# Anthropomorphic Animal PCs!



## Scribble (Feb 9, 2009)

So does anyone else have a fondness for PC races that are Anthropomorphic animals?

Like Badger Rangers, or Monkey Ninjas? 

I don't know why, but intelligent animals as a PC race has always appealed to me.


----------



## Sammael (Feb 9, 2009)

No interest in furries...


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 9, 2009)

No real like or dislike for me. Well besides for Gnolls I love me some Gnoll.

Shapeshifters I always found neat though, of any variety like your werewolf and fox demons (Raavasta) for example.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 9, 2009)

I do.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 9, 2009)

I think my fondness started long ago when there was a cover of Dragon that had a badger on it that I think was a ranger. I thought... Hey cool... a Badger ranger.

Wonder if his favored enemy was Big ol Snaaaaaakes?


----------



## SolitonMan (Feb 9, 2009)

I think it's a fantastic idea.  I played in a Savage Species game with some friends, and one of them created a feral mineral warrior anthropomorphic baleen whale.  I couldn't help but chuckle every time we played, I kept thinking of the villain Blowhole from the Tick cartoon.  

I've had thoughts in the back of my head for a while about an anthropomorphic animal campaign setting, with equine, canine, feline and bovine empires, and all sorts of other animal-types available.  Savage Species has basic stats that would make such a thing possible.  Something that would remind one of The Stone God Awakens...or maybe the Island of Dr. Moreau...

But heck ya!


----------



## Sanzuo (Feb 9, 2009)

Sammael said:


> No interest in furries...




Agreed.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 9, 2009)

Sammael said:


> No interest in furries...




You can be an anthropomorphic animal character and not be a furry.

OP, have you ever tried Mouse Guard?


----------



## AngeltheTechrat (Feb 9, 2009)

I know we'll likely get Hengeyokai back eventually.. (whenever they finaly do some oriental stuff..) Hengeyokai were a PC race in 1E, 2E, and 3E, after all.

I would also like to see the return of Rakastas, Lupins, Tortles, Hutaakans, Phanatons, Actaeons, and *Kercpa*!

And... A rabbit race, like the Hoops from Gama World.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 9, 2009)

I think that Lizardfolk have been a rather popular little race. And there has always been Tri-Keen. 

One Bad Egg put out a race of awakened Apes.



> Badger Ranger




Would his animal companion be a gnome?


----------



## Scribble (Feb 9, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You can be an anthropomorphic animal character and not be a furry.
> 
> OP, have you ever tried Mouse Guard?




I've seen it. One of the players in my current campaign has it, and broguht it over one night. Looks cool, but I didn't really read much of it, so I have no idea how it plays.


----------



## Dragonbait (Feb 9, 2009)

Sure, as long as they have a good background. Same with more human-like races (elves, dwarves, orcs, goliaths, etc). As long as their story is good, I'm good with them. 

Re: intelligent animals. I've always been interested in the idea, but wonder if I could really get into a talking animal beyond being a mascot-type of character. That sounds like it could get boring or old after a while.


----------



## avin (Feb 9, 2009)

I do.

My planar games have all kind of species, furries are in.


----------



## avin (Feb 9, 2009)

I do.

My planar games have all kind of species, furries are in.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 9, 2009)

Dragonbait said:


> Re: intelligent animals. I've always been interested in the idea, but wonder if I could really get into a talking animal beyond being a mascot-type of character. That sounds like it could get boring or old after a while.



While it wasn't D&D I have had a intelligent animal in Promethean: The Created. It was a Promethean who instead of being made of human flesh was a human intellect placed inside a raven.

It was quite a lot of fun for the player to have this very cool, collected and the most intelligent of all the Prometheans who was essentially a animal. It fit nicely into the game in that the raven could easily study humans from afar like the top of a building without risking interaction. He could also sneak through open windows and such and study things.

So yeah we had in our throng a basically hyper-intelligent, very asocial raven as a PC.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 9, 2009)

> Re: intelligent animals. I've always been interested in the idea, but wonder if I could really get into a talking animal beyond being a mascot-type of character. That sounds like it could get boring or old after a while.



By mascot, do you mean like, contributes little more than relief, rather than acting like a PC? 

Someone in the House Rules section reskinned an elven ranger as a blink dog. He talked, but aside from not having opposable thumbs, contributed. 

I have always wanted to play a psionic cat. 

Last year, I was making some pregen characters for a "Get to know you" game. All the characters were overly silly, like the 1st level hero who was a high level warrior who had been level drained back down. One of the characters was a human mage with a cat familiar, and the two had their bodies switched. So the mage was trapped in the cat, and his magic (and the cat familiar) was now in his body.


----------



## Wolf72 (Feb 9, 2009)

I keep getting visions of Narnia, Nimh, and Redwall ...

the mouse swashbuckler was one of my favorites.


----------



## Negflar2099 (Feb 9, 2009)

I do as long as they have something going for them and aren't just another anthromorphic animal man. Like Gnolls. Sure they are hyena-people but they are really so much more than that. If we're going to see some anthromorphic animals I want to see real backstory and mechanically interesting classes. Furries by itself doesn't excite me.


