Ugliest 1PP playable species, based on official artwork, any system

[PhoenixPhyre]

Purely for amusement, what is the ugliest playable species/race/lineage/whatever your game system of choice calls them?

Rules:
1. Must be 1st party.
2. Judging is based on official artwork only.
3. Bonus points if it's not supposed to be ugly. So if you had a HHGtG game with Vogons as a playable race...they're supposed to be hideous. So they don't count. But if you have a "cute" (according to the fiction) race depicted as hideous...that counts a lot.
4. Links to official artwork are encouraged if possible. But don't break forum rules about linking to copyright violating sites.
5. If it's a race from D&D that's existed in multiple editions, please call out the edition in question.

My nomination: 5e D&D's halflings.

Spoiler: Feast your eyes on sheer eldritch horror

Show

The image on this page comes from the 5e PHB: https://criticalrole.fandom.com/wiki/Halfling

Runner-up: 5e (and 4e) D&D's dragonborn. Seriously guys, making them all muddy brown and no tails? Ugh.

Spoiler: An example

Show

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/w...gonborn-5e.png

[Quertus]

I think that, ultimately, Humans will win this challenge, simply by virtue of having the most artwork, especially across all systems. If not for the “not supposed to be ugly” rule, I wonder if Nosferatu wouldn’t have been in the running.

[oxybe]

I raise your easily snapped halfling ankles with 2 entries: Mongrelmen and Elves.

Well, one elf in particular.

Mongrelmen from 2e D&D

Spoiler

Show

For the playable version, I present to you:

2e, complete book of humanoids, p.48.

Turns out this picture was also used in 1e, but I remember it from my comp. humanoid book from 2e. The more you know!

BONUS: 2e, Monstrous Manual, p.257

Here's their look from the big book of fodder itself!

Mialee the Elf from 3.0, the iconic elf wizard and poster girl

Spoiler

Show

3.0, PHB, p.52

[Tanarii]

In terms of "Uncanny Valley", races that look disturbingly close to human but are horrifically NOT and would be mobbed with pitchforks as a result if they ever showed themselves in-world ... but aren't necessarily outright "ugly", absolutely agree 5e halflings are near the top of the list.

Another strong contender for this kind of ugly are Changelings.

And 2e Tieflings, but only because ALL Planescape art is uncanny valley. Even if it's not of a creature.

------------------

Forbidden lands goblins are 100% playable and pretty gnarly. They aren't really described as falling under classic "bad guy humanoid" in the text, but the art sure paints that picture.

Here's the players guide pic:

Spoiler: Forbidden Lands Goblin riding wolf

Show

Here's the GMs guide pic:

Spoiler: Forbidden Lands Goblins defend their fallen

Show

[Anonymouswizard]

I personally like the Changeling's default form. There's something refreshing about it being basically just an unnaturally coloured human.

We should, of course, give honourable mentions to the White Wolf options meant to be ugly. That's Nosferatu vampires and Glabro/Dalu form werewolves. The artwork does capture the ugliness, but that's part of the point.

As for 'meant to be pretty, looks ugly? Well nothing can beat the 5e c halfling with a head ten times the volume of their bodies, so I'll go with 3e elves. Their facial features look great, but only on the one intended face shape, otherwise they begin to give an uncanny valley (see: Mialee).

[Tanarii]

I personally like the Changeling's default form. There's something refreshing about it being basically just an unnaturally coloured human.

I find anything mono-color eyes alien and disturbing. Especially jet black.

That includes a lot of elf art too.

[SimonMoon6]

Certainly there has to be a winner in one of the Talislanta races.

I was going to post the Imrian, for example:
https://www.13thage.org/images/userc...nta/imrien.jpg

But that's not from the original Talislanta game. That's from an attempt to fit them into a vaguely 3rd edition game, I think, so that would count as 3PP not 1PP maybe.

So, here's a link to a Talislanta (2nd edition) free pdf:

http://peedeepages.com/talislanta/pd...aign_guide.pdf

Race pictures start on page 46. The Imrian is on page 48.

My choices for ugliest would be "Araq warrior", "Mogroth", "Mud people warrior", "Saurud Warrior", "Thiasian performer", "Vajra", and "Yrmanian Wildman".

And the Thiasian Performer is *supposed* to be attractive.

