Common vs Monstrous

[Lappy9000]

This is a topic that likely has been often debated in the past, yet eludes my feeble attempts to dig up such a topic from the archives. Namely, what exactly constitutes a "Common" race as opposed to a "Monstrous" race? Humans, elves, gnomes, and halflings (possibly orcs; or is it only half-orcs?) are often referred to as members of the "Common" races, while gnolls, lizardfolk, and others are often the "Monstrous" races.

I doubt there is a clear line drawn by wizards, so I am instead hoping for a discussion: What makes a Common Race different from a Monstrous Race, and what are the qualifications for each group?

[Waspinator]

Whether or not humans like them?

[Zincorium]

Well, the distinction is probably only used by members of the 'common' races, to help convince themselves that they really are normal (collectively, anyway)and not all just freaks in the freak kingdom. The Monstrous races are the ones that don't play along with this little charade.

I mean, seriously, other than the sheer population dominance that humans are supposed to have, there's no reason to consider them in any way 'normal' in a world chock full of intelligent species.

[Satyr]

In my worlds, there isn't any difference at all. There are no good and evil species or even cultures, only ones with different and sometimes conflicting agendas. I found such a neutral perspective invaluable for the development of plots and settings. I had once a setting where the core idea was, that the more beautiful a species or culture was on the outside, the more rotten and antisocial it was on the inside, and vice versa, but that was the one exception.
The artificial division between "common" and "monstrous", or, more common "good" and "evil" species is poison for the development of a multidimensional and mature setting, and as a Gamemaster most people are good adviced, to ignore it completely - just as alignments.

[Lappy9000]

Whether or not humans like them?

Wouldn't doubt it

Well, the distinction is probably only used by members of the 'common' races, to help convince themselves that they really are normal (collectively, anyway)and not all just freaks in the freak kingdom. The Monstrous races are the ones that don't play along with this little charade.

I mean, seriously, other than the sheer population dominance that humans are supposed to have, there's no reason to consider them in any way 'normal' in a world chock full of intelligent species.

Interesting. I came along this question when thinking that it may be dangerous to clearly specify a group of common races in a campaign world.

[tyckspoon]

"Common" races are reasonably attractive, either Small or Medium sized, and don't have LAs. "Monstrous" races are weird-lookin' and have LAs even (and especially) when they don't deserve them. It's an artificial construct of what the MM/PHB writers thought people should/would want to play.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

"Common" races are reasonably attractive, *snip*

This being the key part of it. The difference between whether you're a common race or a monstrous one is whether you look good in your underwear. Have you noticed that gnomes got a bit of a facelift from the somewhat homely pic in the Monster Manual to the "miniature eladrin" look they're sporting in the PHB II?

And the reasonably attractive clause also applies to the common race even more. You're not allowed to represent your race if you're fat or ugly or ridiculous looking.

[Zincorium]

And the reasonably attractive clause also applies to the common race even more. You're not allowed to represent your race if you're fat or ugly or ridiculous looking.

Counterpoint: Mialee the supposed elf wizard.

[The Glyphstone]

I'd define it as the races that are generally accepted in whatever the world defines as "civilized' society. Humans, elves, dwarves, etc. are accepted as sentient beings and capable of being peaceful. Hobgoblins, gnolls, and orcs might either be savage creatures without an organized civilization, or simply too violence-prone and warlike to be capable of co-existing with other races outside of fighting them.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Counterpoint: Mialee the supposed elf wizard.

Blame the artists, not the character.

[Limos]

I've always hated the seperation. In my games the so-called monstrous races are the normal societies and the Common races are hateful corrupt bigots who kill Monstrous races for fun.

Elves are the worst. All Elves deserve death.

[MeklorIlavator]

Blame the artists, not the character.

That doesn't make sense. You said that to represent a race, you have to be pretty, and Zincorium brought up Mialee, whose pictures are commonly held to be the ugliest in DnD. So why shouldn't it count?

[Tempest Fennac]

I don't know so much about attractiveness being important (admittedly, I class Gnolls as being cute while a lot of people don't*). I tend to think that, in most setting, "common" races are ones which are similar to humans (out of the 7 core-player races in pre-4th Edition versions of D&D, Half Orcs are the only creatures which resemble monsters in some way and Dragonborn are the only non-human-like race in 4th Editon. In my campaign setting, I tend to completely ignore listed alignments while having all races (including ones which can be nerfed to LA 0 as "standard" races). Limos, isn;t that just reversing the normal perceptions of races?



*There was an amusing discussion about this in the last D&D Monster Heal/Hurt game about whether Gnolls or Nymphs are more attractive. It ended up as me and Saint Sinner trying to convince Mordokai that Nymphs look like Grey aliens, which is why I personally see them as ugly.

[Lappy9000]

I tend to think that, in most setting, "common" races are ones which are similar to humans (out of the 7 core-player races in pre-4th Edition versions of D&D, Half Orcs are the only creatures which resemble monsters in some way and Dragonborn are the only non-human-like race in 4th Editon.