----------



## Dragonbait (Feb 9, 2009)

Rechan said:


> By mascot, do you mean like, contributes little more than relief, rather than acting like a PC?




Yes. I was thinking more along the lines of Scooby Doo rather than Azlan when I wrote that. In hindsight playing an intelligent, talking non-anthropomorphic animal that is more than just a funny or cute sidekick could be an interesting challenge.


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 9, 2009)

Cannot say I ever liked furries, mostly because I rarely see them implemented well. I mean some look plain silly, and often I get the feeling they are created just because some designer had to come up with a race and they are easy to make. Still Giff are fun.


----------



## AngeltheTechrat (Feb 9, 2009)

Dragonbait said:


> Yes. I was thinking more along the lines of Scooby Doo rather than Azlan when I wrote that. In hindsight playing an intelligent, talking non-anthropomorphic animal that is more than just a funny or cute sidekick could be an interesting challenge.





I tried out playing a unicorn in 3E. It worked in wilderness and dungeon play, but wound up a big obstical in towns when most of the party would enter buildings and such. Plus the matter of not being able to handle his own gear and having to rely on other party members. 

I just had to let him go off after we past a point with the "Red Bull" storyline the DM was running. But I later brought him back as the Unicorn Companion for my Fighter/Whitehorn/Beloved of Valarien character. Worked much much better that way, and his personality was already fleshed out and familiar to everyone else, so it was often back-and-forth as to whether the "character" or the "class feature" was dominant. 
	


Anyway, yes.. Playing an intelligent talking character without thumbs can be fun, but be prepaired for a lot of difficulties and dependence on others.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 9, 2009)

For the love of -

Again, there's a difference between an anthropomorphic animal and a furry.  Is it _not_ designed to be specifically sexualized?  Then it's _not a furry._  Here, have this handy dandy photo for reference:


----------



## Akaiku (Feb 9, 2009)

Scaven are totally furries. Also, irratating, stupid rats...

Aside from that, Werecreatures are generally win, especially if they have 'free' shapechanging, cause that's just fun. It's wild shape for free and such.

Though, I have played an awakened wolf monk and a friend has played a griphon druid, but really...

Dragonborn seem popular, and they are anthropomorphic dragons, that's like an animal, right? Shifters are picutured as such, as are gnolls. Minoutars? Though, generally the whole "there are anthro races for no reason" justification will not win you many gm oks. Traditionally races need to actually, you know, EXIST to be okay'd.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 10, 2009)

Akaiku said:


> Scaven are totally furries. Also, irratating, stupid rats...
> 
> Aside from that, Werecreatures are generally win, especially if they have 'free' shapechanging, cause that's just fun. It's wild shape for free and such.
> 
> ...





I was mainly thinking of the whole "awakened" idea myself, erather then the half man half animal idea furries seem to inspire. 

Animals like a badger, or a rat, that have "hands" so they can sue equipment... 

In all ways a normal "animal" but with intelligence like a human.


----------



## Akaiku (Feb 10, 2009)

I had a wizard who wielded a longsword made of darkness in his mouth when he polymorphed, that was pretty cool. More traditional equipment? Sometimes (often) just seems silly looking. However, in a dnd setting especially, using the "A wizard did it" clause for any magical equipment just works.

Really, it's not that big of a deal as long as whatever handwavium you are applying isn't a bothering drain on the rest of the party.


----------



## SKyOdin (Feb 10, 2009)

Akaiku said:


> Though, generally the whole "there are anthro races for no reason" justification will not win you many gm oks. Traditionally races need to actually, you know, EXIST to be okay'd.




Okay, I just don't follow this logic. What do you mean by implying that races need a reason to exist? Truth be told, there is no real reason for the presence of Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings in D&D, other than tradition. None of them exist for a specific reason except to create a specific flavor and to let players play something that isn't human. In that sense, there is no reason that a DM who likes the particular flavor of humanoid animals can't add them to his campaign.

As for your comment that races traditionally "need to exist" just seems strange to me. I don't think you are talking about "exist" in a mechanical, has-been-printed-in-a-book sense. What is odd is that elves and dwarves don't exist in the real world. They are creatures of myth and legend. However, so are animals that have been given human qualities. Anthropomorphized animals appear in just about every culture's mythology and folk tales, from the Big Bad Wolf of European folk tale, to the Monkey King of Chinese stories, to the trickster Raven of Native American tales. In my opinion, the lack of anthropomorphized animals traditionally in D&D and D&D based fantasy is an unusual exception.

Personnally, I like the idea of anthropomorphic animals being in D&D. I have to admit that this is in large part due to me being a fan of the Breath of Fire series of videogames.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Feb 10, 2009)

Intelligent magical animals are one of the few important elements of traditional folklore and fantasy that D&D has never handled very well. I wouldn't mind playing an intelligent wolf character or something.

