Anthropomorphic animal races in Project Eternity?

[teknoman2]

As long as it is not feline or kanine-I"m down.

well gnolls are canine humanoids

[Kamfrenchie]

How exactly does that break immersion? We barely know enough about Project Eternity to speculate on high level concepts, much less determine if the presence of cat people breaks versimilitude.

 

Really, I feel you're being dishonest here.

 

What am I supposed to be dishonest about?

As previously stated, I don't like / need the concept *and* it breaks my immersion. It's not like I said the later as an excuse so I don't need to say the former.

It breaks immersion because I find the concept to be unplausible. How do such beings come to live? Evolution makes absolutely no sense here (otherwise, there should be several stages inbetween the animal and the animalpeople) and I find the all-purpose explanation of a wizard did it to be lazy design. I prefer low-magic settings where magic is not all potent.

 

The only thing I find funny is that for all the people who are claiming beast like races are out of place they seem to have no problem with the bestiary in fantasy games. Gnolls, Driders, kobolds, minotaurs, wereanimals, yanti, umberhulks, ettercaps, merfolk, kuo-toa, sahuagin, rakshasa, lizard-men, slaad, naga, troglodytes, mindflayers, dragonborn, any half demon/celestial with wings, horns or a tail. These things all exist in fantasy worlds without upsetting the feel of the world but if you can be one as a player race it's all, 'whoa, whoa, whoa what lazy and world breaking design for furries to fap to.' Fantasy worlds are pretty varied in their races and have plenty of beast races albeit they're generally regulated to the roll of monsters.

 

I personally don't see what wrong in having a bit of visual variety in terms of player races.

 

I can only speak for myself but most of the things you are referring to I find just as bad as the proposed player races, although some of those races are better than others. Although I will admit that I have less problems with slaughtering them as playing them. I also have no problem with werepeople turning into the animals (mind me, not some mixture of human/animal but from pure animal to pure human).

 

That doesn't leave much room for any "cvilised" ennemy then. What do you think about things like beholders then ?

Do you want to "only" fight other members of the "basic races' like humans elves and dwarves?

[necromate]

I srsly starting to think that the only actual reason the haters started to hate these races is becaue of furry porn, they are so shocked by the content that they become prejudiced against anyone who likes "furry races" and think that they are the very same perverts from the net . While only a very small % wants them in a game just to live out sexual fantasies if any at all. (ugh, like they would need a game character for those kind of things... they are pretty much living them out in furry porn already)

The "lazy developer" argument does not stand, because the "ultimate lazyness" is using only humans (and I include elves, gnomes, dwarfs etc. now) with different story backgrounds. When it comes to other races 99% of them are humanoids with animal traits because using a fully xenomorphic race would alienate people from interacting and empathising with them. Also it's easy to "steal" ideas from nature, you think the aliens from Alien are unique? Think again.

 

(Please note that a good story/backround/culture can make EVERY and ANY fantasy race rich and fun and that's where developer creativity must be aimed)

 

btw I'd like to see Driders again, and also Dalek-like magical a**holes

[Doppelschwert]

You need to stop using this argument because it isn't valid. You're just saying you don't like a group of people, that this idea would bring these people you don't like , and making baseless assumption about them.

 

That's like saying there shouldn't be vampires or werewolves because it will attract twilight fans.

 

 

I like beastmen or whatever you wanna call 'em, I'd like them to be there as long as it isn't just fanservice and they don't detract from any other aspect of the game.

 

I still don't see how beastmen are worst than elves and fairies and all that.

As far as explainations go, those can be the result of some wizards experiment, or people with their soul linked to animals and whatnot.

 

I don't see where I've made any assumptions about furries expect the fact that I do not like them, but I'll give you that having animalhead-races in the game won't lead directly to furries storming the forum. In the end, my argument boils down to "I don't like them" and that is perfectly fine imho, just as stating that you do like them.

