Beastfolk

[AlexanderHowl]

Interesting that there are so many negative portrayals of beastfolk. In manga and anime, beastfolk tend to be more sympathetically portrayed, if occasionally as a oppressed or disadvantaged minority (for example, the beastfolk of Gate).

In my own game settings, beastfolk tend to be magically created hybrids of humans and animals. Beastfolk are capable of breeding true with their own species and with humans, though the children take after their mother (children of such mixed unions are always magically gifted though, whether human or beastfolk). While they tend to have their own nations (or regions within human empires), they are usually no more oppressed than any other human group (since many human cultures in my settings believe that they are descended from specific animal totem spirits, beastfolk tend to be respected by cultures with a relevant totem).

[Racer]

The amount of players wanting to play Catpeople/Catgirls has skyrocketed since Cats hit the cinema !

Had a text from a GM friend which basically said "Four of them want to play Caitians ! HELP !" I suggested pointing out their restrictions in undercover away missions , flea type parasites & furballs ...

I played Nephilim (Avernum computer game setting) Archer/Wizard/Rogue type Character for ages in late 90's/early 2000's . Wasn't much of an issue on different worlds where the species was absent . Most NPCs believed it was a curse inflicted by insulting a Cat Goddess within earshot of her High Priest ...

Otherwise just put it down to a Furry Conspiracy & leave it at that ... ;-)

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Interesting that there are so many negative portrayals of beastfolk. In manga and anime, beastfolk tend to be more sympathetically portrayed, if occasionally as a oppressed or disadvantaged minority (for example, the beastfolk of Gate).

Beast folk are a fairly common orc substitute in fantasy. The trollocs from the wheel of time are nasty creatures. Sticking horns on something is a traditional way to make it more evil in western culture, though that's fading somewhat. look at the urgals in the inheritance trilogy, or the quanari in dragon age. Both have a sympathetic angle, but are mostly perceived negatively by their human neighbors.

Additionally, the word "Beast" has a negative connotation in English. Beasts are stereotypically brutish, stupid and savage. Look at "beast of burden". Camels, donkeys, and oxen all have a reputation of being hairy rather than furry (soft), of having stubborn attitudes, and of smelling less than ideal. So when you lead with "Beast folk", it leads us to thinking of negative examples first. As opposed to when you say "Animal people".

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Interesting that there are so many negative portrayals of beastfolk. In manga and anime, beastfolk tend to be more sympathetically portrayed, if occasionally as a oppressed or disadvantaged minority (for example, the beastfolk of Gate).

The specific term 'beastfolk' implies a certain type of creature; if you instead asked about, say, "anthropomorphic animals" or "human-animal hybrids" you'd likely get different responses (and "furry" would get an even different set of responses).

[Phoenix_Dragon]

(Just finishing writing this as I see the comments about the implications that the term "beastfolk" gives; I'll note that I'm taking the term to mean, loosely, "species with the appearance of an anthropomorphic animal," which may be more broad than what others might take the term to mean)

I tend to use a good amount of beastfolk in my games, since they're a good way of coming up with a large number of diverse non-human species. My favorites are lizard-men, insect-men, and gnolls, and beastfolk are almost always available as player races (Although some have significant downsides or complications). Usually there are several. And while these are usually in fantasy settings, it can show up in others. Even my cyberpunk setting, with no non-human species, has a small number of literal furries; that is, humans who have used (Typically expensive) body modification technology to reshape themselves to some degree or other toward an anthropomorphic animal form (There are also other transformative groups/cultures aiming for other goals of form/appearance, too). There are even a few settings I've run that could be described as furry (With all or nearly all sapient species being anthropomorphic animals). Though I'll focus on the more normal fantasy campaigns, here:

1. How biologically similar are they to humans? Are they sexually or even reproductively compatible to humans? If the former, how does each group accept such relationships? If the latter, what is the nature of the resulting children? (While it is simply easier if the children take after the mother, that is not the only possibility).

They're almost always sexually compatible (Tab A in Slot B is generally easy to arrange, and there's always other options if that's not the case). They're generally not reproductively compatible, though this depends on the campaign, species background, species similarity, situation, etc. For example, two types of cat-folk are more likely to be compatible thana cat-folk and a bird-folk. Gnolls are more likely to be compatible with humans than an insect-man is, though in some settings they're not compatible at all. In some campaigns, they're all compatible, creating all sorts of strange hybrids. In others, they're generally not compatible, but strange magics (Intentional or not) might make them compatible.

When it does happen, the children are almost always a straight-up hybrid of the two, blending features of their parent species. The reactions depend heavily on the society they're in and how xenophobic/philic it is. A human society that considers beastfolk to be foul barbarians and a threat to civilized people everywhere are likely to consider such offspring to be the product of a beast's vile nature or a human's lack of morals, while one that has friendly relations with some beastfolk groups might consider them just another person, or maybe even some symbol of kinship between their people. And while I use humans as the viewpoint example, the same situation applies to the beastfolk, sometimes with even more variation. For example, gnolls tend to value social dominance, so while a hybrid is likely to be an easy target for being different, one that's able to stand up for himself might earn respect. The most-used insect-men I've run are a very practical hive-minded people (In the eusocial sense, not the telepathically linked sense), so they would tend to judge such an offspring by how it performs relative to ordinary insect-man, and placed in a role that best fits it. This could be whatever job it's best suited as, breeding stock if it proves to be superior to a baseline insect-man, or getting culled if it is deemed too much of a drain on resources relative to its worth.