Actually, when 4E was first released I put a pretty significant amount of effort into designing a group of PC races loosely modeled after the Laguz of the _Fire Emblem_ videogames, the Clans of the _Breath of Fire_ videogames, and the Hanju from the _Twelve Kingdoms_ anime. In other words, a group of races with a mix of human and animal features built around transforming into powerful beasts in order to fight, much like were-creatures or seriously toughened up Hengeyokai. I kept running into difficult design issues though, because 4E is so dependent on weapons and implements, and I wasn't able to think of a good way to overcome that issue. Maybe I should start over and give it another try, now that I am a bit more familiar with how 4E works...


----------



## Rechan (Feb 10, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> For the love of -
> 
> Again, there's a difference between an anthropomorphic animal and a furry.  Is it _not_ designed to be specifically sexualized?  Then it's _not a furry._



Well, I would vehemently disagree with this statement. Despite what many people _do_ with it, the core intention behind "furry" is not "designing an animal to be sexualized". 

But I really, really do not want to turn this thread into a "What is furry" argument, or even bring furries into it beyond this. But _sex is not the beginning and end of the intention of furry_.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 10, 2009)

SKyOdin said:


> Okay, I just don't follow this logic. What do you mean by implying that races need a reason to exist? Truth be told, there is no real reason for the presence of Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings in D&D, other than tradition. None of them exist for a specific reason except to create a specific flavor and to let players play something that isn't human. In that sense, there is no reason that a DM who likes the particular flavor of humanoid animals can't add them to his campaign.



Not to mention that there is usually no reason given for any non-demi human race. Orcs/goblins/kobolds/gnolls/etc.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 10, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> Intelligent magical animals are one of the few important elements of traditional folklore and fantasy that D&D has never handled very well. I wouldn't mind playing an intelligent wolf character or something.



You know. One place to look for something not-quite Folkloric, but something that's quite doable, is RedX from FF7. A talking animal with a culture, and it adventures with you, fighting with you.



> I kept running into difficult design issues though, because 4E is so dependent on weapons and implements, and I wasn't able to think of a good way to overcome that issue. Maybe I should start over and give it another try, now that I am a bit more familiar with how 4E works...



Look at the Druid. The druid can wildshape between its Druid and "Wildshape" form. Some of the powers require the druid to be in the Wildhsape form. 

I could easily see a Wildshape-based class that's a full-on defender or striker, instead of a controller (like the druid).

If you don't want to go the Class route, look at the Shifter. Their beast form could very well be just aesthetic, and 'hulking out' would just be the benefits the shifter gets.


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 10, 2009)

Btw as far as 3.5 is concerned, Champions of Valor in FR had a lot on non-humanoid heroes, including a few class substitutions for animal followers of Lurue.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 10, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Look at the Druid. The druid can wildshape between its Druid and "Wildshape" form. Some of the powers require the druid to be in the Wildhsape form.




I wonder if an inteligent animal druid would wildshape into a human?


----------



## Rechan (Feb 10, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Btw as far as 3.5 is concerned, Champions of Valor in FR had a lot on non-humanoid heroes, including a few class substitutions for animal followers of Lurue.



Didn't Monsters of FR have PC stats for elves that turned into wolves?



Scribble said:


> I wonder if an inteligent animal druid would wildshape into a human?



The Druid wildshape says that the aesthetics of the druid's wildshape is up to them. They could turn into a specific animal, or "a cloud of wings and fangs" or a bunch of other things. The dwarf druid I played for a session turned into an Earth elemental.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Feb 10, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> For the love of -
> 
> Again, there's a difference between an anthropomorphic animal and a furry.  Is it _not_ designed to be specifically sexualized?  Then it's _not a furry._  Here, have this handy dandy photo for reference:
> 
> ...




I'm confused?


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Feb 10, 2009)

First, on the issue of playing intelligent animals in D&D 3.5:

The Noble Wild



Second, as far as I'm concerned any athropomorphic animal, no matter how stupid and/or lazy an idea, is better than another "human with funny features" (unless the latter has a _really_ good concept).  Raptorians are a good example of what I hate.

Also I really like races that evoke primality, and it's very difficult to do that with anything that looks human.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 10, 2009)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> Raptorians are a good example of what I hate.



[Derail]Footbows? FOOTBOWS?! What were they _thinking_?![/derail]


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 10, 2009)

Haha. I still find the loxos as the worst offenders.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 10, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Haha. I still find the loxos as the worst offenders.



Giffs.


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 10, 2009)

I like Giffs!


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 10, 2009)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> First, on the issue of playing intelligent animals in D&D 3.5: The Noble Wild




The more threads like this I read, the more I am convinced that my back-burner campaign concept Nature of the Beast might have an audience, after all; a magical wood filled with mysterious ruins, a band of animal adventurers, and a dark foreboding secret.


----------



## op1983 (Feb 10, 2009)

Ugh. I have a hard enough time with gnolls. Once you start bringing other animals into the picture. 

Reminds me of an episode of CSI i seen once....