[KorvinStarmast]

My nomination: 5e D&D's halflings.

Spoiler: Feast your eyes on sheer eldritch horror

Show

The image on this page comes from the 5e PHB: https://criticalrole.fandom.com/wiki/Halfling

Marlon Brando saw that, and this was the result: the horror!

[Eldan]

Mialee was the one I immediately thought of too. She's an elf and supposed to be moderately charismatic.

If we're not counting "intended to be good looking", well, in 3.5 many monsters were playble. INcluding aberrations.

So, let me just throw out the Phaerimm:

Spoiler

Show

[Psyren]

I really hated the design of 3.5e Goliaths, with their "gonk-y" faces, gangly limbs, patchy skin and weird nodules (albeit ones with a cool name, lithoderms) making them all look vaguely... diseased in some way.

4e and 5e improved their proportions, which made them look a bit more muscular and toned down the other aspects, which in turn paved the way for them to represent multiple giant heritages rather than just Stone. I'd love the idea of more cro-magnon goliaths based on Hill Giants, or eastern-influenced ones based on Fire Yai and Oni, which it seems we're likely to be able to get in OneD&D.

[Enceladus]

Seconding the 5e halflings. The image posted by PhoenixPhyre is the reason. For me, it look like a bobble-head.

[quinron]

I really hated the design of 3.5e Goliaths, with their "gonk-y" faces, gangly limbs, patchy skin and weird nodules (albeit ones with a cool name, lithoderms) making them all look vaguely... diseased in some way.

4e and 5e improved their proportions, which made them look a bit more muscular and toned down the other aspects, which in turn paved the way for them to represent multiple giant heritages rather than just Stone. I'd love the idea of more cro-magnon goliaths based on Hill Giants, or eastern-influenced ones based on Fire Yai and Oni, which it seems we're likely to be able to get in OneD&D.

Seconded - while I actually liked the 3.5e goliaths' look, it's specifically because they're ugly and wrong-looking and I like that kind of thing.

Also, the lithoderms specifically really gross me out because on top of looking like boils or cysts, I always imagine them getting sliced off somehow and leaving nasty open wounds.

[Khedrac]

I'd take a longer look at Science Fiction games - e.g. Traveller's Hivers are pretty unattracive by most standards:

[RedWarlock]

I really hated the design of 3.5e Goliaths, with their "gonk-y" faces, gangly limbs, patchy skin and weird nodules (albeit ones with a cool name, lithoderms) making them all look vaguely... diseased in some way.

4e and 5e improved their proportions, which made them look a bit more muscular and toned down the other aspects, which in turn paved the way for them to represent multiple giant heritages rather than just Stone. I'd love the idea of more cro-magnon goliaths based on Hill Giants, or eastern-influenced ones based on Fire Yai and Oni, which it seems we're likely to be able to get in OneD&D.

By the original flavor text, they had nothing to do with giants, they weren't giant-descended at all, that was a connection made when they imported them into 4e Dark Sun by labelling them synonymous to half-giants, which was only recently expanded to other lineages.

I'm gonna pass on rating ugly art, tho, because it's just going to come down to which 3e-era artists I didn't like the styles of, like Thomas Baxa and Ron Spencer, and that's just a difference of tastes, the artists don't deserve the slam, and the races don't deserve the dragging.

I really enjoyed the early-3e racial development work. Mialee isn't human, and while we can judge her against human standards, the stats themselves (including her elevated charisma) should be agnostic to racial biases.

[Metastachydium]

I really hated the design of 3.5e Goliaths, with their "gonk-y" faces, gangly limbs, patchy skin and weird nodules (albeit ones with a cool name, lithoderms) making them all look vaguely... diseased in some way.

In that case, I'm sure you love their graceful, hairy cousins, the likewise playable feral garguns (from the same book)!

I'm gonna pass on rating ugly art, tho, because it's just going to come down to which 3e-era artists I didn't like the styles of, like Thomas Baxa and Ron Spencer, and that's just a difference of tastes, the artists don't deserve the slam, and the races don't deserve the dragging.

I mean, some playable critters absolutely deserve the dragging and calling them ugly is, if anything, a praise to the artist. (I'm looking at you, athach, you and your 14 RHD with +5 LA that are totally worth tanking.)

[Eldan]

The athach is one of my favorite entries in "creatures everyone forgets are in the monster manual".