The Case for Beastfolk
Some of the most iconic monsters in fantasy roleplaying games are variations on the “Beastman” archetype: lizardfolk, hyena-headed gnolls, even lycanthropes from a certain point of view. In this post, I want to argue not only that beastfolk are among the most interesting monsters you can throw in front of your players, but that there is a ton of untapped potential in introducing more varieties of beastfolk into your games, and even reimagining more generic monsters (like the varieties of goblinoid) as types of beastfolk.
Familiar, but Different
In the grand scheme of antagonists your PCs might encounter in the course of their adventures, there are basically four major groups: other humans (or elves, dwarves, halflings, etc.), giant animals, monstrous humanoids, and mythical creatures. All of these can be interesting when done right, and can get boring if overused, but I think that monstrous humanoids are a particularly evergreen category. They have capabilities that make them unique and enigmatic compared to, say, bandits; but are usually capable of some degree of reason and negotiation, which makes encounters more complex and dynamic than an encounter with giant spiders. And while dragons and manticores are awesome, they beg to be used very sparingly, whereas the more grounded feel of monstrous humanoids means PCs can encounter them repeatedly and/or in large numbers without stretching suspension of disbelief.
Ease of Visualization
So we agree that monstrous humanoids are the best types of (potentially) hostile NPCs, why the emphasis on beastfolk? There are plenty of monstrous humanoids in any given Monster Manual, just look at all the different types of goblinoids: goblins, kobolds, orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, etc. My problem with goblinoids is one of visualization: the image of the little green pointy-eared goblin has filtered into pop culture, but I don’t think most players or GMs have a clear understanding of the difference between a bugbear, a hobgoblin, and an orc, which makes them less interesting to use at the table. What’s the point of having different kinds of monsters if so many of them fade into a vague indistinct blob?
Enter beastfolk. The idea of the “pig-faced orc” is pretty popular in OSR spaces, as early illustrations of orcs depicted them with pig-like features, though later orcs were depicted as basically just green barbarians, more in line with Tolkien’s descriptions of them. I want to embrace the pig-faced orc and extend this notion to other types of monsters. Check this out:
- Orcs: Pigs (or rather Boars, since Boars are wild like Orcs)
- Goblins: Shrews/Moles
- Kobolds: Rats/Mice
- Hobgoblins: Goats
- Bugbears: Bears (obviously)
- Gnolls: Hyenas
Where before we had a vague concept of “hairy barbarian with sharp teeth” shared between bugbears, hobgoblins, and orcs, we now have a more specific and more intuitive notion of bugbears as bear-people, orcs as boar-people, and hobgoblins as goat-people. These simple associations make it easy for the GM to picture these creatures in their mind and communicate that image to players. And if they need inspiration there’s a limitless pool of content they can use for that.
Inspiration
One of the upsides of using beastfolk is that you can use the plethora of information about different animals available online to come up with ideas for physical traits, diet, and social behavior. If we were to equate goblins with shrews, we can look up shrews on Wikipedia and in 5 minutes learn a few interesting things:
- Shrews are extremely territorial and generally live in solitude
- They are omnivorous and many species are venomous
- They have a very fast metabolism and can consume up to twice their weight per day
- Some species supplement their poor eyesight with echolocation
Obviously you can discard or tweak these results if they’re not to your liking, but what we got is super interesting, whether we want to call it a goblin or something else. These shrew-folk are small fuzzy humanoids with sharp venomous teeth and voracious appetites who live in small territorial clans, and echolocate to get around.
Variety within Groupings
You can also use similar species to create subgroups within a single category of monster. For instance, gnolls are traditionally hyena-folk, but there are many different varieties of large cats, and each one has its own distinctive appearance and behavior. If you have two different tribes of gnoll in a module or setting, one could be based on hyenas, while another is based on tigers, jaguars, leopards, lions, or something even weirder like civets. By the same token, bears are caniform animals, so in addition to bugbears we could have bugfoxes, bugraccoons, and bugbadgers. The possibilities are endless.
New Monsters
There’s still a lot of empty space, as there are many animals that don’t have any humanoid creatures traditionally associated with them. Frogfolk, snakefolk, and monkeyfolk are rare but out there; there are turtlefolk, elephantfolk, and birdfolk in 5e but rarely in OSR products; and I have yet to find an adventure with slothfolk, rabbitfolk, or wombatfolk. This is fertile ground for people to come up with new and exciting monsters to introduce to their games.
Now you know what must be done. Go forth and create.