As far as explanations go, I wouldn't be satisfied with the ones you gave.

[teknoman2]

i generally like furry races and the porn involved, but i have associated the term "anthropomorphic animals" with jrpgs and manga and their presence as such would feel weird, even if gnolls, minotaurs, werewolves, lizardmen and others are anthropomorphic animals

[Doppelschwert]

That doesn't leave much room for any "cvilised" ennemy then. What do you think about things like beholders then ?

Do you want to "only" fight other members of the "basic races' like humans elves and dwarves?

 

I'd have no problem with only having the "basic races" as civlized enemies. However, note that I don't have anything against making monsters sentient, just making them anthropomorphic is what I don't like.

Magical wolves who are able to communicate with you through their minds? No problem. Beholders are fine, too.

 

I srsly starting to think that the only actual reason the haters started to hate these races is becaue of furry porn, they are so shocked by the content that they become prejudiced against anyone who likes "furry races" and think that they are the very same perverts from the net . While only a very small % wants them in a game just to live out sexual fantasies if any at all. (ugh, like they would need a game character for those kind of things... they are pretty much living them out in furry porn already)

The "lazy developer" argument does not stand, because the "ultimate lazyness" is using only humans (and I include elves, gnomes, dwarfs etc. now) with different story backgrounds. When it comes to other races 99% of them are humanoids with animal traits because using a fully xenomorphic race would alienate people from interacting and empathising with them. Also it's easy to "steal" ideas from nature, you think the aliens from Alien are unique? Think again.

 

I don't see how you get that impression. Most people stated that those races are (most of the time) done very badly and that they just find them unplausible. After all, there are also certain tropes with werepeople and the like. Almost always, the NPCs fear them and the quests you are about resolving the conflict between the beast people and the other people around, where the beastpeople are accused of having murdered the normal people and then you find out it was someone different and everyones happy. I don't need that, either.

 

And the laziness argument does stand. You dismiss the argument with the notion that it would be "lazier" to just exclude those additional races, which implies there is a need for them in the first place. But thats exactly the point we're arguing about.

 

The people who are against them state that if there are to be additional races, those should be unique and interesting, while animal-head races are not to them. So instead of making something boring just for the sake of being there, they should rather let it be and include no additional animal-head races at all.

 

The other point of view seems to be that animal-head races are unique and interesting enough to fill that role.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Doppelschwert

[Frisk]

One big "advantage" of races that have basically a humanoid body, with animal heads is that "standard" armour pieces can be assumed to fit them ... yeah, well...maybe with small modifications, like a hole for a tail, or something like that.

[jezz555]

Its really funny to me seeing people say things like "Most furrys are not into furry porn, that is just a small percentage of the subculture!", that's like saying most paedophiles don't rape kids, they just dream about it.

[Kamfrenchie]

That doesn't leave much room for any "cvilised" ennemy then. What do you think about things like beholders then ?

Do you want to "only" fight other members of the "basic races' like humans elves and dwarves?

 

I'd have no problem with only having the "basic races" as civlized enemies. However, note that I don't have anything against making monsters sentient, just making them anthropomorphic is what I don't like.

Magical wolves who are able to communicate with you through their minds? No problem. Beholders are fine, too.

 

I srsly starting to think that the only actual reason the haters started to hate these races is becaue of furry porn, they are so shocked by the content that they become prejudiced against anyone who likes "furry races" and think that they are the very same perverts from the net . While only a very small % wants them in a game just to live out sexual fantasies if any at all. (ugh, like they would need a game character for those kind of things... they are pretty much living them out in furry porn already)

The "lazy developer" argument does not stand, because the "ultimate lazyness" is using only humans (and I include elves, gnomes, dwarfs etc. now) with different story backgrounds. When it comes to other races 99% of them are humanoids with animal traits because using a fully xenomorphic race would alienate people from interacting and empathising with them. Also it's easy to "steal" ideas from nature, you think the aliens from Alien are unique? Think again.