----------



## yesnomu (Feb 10, 2009)

I, um, hate pimping out my stuff more, but I made some Lycanthrope races that might fit the bill. The hybrid forms are basically anthropomorphic animals, and each one gets at-will and encounter powers that work with their different forms. I think they're decently well-balanced, too, although I need to revise them since the Druid's came out.

I'm totally for animal-ish races, as long as they are interestingly and distinctly designed (gnolls, minotaurs, rakshasas, raavastas), and not just "Owlfolk are wise" or "Catfolk are curious and agile!".

Also, screw you guys, Raptorans were awesome. With their racial features devloping as you get class levels, they paved the way for 4e's feat-based racial power expansion. And footbows are badass.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 10, 2009)

I don't like things whose heads don't match their bodies.

But, I always thought it would be cool to play an awakened capuchin monkey warmage.....

Ken


----------



## AngeltheTechrat (Feb 10, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I don't like things whose heads don't match their bodies.
> 
> But, I always thought it would be cool to play an awakened capuchin monkey warmage.....
> 
> Ken





Actually, even trying to go the awakened route isn't very easy now. The game still has this gigantic shortage of *normal animals*. 

The Monster Manual has all of.. three. Horse, Hyenna, and Wolf.

Edit: Oh.. and Adventurer's Vault has Camel, Elephant, and Rhino.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Feb 10, 2009)

yesnomu said:


> Also, screw you guys, Raptorans were awesome. With their racial features devloping as you get class levels, they paved the way for 4e's feat-based racial power expansion. And footbows are badass.



My objection isn't to their mechanics or the footbows.  My objection is to the fact that they're humans with extra bits tacked on.  I consider that method more lazy than anthromophizing.


----------



## AngeltheTechrat (Feb 10, 2009)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> My objection isn't to their mechanics or the footbows. My objection is to the fact that they're humans with extra bits tacked on. I consider that method more lazy than anthromophizing.





Oh for pitty's sake.. ELVES are humans with extra bits tacked on. All sentient humanoids basicaly are. Halflings, Dwarves, Goblins, Lizardfolk, Solux, Giff, Orcs, Giants, Vulcans, Romulans, Cardasians... ad infinitum..


----------



## op1983 (Feb 10, 2009)

I think that's probably the biggest problem with the furries. Not what they are but how they're done. 

I can accept





before I could ever accept


----------



## Rechan (Feb 10, 2009)

op1983 said:


> I think that's probably the biggest problem with the furries. Not what they are but how they're done.



Except that the Thundercats are just humans with some face paint, hair gel, and a thematically colorful leotard. 

But here. Let me assist.

One of these do not fit with the others. (Hint: It's the last one). 

The point you make is a valid one, and I hope these pictures below help illustrate: some art is meant to look _cute_. Other art is meant to look _badass_. It's like comparing a picture of the dwarf Dopey from _Snow White_ to a pic of a Dwarven Barbarian carving through a sea of orcs. _They're not the same_.


----------



## op1983 (Feb 10, 2009)

Yes I much prefer thundercats over all your examples as well.


----------



## FungiMuncher (Feb 10, 2009)

My homebrew features about five anthropomorphic animal races statted up for 4E, with a few more rolling around in my head. I also allow minotaurs and kobolds. They're all pretty important for the background feel I'm aiming for.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/242803-fantasy-earth-creatures.html


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Feb 10, 2009)

AngeltheTechrat said:


> Oh for pitty's sake.. ELVES are humans with extra bits tacked on. All sentient humanoids basicaly are. Halflings, Dwarves, Goblins, Lizardfolk, Solux, Giff, Orcs, Giants, Vulcans, Romulans, Cardasians... ad infinitum..



Why are you getting mad?  I hate all those too.


----------



## thundershot (Feb 10, 2009)

I've discovered in my old age that it's not necessarily humanoid animals that I hate. I just can't stand it when they don't have animalistic heads. The old Bruce Heard Rakasta and Lupin articles are examples of what I do enjoy. Thundercats and anime and "furries" are what annoy me to no end. If you're based on a cat or a dog, you'd best have a head that matches the body, and it best not be human looking or cartoony. Giff, as goofy as they're depicted, don't look cartoony. In fact, I think they're the most fun race around, and they're anthropomorphs. 

Just my opinion, of course. At least I've narrowed it all down over the years.




Chris


----------



## Alas (Feb 10, 2009)

thundershot said:
			
		

> Giff, as goofy as they're depicted, don't look cartoony. In fact, I think they're the most fun race around, and they're anthropomorphs.



I have no idea why the giff appeal to me as much as they do. Maybe it was the monocle in the original Spelljammer artwork, maybe it's the fact that hippos are so far from the predictable fantasy line up of wolves, foxes, and great cats. I recognize the ridiculousness of gun toting space hippos, and _still_ it sounds like a fun character to me.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 10, 2009)

Alas said:


> I have no idea why the giff appeal to me as much as they do. Maybe it was the monocle in the original Spelljammer artwork, maybe it's the fact that hippos are so far from the predictable fantasy line up of wolves, foxes, and great cats. I recognize the ridiculousness of gun toting space hippos, and _still_ it sounds like a fun character to me.