2. How psychologically similar are they to humans? Are they humans with fur? Are they psychological hybrids? Are they beasts with human intelligence and humanoid physiology?

Varies considerably. Sometimes they're more-or-less human with small twists (Gnolls, for example, tend to be much like tribal humans, but with a matriarchal culture and very open approach to sex and social dominance), but sometimes they're significantly different (Like the insect-men I mentioned before). This varies from campaign world to campaign world and species to species. Sometimes it even varies for a species within a single campaign world (Gnolls who have lived alongside civilized society for centuries in one part of the world might be very different from gnolls who lived in the wilderness far from civilization). They're generally fully sapient (IQ 9-10), with the occasional example of partially ascended animals (IQ 6-9, maybe Bestial); usually a setting is one or the other, but there are occasionally both (And this doesn't even touch upon the possibility of beastfolk breeding with regular animals of their "type," which is sometimes possible).

3. What is their place in society? Are they equal to humans? Inferior? Superior? Monstrous? If there are multiple species, are they all treated the same or is each species treated differently? (For example, rat folk are treated as inferiors while rabbit folk are treated as equals)

Similar to what I wrote for 1, it depends greatly on the society, people, etc. While the reactions a particular group will have toward beastfolk tends to be fairly similar across species, there can also be variation depending on how different they are. For example, a group of humans might be a little more at ease with gnolls than insect-men, because at least gnolls are still mammals with some familiar traits rather than the often-alien arthropod physiology of the insect-men.

Even smaller variations might make a difference, depending on society, history, etc. If a city has frequent contact with cat-folk traders, they might be treated more-or-less like normal but slightly exotic people, while the newcomer wolf-folk are regarded warily as an unknown, especially if their first contact was confrontational in nature. Fox-folk might be looked upon a little more favorably for elegance and fine features, or might be looked down on as schemers and manipulators (Especially if the society had similar animal-stereotypes prior to contact, or even reinforced by that contact!).

It's also important to note that quite a few of these beastfolk have their own society, which may (Or may not) be quite different from human society. The interactions between species and civilizations in my campaigns can get a little complex at times with all the variety.

So... yeah, lots of variety, which doesn't really make for clean and definitive answers. Sorry :)

[Ashtagon]

In my slowly-under-construction dieselpunk setting, beastfolk are the result of secret Japanese gene therapy experiments. Human hybrids exist for around two dozen different large mammals (no hybrid that is not a mammal has been successfully created). Their status varies from state secret through valuable property to refugee. They are not known to the general public, although the likes of the National Enquirer and the Fortean Times have reported on them from time to time.

[martinl]

A GM I Knew two decades ago had a setting where *everyone* was ~beastfolk, although she used the term "furries."

Humans were ape furries.
Elves were lemur furries.
Orcs were pig furries.
Dwarves were badger furries.

I thought it was an interesting concept, but never played in it.

[Humabout]

Originally Posted by Luke Bunyip

I was reminded by your post of a monster from the Glorantha setting of Chaosium.

Interesting. Yeah, I don't mind the rape-monster aspect. Its fairly common in myth and legend for beastmen to result from bestiality, and I had already kind of assumed that beastman rape resulted in more beastmen. I just didnt make them all-male. I've seen ancient art of beastman types with breasts, and it seemed fitting enough.

Originally Posted by Luke Bunyip

They are interesting.
<Goes off to ruminate>

Rimshot...

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Interesting that there are so many negative portrayals of beastfolk. In manga and anime, beastfolk tend to be more sympathetically portrayed, if occasionally as a oppressed or disadvantaged minority (for example, the beastfolk of Gate).

That's because outside of Asia and the sort of people with furry fetishes, beastmen have been monsters in Western culture since ancient times. Fauns? Rape-fiends. Minotaur? Bloodthirsty monster born of bestiality.
Harpies? Bird-women who deficate on everything. Sirens? Bird-women who lure sailors to their death. It goes on and on.

[Aldric]

Really, no idea why all this hate...
And you forgot those guys (maybe) in white with bird wings... Most of them are not considered bad.

[AlexanderHowl]

It is an odd difference between Eastern and Western cultures, and it is not like there are not bad beastfolk in Eastern cultures. It is just that Eastern cultures have a more balanced perspective. If ancient Egyptian culture had survived into the modern day, I imagine that they would have had a similar perspective.

In any setting, there is an argument to be made that beastfolk should be less intelligent than humans, but benefit from better senses and stronger will due to their animal half (represented by IQ-2, Per+4, and Will+4). Depending on the nature of their animal half, they could easily justify additional positive traits or additional negative traits.