 

I don't see how you get that impression. Most people stated that those races are (most of the time) done very badly and that they just find them unplausible. After all, there are also certain tropes with werepeople and the like. Almost always, the NPCs fear them and the quests you are about resolving the conflict between the beast people and the other people around, where the beastpeople are accused of having murdered the normal people and then you find out it was someone different and everyones happy. I don't need that, either.

 

And the laziness argument does stand. You dismiss the argument with the notion that it would be "lazier" to just exclude those additional races, which implies there is a need for them in the first place. But thats exactly the point we're arguing about.

 

The people who are against them state that if there are to be additional races, those should be unique and interesting, while animal-head races are not to them. So instead of making something boring just for the sake of being there, they should rather let it be and include no additional animal-head races at all.

 

The other point of view seems to be that animal-head races are unique and interesting enough to fill that role.

 

 

Then from what you say, it sounds more like you don't want them in because you think /assume they will be poorly implemented.

Which isn't that different from "add them if you can do them well and they add something"

As far as making civilised monsters go, humanoid bodies just seem to be one of the most effective evolution.

Most civilisations imply, I think, certain concepts, such as ways to transmit culture and knowledge, use of tools and whatnot. I guess telepathy could solve that for the wolves, but for the others, writing would probably be needed so it's either telekinesis or hands/tentacle. And so on most races would end up either having quite some similarities with human civ, or just be the usual supertitious tribal society.

 

I also don't really see why beastmen doesn't fit as a distant cousin of human-like races.

Or how 2 different species evolving toward a humanoid form is that unlikely.

There could be some convergence toward bipedism /humanoid form ? Isnt' that a scientific theory anyway ? That bipedism is just better for developping intelligence ?

 

 

Also, then your telepathic wolves are "just" wolves with telepathic powers. There could be people disliking reusing the same animal as lazy design aswell.

[Kamfrenchie]

Its really funny to me seeing people say things like "Most furrys are not into furry porn, that is just a small percentage of the subculture!", that's like saying most paedophiles don't rape kids, they just dream about it.

 

Nice trolling there.

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=furry

Edited November 21, 2012 by Kamfrenchie

[jezz555]

Its really funny to me seeing people say things like "Most furrys are not into furry porn, that is just a small percentage of the subculture!", that's like saying most paedophiles don't rape kids, they just dream about it.

 

Oh wow

 

Since when does fury imply sex ? I thought the term referred to people who like anthropomorphism or disguising themselves as animals ?

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Furry_fandom

 

Then you were mistaken. There is a section called "sexual aspects" in the very link you posted, which should set you straight about the whole thing.

Edited November 21, 2012 by jezz555

[Kamfrenchie]

Its really funny to me seeing people say things like "Most furrys are not into furry porn, that is just a small percentage of the subculture!", that's like saying most paedophiles don't rape kids, they just dream about it.

 

Oh wow

 

Since when does fury imply sex ? I thought the term referred to people who like anthropomorphism or disguising themselves as animals ?

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Furry_fandom

 

Then you were mistaken. There is a section called "sexual aspects" in the very link you posted, which should set you straight about the whole thing.

 

And this apply to all of them how ?

There is porn and sexual aspect for everything, that's the rule number 1 of internet

[Doppelschwert]

Then from what you say, it sounds more like you don't want them in because you think /assume they will be poorly implemented.

Which isn't that different from "add them if you can do them well and they add something"

As far as making civilised monsters go, humanoid bodies just seem to be one of the most effective evolution.

Most civilisations imply, I think, certain concepts, such as ways to transmit culture and knowledge, use of tools and whatnot. I guess telepathy could solve that for the wolves, but for the others, writing would probably be needed so it's either telekinesis or hands/tentacle. And so on most races would end up either having quite some similarities with human civ, or just be the usual supertitious tribal society.

 

I also don't really see why beastmen doesn't fit as a distant cousin of human-like races.

