original idea, it's sad that the rest of race's presentation is quite cliche.