This is something of how I thought the definition for a common race was. More human in apperance than animalistic. Having a type partially named after them must have given those dang humans a bit of an ego boost.

[Tempest Fennac]

Having said that, Gnolls are listed as Humanoids while Lupins, which are listed as LG, http://www.pandius.com/lupin_mc.html , are Monstrous Humanoids in the 3rd Edition according to http://crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Races.pdf dispite Lupins being much more humaonoid then Gnolls.

[Lappy9000]

Having said that, Gnolls are listed as Humanoids while Lupins, which are listed as LG, http://www.pandius.com/lupin_mc.html , are Monstrous Humanoids in the 3rd Edition according to http://crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Races.pdf dispite Lupins being much more humaonoid then Gnolls.

Gnolls have often thrown me off, as have many other odd classifications of critters.

[Tempest Fennac]

There's a ton of things which class as Magcal Beasts rather then Abberrations as well duspite them fitting the description (Elans should really be humaonids if you ask me as well).

[Holocron Coder]

I always read it as a mechanical thing, of sorts. Common races are in the Player's Handbook, Monstrous races are only in the Monster Manual.

Other than that, the only division I can see is civilized vs barbaric in the canon representation*.


*Which is, of course, not your homebrew, which is probably completely different. Yes, I mean you.

[Tempest Fennac]

I have some races as being more barbaric or primative then others (eg: Fenneckin, which are a race of humanoid fennec foxes), are pretty primative technologywise, but in most descent sized town, indoor plumbing is quite common for most races and steamships have been invented). Most towns have populations which mostly consist of 2 or 3 races (there was 1 town which was almost entirely inhabited by Gnolls near a Dwarf town where tension from old wars still lingered, though, but neither side was really the villian).

[bosssmiley]

Humanoid = "could pass for human in bad light"
Monstrous Humanoid = "couldn't pass for human in bad light"

Hey, it works for me.

Notable exception to the above: Gnolls (although they were originally supposed to be more like ghouls than hyena-men)

[shadow_archmagi]

Blame the artists, not the character.

Google Image search reveals that whether or not they're an elf wizard, almost everyone named Mialee is ugly.

[Neithan]

I think it was kind of a running gag with the artists. Whenever one had to paint Mialee, they would draw her ugly. ^^

In my games, humanoid creatues without supernatural or spell-like abilities are Humanoids. Those that have them are Monstrous Humanoids.
So even giants are just large humanoids.
Though this kind of would make gnomes monstrous humanoids, but I let them keep their punny SLAs while still being humanoids and target to all those humanoid affecting spells.

[Tempest Fennac]

That makes sense, Neithan (it's better then more Gnomes being classed as monsters anyway).

[Neithan]

I do the same with magical beasts and animals.

Int 1 or 2 and no supernatural abilities is Animal.
Int 3 or more OR supernatural abilities as a Magical Beast.

I see no reason why an Ankheg should be something else than a big bug, only because it's a bug that doesn't exist in the real world.

[TheCountAlucard]

How about the Yuan-ti purebloods? Monstrous as well?

I think another thing that has to do with it are the Hit Dice. The "Common Races" really aren't supposed to have any Hit Dice, while a good portion of the "Monstrous" ones do.

[Morty]

The "Common Races" are the races you play. The "Monstrous" races are the races you kill for loot and XP. That's pretty much it.

[Tengu_temp]

Common races keep not universally aggressive contacts with each other - in order to qualift as a monstruous race you either have to be rare and unusual, or be known as a member of a species of bloodthirsty raiders, with more reasonable members being rare exceptions.

Basically, it's common if seeing it walking down the street in a large human city won't raise eyebrows.

[monty]

Monstrous races are the ones that are fun to play.

[Friv]

The "Common Races" are the races you play. The "Monstrous" races are the races you kill for loot and XP. That's pretty much it.

That doesn't work if you've actually looked at the list of "humanoids" vs "monstrous humanoids". Orcs, goblins, kobolds and gnolls are humanoids, and are on the traditional "kill for loot" list. Centaurs are monstrous humanoids, and are usually good.

In 3.x, the difference is that monstrous humanoids are stronger. They're whatever races are more powerful just because, which usually means having hit dice instead of (or in addition to) class levels. Because of that, their hit dice give better BAB, better saves, and automatic Darkvision (weird that).

So: Human-like but different, humanoid. Human-like but stronger, monstrous humanoid.

[monty]

That doesn't work if you've actually looked at the list of "humanoids" vs "monstrous humanoids". Orcs, goblins, kobolds and gnolls are humanoids, and are on the traditional "kill for loot" list. Centaurs are monstrous humanoids, and are usually good.

In 3.x, the difference is that monstrous humanoids are stronger. They're whatever races are more powerful just because, which usually means having hit dice instead of (or in addition to) class levels. Because of that, their hit dice give better BAB, better saves, and automatic Darkvision (weird that).

So: Human-like but different, humanoid. Human-like but stronger, monstrous humanoid.

I don't think we're talking about humanoids vs. monstrous humanoids so much as good guys vs. monsters.