But, do they come in different colors and eat pearls competitively?!


----------



## Alas (Feb 10, 2009)

I was going to stick with birds-for-toothbrushes, but you've certainly given me an idea for a racial feat or two.

(Or is that only crocodiles?)


----------



## Akaiku (Feb 10, 2009)

Eh, earlier I meant if you were going to introduce a race, it's kinda important to have a basic racial identity, backstory and the like. Although I find the cute/badass line above kinda funny as that gnome article basically said they are adding them cause gnomes are cute and funny.

Ironicly, wouldn't Snow White be a perfictably acceptable say, waifish wizard?


----------



## Dinkeldog (Feb 10, 2009)

Sammael said:


> No interest in furries...





And yet, you felt compelled to post in this thread.  If someone has no interest in anthropormorphic animal campaigns, kindly stay out of the thread, lest you get booted from the thread and find an infraction tacked on for threadcrapping.  

Imagine the horror of someone wanting to run a Redwall campaign.  Oh, the WrongBadFun!


----------



## Alas (Feb 10, 2009)

> Imagine the horror of someone wanting to run a *Redwall* campaign...



 I myself am partial to the stop-animation _Wind in the Willows _as a model for talking-animal adventures.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 10, 2009)

Here's the little guy that started it all.


----------



## AngeltheTechrat (Feb 10, 2009)

thundershot said:


> I've discovered in my old age that it's not necessarily humanoid animals that I hate. I just can't stand it when they don't have animalistic heads. The old Bruce Heard Rakasta and Lupin articles are examples of what I do enjoy. Thundercats and anime and "furries" are what annoy me to no end. If you're based on a cat or a dog, you'd best have a head that matches the body, and it best not be human looking or cartoony. Giff, as goofy as they're depicted, don't look cartoony. In fact, I think they're the most fun race around, and they're anthropomorphs.
> 
> Just my opinion, of course. At least I've narrowed it all down over the years.
> 
> ...






 We went through that.. 2E weretigers kept their hair and human eyes in hybrid form.. I could even point it out in the text in two books (and the MM picture). 3E didn't offer any description on it, so I just kept with what I know. 
	



On other issues, I agree with folks who don't think the Thundercats are anthropomorphs. They're humans with clown-like face-paint. Sorry. 

Neko-mimi and other such anime troups are also certainly not what I'd look for in D&D. Especialy the freaks that have both regular AND animal ears.. What the heck is up with *that*? (But I do see panties in the example image, so thank you for posting anyway. 
	

)

In the set of examples on art style, I don't think art style is actually relevant to character concept. The same character could be drawn in any number of art styles, and I'm not personaly pre-opposed to "cute".

One of the most fun characters I played in 2E (and we tried and failed to addapt to 3E) was a kercpa. I don't think you could really define him as "badass", but I think even my DM enjoyed him. (Yes?)


----------



## renau1g (Feb 10, 2009)

I made an anthromorphic cat fighter (inspired by watching Shrek 2, I'll shameless say) with weapon finesse, two weapon fighting, and keen unholy weapons for the BBEG one campaign and he utterly wrecked the party along with his minion the fire giant.

I also made a white tiger monk for a savage species game, but it only lasted 3 games or so, but he was a lot of fun to play.

EDIT: Note that both of these characters were quite ruthless and not 'furry, cute or otherwise Disney' animals, but the cat had been sacrificing villagers to try and bring his 'master' back into the world and the tiger monk was LE, as was the rest of the party, and had no qualms about killing those who questioned him.


----------



## Foundry of Decay (Feb 10, 2009)

The campaign world I've created and base adventures out of features a few 'critter' type races that are allowed in play.  Outside the standard trope of the odd Lizardman, Dragonborn, or 'tauric type character I've got a few races that I've been slowly building histories to over the last... Oh, 20 years or so (Good lord I feel old).

*Lorrnath:* Equinal in nature.  Subraces include a 'northerner' breed much akin to ancient Viking society in ways.  Generally a plains people in the central continents and adaptable to almost any environment.  Often hired as bodyguards or other mercenary types simply due to their size and stature and the fact they tend to work beyond human endurance limits.

*Javarran:* Lupine in nature.  Subraces include the Khulvarri (Civilized) and the Khavijas (Primal).  In general the Khulvarri are the ones who interact with societies more often since they've built up a surprisingly successful empire around themselves.  They often treat their more primal (and larger) cousins, the Khavijas, with disdain or outright bigotry since they cling to old beliefs in ancestors and spirits, and refuse to accept the Khulvarri trope of Gods and 'Destined Race' theory.