Or how 2 different species evolving toward a humanoid form is that unlikely.

There could be some convergence toward bipedism /humanoid form ? Isnt' that a scientific theory anyway ? That bipedism is just better for developping intelligence ?

 

 

Also, then your telepathic wolves are "just" wolves with telepathic powers. There could be people disliking reusing the same animal as lazy design aswell.

 

In the post you're referring to, I was summarising what I think people are criticising the most.

Personally, as stated in some posts before, dislike them for feeling unrealistic to me, where unrealistic means immersion breaking. They just cannot be explained in a way I'd found plausible.

 

Explaining them through magic works, but that implies a level of magic that i personally don't want as I prefer low magic settings. I also think this kind of magic doesn't fit into the universe; merging races seems more complicated than healing, and healing isn't in the setting. Even if they had that kind of magic, the setting would lose some of its integrity as than you can start to wonder why certain other things are possible while others are not.

 

What is left is a natural explanation, so we have evolution. Humans evolving into humans with animal heads makes no sense as that implies being seperated for many generations from the other humans. Animals themselves evolving similar to humas as apes did is even more arbitrary, as that would imply several races between the original animal and the endresult animal-head-human.

 

There is just no way I'll find this plausible at all and I doubt this can be changed, no matter how good an explanation is.

 

Telepathic wolves may be lazy design as well, but they weren't supposed to be a player race in my example. I don't expect as much from encounters as I do expect from playable races as the later can only be justified by giving an extended background in the world which the former does not need as much.

 

Regarding the sexualisation of furries,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom#Sexual_aspects

33% sure is much (if those surveys are reliable) so the prejudice is understandable imho.

[jezz555]

Its really funny to me seeing people say things like "Most furrys are not into furry porn, that is just a small percentage of the subculture!", that's like saying most paedophiles don't rape kids, they just dream about it.

 

Oh wow

 

Since when does fury imply sex ? I thought the term referred to people who like anthropomorphism or disguising themselves as animals ?

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Furry_fandom

 

Then you were mistaken. There is a section called "sexual aspects" in the very link you posted, which should set you straight about the whole thing.

 

And this apply to all of them how ?

There is porn and sexual aspect for everything, that's the rule number 1 of internet

 

Did you read your own link? Even those (very high)numbers are likely under-representative given that most people with any shame or dignity wouldn't admit to wanting to bang cartoon animals.

Edited November 21, 2012 by jezz555

[Karranthain]

Are humans boring in a fantasy setting? On the contrary, in my opinion they're particularly interesting; how would the human society evolve in a world full of magic? How would they treat other races/be treated by other races? How would the roles within the society change? etc.

 

In fact, that topic alone is quite often the sole theme of sci-fi works.

[Kamfrenchie]

Then from what you say, it sounds more like you don't want them in because you think /assume they will be poorly implemented.

Which isn't that different from "add them if you can do them well and they add something"

As far as making civilised monsters go, humanoid bodies just seem to be one of the most effective evolution.

Most civilisations imply, I think, certain concepts, such as ways to transmit culture and knowledge, use of tools and whatnot. I guess telepathy could solve that for the wolves, but for the others, writing would probably be needed so it's either telekinesis or hands/tentacle. And so on most races would end up either having quite some similarities with human civ, or just be the usual supertitious tribal society.

 

I also don't really see why beastmen doesn't fit as a distant cousin of human-like races.

Or how 2 different species evolving toward a humanoid form is that unlikely.

There could be some convergence toward bipedism /humanoid form ? Isnt' that a scientific theory anyway ? That bipedism is just better for developping intelligence ?

 

 

Also, then your telepathic wolves are "just" wolves with telepathic powers. There could be people disliking reusing the same animal as lazy design aswell.

 

In the post you're referring to, I was summarising what I think people are criticising the most.

Personally, as stated in some posts before, dislike them for feeling unrealistic to me, where unrealistic means immersion breaking. They just cannot be explained in a way I'd found plausible.