Those are, for the most part, the only other critter races in my campaign.  I find that for myself, too many subtypes and animal types dilutes the world.  I do the same with monsters as well, and cut back on just how many varied humanoid races of monsters exist.  With too many critters, things start becoming a bit too far into the Narnia category and I'm aiming for a more gritty world.  Add to the fact that Its hard enough for me to keep straight the things about the races already in the game too 

I've been toying with bringing in the Kenku from 3e as a playable race in my games as well (we run 4e), simply because I really liked the racial history of them, and see a lot of character potential in them.

So, that's the critter/anthro's we use.  I don't use the term 'furry' simply due to it being, from what I understand, a genre unto itself (Akin to fantasy, sci-fi, anime).


----------



## AngeltheTechrat (Feb 10, 2009)

Foundry of Decay said:


> The campaign world I've created and base adventures out of features a few 'critter' type races that are allowed in play. Outside the standard trope of the odd Lizardman, Dragonborn, or 'tauric type character I've got a few races that I've been slowly building histories to over the last... Oh, 20 years or so (Good lord I feel old).
> 
> *Lorrnath:* Equinal in nature. Subraces include a 'northerner' breed much akin to ancient Viking society in ways. Generally a plains people in the central continents and adaptable to almost any environment. Often hired as bodyguards or other mercenary types simply due to their size and stature and the fact they tend to work beyond human endurance limits.
> 
> ...




I.. tend to use the term "furry" interchangeably with anthropomorphic. Except that it annoys me when people refer to fur-suiters as "furries". .. (fur-suiters are those freaks from that CSI episode.. Ugh..)

I generaly think it's a concept that really only works well, visually, in art. But once again, there are many art styles, and that's the same for any kind of fantasy being, not just half-animals.


----------



## Ace (Feb 11, 2009)

I think anthros are cool and am fur tolerant (I have a lot of fur friends for some reason) In fact  I had cat people in my RPG's before there was anime in the US to speak of.

That being said my players and most of my DM's dislike them with a passion  so I don't get to use them much.

I have played Slanzaar (a jaguar-panther man) at one point, I've had a few "animal touched" races as well -- they look human but have animal traits (think Dark Angel) and I'd like to play an Otterman or a Hadozee (Glider ape) at some point


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 11, 2009)

One character I loved having was a werebear.  The character stemmed from a conversation in which we discussed the hilarity of were-bears always being Lawful Good, with alignments such as "Chaotic Couldn't Be Arsed," "Lawful Lazy," and  "Neutral hungry with favored enemy: Honey" thrown around.  Eventually, I decided to make a were-bear paladin who would be *the laziest paladin ever!*  I later refined it to paladin-monk _specifically_ to make "Defeat you with my BEAR HANDS!" jokes.

And I don't think I was ever called furry once, despite remaining in hybrid or animal form far more then I did in human form.


----------



## AngeltheTechrat (Feb 11, 2009)

Ace said:


> I think anthros are cool and am fur tolerant (I have a lot of fur friends for some reason) In fact I had cat people in my RPG's before there was anime in the US to speak of.
> 
> That being said my players and most of my DM's dislike them with a passion so I don't get to use them much.
> 
> I have played Slanzaar (a jaguar-panther man) at one point, I've had a few "animal touched" races as well -- they look human but have animal traits (think Dark Angel) and I'd like to play an Otterman or a Hadozee (Glider ape) at some point





Yeah.. Rakasta NPCs were present throughout almost our entire old BECMI campain, before we switched over to 2E when it started up while I was in highschool. We had various good aligned lycanthropes about, and Spelljammer races, and thought it was terrific when Mystera joined 2E, and we got so many races like that back, now actually playable. That was well before any of us had regular computer access (college years) and found out "furries" was even a "thing". So I it's always agrivating when the "furries" stigma wrecks my enjoyment of anthropomorphic characters.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 11, 2009)

Yes, OP, I love furry PC races.

I can't say I know any furries IRL, but anthropomorphic animals, lycanthropes, and other furry races have always had a big role in fantasy, so why not in RPGs?


----------



## AngeltheTechrat (Feb 11, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yes, OP, I love furry PC races.
> 
> *I can't say I know any furries IRL*, but anthropomorphic animals, lycanthropes, and other furry races have always had a big role in fantasy, so why not in RPGs?







 There *are* no furries in real life. It's people who think there are that are the crazies ruining it for everyone.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 11, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> One character I loved having was a werebear.  The character stemmed from a conversation in which we discussed the hilarity of were-bears always being Lawful Good, with alignments such as "Chaotic Couldn't Be Arsed," "Lawful Lazy," and  "Neutral hungry with favored enemy: Honey" thrown around.  Eventually, I decided to make a were-bear paladin who would be *the laziest paladin ever!*  I later refined it to paladin-monk _specifically_ to make "Defeat you with my BEAR HANDS!" jokes.
> 
> And I don't think I was ever called furry once, despite remaining in hybrid or animal form far more then I did in human form.




Oh, I almost forgot: His primary method of dealing with evil would be to bite them, inflict them with lycanthropy, and then wait a few days while they involuntarily become lawful good


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 11, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Oh, I almost forgot: His primary method of dealing with evil would be to bite them, inflict them with lycanthropy, and then wait a few days while they involuntarily become lawful good




Conversion by bear? So cool!


----------



## Dragonbait (Feb 11, 2009)

AngeltheTechrat said:


> That was well before any of us had regular computer access (college years) and found out "furries" was even a "thing". So I it's always agrivating when the "furries" stigma wrecks my enjoyment of anthropomorphic characters.



Yeah, the internet tells people almost everything they enjoy can be segregated and defined as bad/wrong/fun. And yet, when I deal with people outside of the net they have zero idea of what a furry is. I remember having to explain what a furry is to a bunch of my fellow gamers who weren't message board browsers and the vague definitions and strange stigmas revolving around it. One player then asked "So am I a sexual deviant because I just drew Mickey Mouse?" 

okay, back on target.



			
				 ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Oh, I almost forgot: His primary method of dealing with evil would be to bite them, inflict them with lycanthropy, and then wait a few days while they involuntarily become lawful good



Oh.. My... Goodness.. I would have never thought of that. That's hilarious and really a creative use of a "curse"! Now I wanna play a Winnie Pooh paladin. Think think think think


----------



## thundershot (Feb 11, 2009)

Okay, I've got to admit, the werebear concept is great.


----------



## AngeltheTechrat (Feb 11, 2009)

We had a great point at which our party debated whether or not to use a pair of cursed rings of alignment change we had aquired on evil people. 

(Our DM, Thundershot, started putting curses in all the wrong objects because no one would ever try on a helm or a belt.) 
	


The party mostly wound up divided along the lines of the LG characters saying we should, and the CG characters saying we shouldn't. But my previously mentioned unicorn rider and her mount (both CG, but Halo the mount more "agressive" toward evil) wound up on opposite sides of the debate. Much fun.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 13, 2009)

Assuming, in such a campaign, you began as a small awakened forest animal. What sort of animal would you choose and what would be your expectations in such a game?


----------



## SolitonMan (Feb 13, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I later refined it to paladin-monk _specifically_ to make "Defeat you with my BEAR HANDS!" jokes.




 - I just love that, it's the kind of pun my fellow gamers always threaten to stab me with a pencil over.  

When I read the OP's first post, I was thinking in game-mechanical terms.  Specifically, the section in Savage Species on Anthropomorphic Animals.  I guess I'm pretty OOTL because I've never even heard the term "furry" before - well, not in a gaming context.

While I don't think I'd personally enjoy playing an awakened animal (or whatever a "furry" is defined as) for a normal game, I can see that type of character being appealing to some of the young kids I know as a way to introduce them to the game.  It wouldn't be your typical kill-things-and-take-their-stuff, but maybe something more like "Babe".  

But to reiterate, in terms of 3E Savage Species defined anthropomorphic animals, I definitely like 'em.

heh heh heh - "BEAR hands" - ahhhahahahahaha...


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Feb 13, 2009)

SolitonMan said:


> While I don't think I'd personally enjoy playing an awakened animal (or whatever a "furry" is defined as) for a normal game, I can see that type of character being appealing to some of the young kids I know as a way to introduce them to the game.



Hey, some older kids like them too.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Feb 13, 2009)

"Bear hands". Yeah, my gaming life will now never be complete until I can use this.

I abhor the idea of people using anthro PC's as a means of expressing their sexual issues, but aside from that I'm good with it. I've certainly had a few anthro PC concepts, mostly just because I had a few miniatures to use for them. Never did USE any of them though. More recently, however, I've had a desire to introduce a white mouse NPC based on an illustration of a white mouse in glasses standing on a scroll he's reading.


----------



## AngeltheTechrat (Feb 13, 2009)

SolitonMan said:


> - I just love that, it's the kind of pun my fellow gamers always threaten to stab me with a pencil over.
> 
> When I read the OP's first post, I was thinking in game-mechanical terms. Specifically, the section in Savage Species on Anthropomorphic Animals. I guess I'm pretty OOTL because I've never even heard the term "furry" before - well, not in a gaming context.
> 
> ...




Yeah. The anthropomorphic animal template from Savage Species was terrific. If a race to match your vision didn't already exist, you could easily make it. I'm hoping the Anumi from Alluria's Remarkable Races series will prove as versatile.


----------



## AngeltheTechrat (Feb 13, 2009)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> "Bear hands". Yeah, my gaming life will now never be complete until I can use this.
> 
> I abhor the idea of people using anthro PC's as a means of expressing their sexual issues, but aside from that I'm good with it. I've certainly had a few anthro PC concepts, mostly just because I had a few miniatures to use for them. Never did USE any of them though. More recently, however, I've had a desire to introduce a white mouse NPC based on an illustration of a white mouse in glasses standing on a scroll he's reading.





I um... I think I have a problem with people using *their PCs* as a means of expressiong their "sexual issues". (Though lord knows I think I did when I was in highschool... <facefaults>  ..ugh.. let us not think of things that happened 20 years ago..)  

Does anthro or not even have anything to do with that issue, though?