 

Explaining them through magic works, but that implies a level of magic that i personally don't want as I prefer low magic settings. I also think this kind of magic doesn't fit into the universe; merging races seems more complicated than healing, and healing isn't in the setting. Even if they had that kind of magic, the setting would lose some of its integrity as than you can start to wonder why certain other things are possible while others are not.

 

What is left is a natural explanation, so we have evolution. Humans evolving into humans with animal heads makes no sense as that implies being seperated for many generations from the other humans. Animals themselves evolving similar to humas as apes did is even more arbitrary, as that would imply several races between the original animal and the endresult animal-head-human.

 

There is just no way I'll find this plausible at all and I doubt this can be changed, no matter how good an explanation is.

 

Telepathic wolves may be lazy design as well, but they weren't supposed to be a player race in my example. I don't expect as much from encounters as I do expect from playable races as the later can only be justified by giving an extended background in the world which the former does not need as much.

 

Regarding the sexualisation of furries,

http://en.wikipedia....#Sexual_aspects

33% sure is much (if those surveys are reliable) so the prejudice is understandable imho.

 

 

But then there are all the things in the middle. What if a human-like species develop scales over millenias ? Or what about an evolved animal specie with hands (or something similar) that can stand on 2 legs if it wants to ?

 

However I do hope at least some encounters will have a lot of works in them.

 

I guess it's an agree to disagree situation. I enjoy both low magic worlds and worlds with more magic, and I'd agree in a low magic world it would make much less sense.

I might have missed how high the "magic level" will be for PE

 

 

And, my bad for linking to wikipedia, confused it with another artcile i can't find anymore. I think it just boils down to which definition of furries you chose. If furries is just liking anthro characters, then I think the poll isn't representative as many of these people don't consider themselves a furry or wouldn't know too much about the it. If by furry you mean the guy that are more... err "hardcore" then I guess the pole is right.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Kamfrenchie

[Sacred_Path]

Are humans boring in a fantasy setting? On the contrary, in my opinion they're particularly interesting; how would the human society evolve in a world full of magic? How would they treat other races/be treated by other races? How would the roles within the society change? etc.

 

In fact, that topic alone is quite often the sole theme of sci-fi works.

 

Usually this can only be "interesting" by giving humans the center stage, for which no convincing reason is given (humans are great diplomats! Noone can dislike the pink little buggers! All other species are too self-centered!)

[Kamfrenchie]

Its really funny to me seeing people say things like "Most furrys are not into furry porn, that is just a small percentage of the subculture!", that's like saying most paedophiles don't rape kids, they just dream about it.

 

Oh wow

 

Since when does fury imply sex ? I thought the term referred to people who like anthropomorphism or disguising themselves as animals ?

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Furry_fandom

 

Then you were mistaken. There is a section called "sexual aspects" in the very link you posted, which should set you straight about the whole thing.

 

And this apply to all of them how ?

There is porn and sexual aspect for everything, that's the rule number 1 of internet

 

Did you read your own link? Even those (very high)numbers are likely under-representative given that most people with any shame or dignity wouldn't admit to wanting to bang cartoon animals.

 

My bad for linking to wikipedia, confused it with another artcile i can't find anymore. I think it just boils down to which definition of furries you chose. If furries is just liking anthro characters, then I think the poll isn't representative as many of these people don't consider themselves a furry or wouldn't know too much about it. If by furry you mean the guy that are more... err "hardcore" then I guess the pole is right.

I meant the larger group ie people who just happen to like anthro characters, wiki seems to refer to the other one.

 

 

Still, comparison with pedophiles are uncalled for imo.

[Karranthain]

Are humans boring in a fantasy setting? On the contrary, in my opinion they're particularly interesting; how would the human society evolve in a world full of magic? How would they treat other races/be treated by other races? How would the roles within the society change? etc.

 

In fact, that topic alone is quite often the sole theme of sci-fi works.

 

Usually this can only be "interesting" by giving humans the center stage, for which no convincing reason is given (humans are great diplomats! Noone can dislike the pink little buggers! All other species are too self-centered!)

 

A common theme is the relative short life expectancy of humans - and there certainly is something to it. In any case, there's a wealth of intriguing issues to explore.

[jezz555]

Still, comparison with pedophiles are uncalled for imo.

 

You're right perhaps I should have just compared them to child pornographers as I doubt many of them are physically fit enough to force themselves on the guy in the bugs-bunny outfit at six-flags, but I'm sure they'd all like to. To clarify I'm not referring to anyone who ever played an argonian in skyrim or w/e. I am referring specifically to those identifying as furries so this is a pretty big digression.

 

Bottom line animal head-human body = very tired archetype

Edited November 21, 2012 by jezz555

[Kamfrenchie]

Still, comparison with pedophiles are uncalled for imo.

 

You're right perhaps I should have just compared them to child pornographers as I doubt many of them are physically fit enough to force themselves on the guy in the bugs-bunny outfit at six-flags, but I'm sure they'd all like to. To clarify I'm not referring to anyone who ever played an argonian in skyrim or w/e. I am referring specifically to those identifying as furries so this is a pretty big digression.

 

Bottom line animal head-human body = very tired archetype

Fair enough I guess

 

Just about anything in a fantasy world can be considered a very tired archetype imo. I think it's just about how you handle it. Divine Divinity universe could probably be considered generic, but somehow, it's still very enjoyable and lively.

 

 

@ Karrantain

 

With that kind of logic, goblin-like beings should be dominating, well, at least if they have decent IQ in the universe

[Shaz]

Bestial races can be interesting. Bestial races can also be not interesting if they're little more than fuzzy/scaly humans with a beast head. And whatever you do, please don't just take a regular female human body with regular female human breasts and stick a cat or lizard head on. Seriously, WHAT. The sentient version can be bipedal, that makes sense and is understandable, but it should have developed in accordance with its primitive form, not in accordance with the completely disparate human form.

 

Regular old humans should also be interesting. I'm happy if all races & species have a well-developed base and their own fitting place in the world. I like variety, whether it be the variety of different types of humans or different races.

[Karranthain]

@ Karrantain

 

With that kind of logic, goblin-like beings should be dominating, well, at least if they have decent IQ in the universe

 

Goblins aren't usually known for ingenuity, however (unlike the humans).

 

It's usually the explosive mixture of a short life span, ambition and intellect. That theme is extremely common, but there's definitely something to it.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Karranthain

[AGX-17]

Recently it came to my attention that some people find that anthropomorphic animal races scream lazy developers / are aestheticly unappealing.

What do you think?

 

Are you fine with having humanoids with animal traits as playable characters or NPC-s in games in general / Project Eternity?

 

Also, I would like to know whether you find it boring that you have humans as playable race in nearly all/every RPG?

 

What I find unappealing are the furry fetishists it will inevitably attract. I also find unappealing your implication that it's "arrogant to place ourselfs[sic] in every fantasy setting." Every other race in fantasy gaming is so frequently a derivative stereotype of creatures imagined by mankind in the past that they have no value as an idea. They're just a quick and easy way to differentiate between different base attribute and skill sets, and a lazy way to depict different cultures, because every race in fantasy worlds is so often a monoculture.

 

Humans are the creature humans best relate to. That is why humans tell stories about humans, that is why humans play games about humans.

Edited November 22, 2012 by AGX-17

[Tauron]

Let me explain, as beasts yes, failed orr successfull magical experiment, yes. As evolution of a rat and became ratman. No. Some diety did something and side effect or effect "ratman", yes again. If it is going to be on same lvl as humans, elves, etc, than i hope it is more original, mystical and non playable. On par with call of chuthulu thingie sentient being. With twist, we accually look extremly disfigured and frightnenig to them, etc.