----------



## greatamericanfolkher (Feb 13, 2009)

Personally, as a game master (especially in the game I’m currently running where I can easily see someone bringing in a Giff or awakened animal character) my general rule for unusual PC races says that if the reason that they want to play a race isn’t squicky, and the race isn’t out of place in the setting or broken like “whoa” that I’ll generally allow it. 

Oh, and “bear hands”. Thanks to you, my players are going to have to fight that paladin now.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Feb 14, 2009)

AngeltheTechrat said:


> Yeah. The anthropomorphic animal template from Savage Species was terrific. If a race to match your vision didn't already exist, you could easily make it. I'm hoping the Anumi from Alluria's Remarkable Races series will prove as versatile.




BTW, it worked pretty damn well with dinosaurs, too.  Assuming you don't count them as dire animals.

Brad


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 14, 2009)

Aeolius said:


> Assuming, in such a campaign, you began as a small awakened forest animal. What sort of animal would you choose and what would be your expectations in such a game?




I'd have a problem deciding between an Awakened Aardvark Barbarian named Cerebus or an Awakened Wolverine Barbarian named Logan.

Actually, I have a PC concept that is designed for either a gnome or halfling (I haven't decided which)- the PC is a barbarian who uses claw bracers, wears spiked armor, and lobs trog-stink grenades.

IOW, he's a combo of badger/wolverine, porcupine and skunk.

That anthro wolverine (or porcupine or skunk) would get me there too.


----------



## AngeltheTechrat (Feb 14, 2009)

I don't have ideas.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 14, 2009)

AngeltheTechrat said:


> Brings up a question all around, though.. in a setting where all the PCs are small animals, what are the animal companions, familiars, spirit guides, etc..?




"Bugs, Mr. Rico!  Zillions of 'em!"


----------



## AngeltheTechrat (Feb 14, 2009)

sorry.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 14, 2009)

Most PCs could take out a familiar with one shot if they hit it as well.

As for _intent_...well, just use more unpalatable bugs- bombardier beetles, cyanotoxin-exuding millipedes, etc.

You could also have them use small "swarm familiars" instead, with each HP of the caster's swarm-familiar represented by a discrete bug.

Or you could go the "spirit guide" route, and just have ancestor spirits fill the role.

And for "animal companions" use bigger critters- say, a "Bird-Eating" Tarantula or a particularly toxic scorpion.


----------



## SKyOdin (Feb 14, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> M
> Or you could go the "spirit guide" route, and just have ancestor spirits fill the role.



The first thing I thought off when I read that is "Mufasa".

Though thinking about it, the Lion King isn't a bad thing to rip off of if you are going the awakened animals route.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 14, 2009)

SKyOdin said:


> Though thinking about it, the Lion King isn't a bad thing to rip off of if you are going the awakened animals route.




80% of Disney and most of American animation wouldn't be a bad thing to rip off for awakened animals.

Then there's things like Mouse Guard, etc.

There is also the sci-fi take on such things as found in the comic_ We 3_, Marvel's New Men (anthro animals) on Wundagore Mountain (home of the High Evolutionary), and David Brin's Uplift novels, to name but a few.

Then there is this gem:



Umbran said:


> First of all two words - magical mice.  Why?  Because "magical mice" is just fun to say...
> 
> Okay, so, for a plot...
> 
> ...




Someone else on these boards- I regretfully cannot remember who- suggested that the awakened animals could have humans, demihumans, etc. as their familiars/companions in kind of a "tail wags dog" setup.  The humans believe that they're going where they want to go and bringing their pets, when the reality is actually the obverse.


----------



## AngeltheTechrat (Feb 14, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Most PCs could take out a familiar with one shot if they hit it as well.
> 
> As for _intent_...well, just use more unpalatable bugs- bombardier beetles, cyanotoxin-exuding millipedes, etc.
> 
> ...




I'm sorry. 

I shouldn't have asked that. 

I'm sorry.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 14, 2009)

AngeltheTechrat said:


> I shouldn't have asked that.




_I _thought it was a good question- it made me think about it seriously from a GM's perspective, after all.


----------



## thundershot (Feb 14, 2009)

What the heck happened?? I seemed to have missed a page of this book... What was the question?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 15, 2009)

thundershot said:


> What the heck happened?? I seemed to have missed a page of this book... What was the question?




I have no idea what happened with AngeltheTechrat.

Post #84 has the original question posited by AngeltheTechrat and my response.  This prompted a response basically saying the bug familiars would be too easy to kill, and why.  I responded to _that_, then AngeltheTechrat started deleting posts.


----------



## thundershot (Feb 15, 2009)

Huh. 

So... anyway, what we need is a nice simple way of doing anthropomorphic PC's.

PC race formula is pretty easy as it is... for the most part, it usually goes:

+2 to 2 stats
+2 to 2 skills
an minor action encounter power
a handful of special bonuses to certain situations, or maybe a bonus to a defense.

Using that formula, almost anything can be created. I made Rakasta using that idea, and they're a major PC race in my 4E campaign.



Chris


----------

