Monstrous Humanoids - what counts?

[mappinger]

The old NWN game featured a modest number of enemies listed as Monstrous Humanoids, most of them absent from PotM. I've long wondered what creatures fall into this category here. I struggle to think of any beyond two: Hags and (probably) Salamanders. Having not played Caliban, I'm not certain if they are categorized as such.

EDIT: Since the addition of Markovia since I played last...I guess there are more. 

[Cody]

There are some, besides the salamander and scorpion humanoid monsters in Har'Akir. The trolls in the desert should count, and also the scrags back in Barovia and the ogres.
Most other things you think are Monstrous Humanoids are likely actually Aberrations.

Spoiler: show

Like Markovia.

[mappinger]

There are some, besides the salamander and scorpion humanoid monsters in Har'Akir. The trolls in the desert should count, and also the scrags back in Barovia and the ogres.
Most other things you think are Monstrous Humanoids are likely actually Aberrations.

Spoiler: show

Like Markovia.

Trolls/Ogres are categorized as Giants by the game. I don't recall if that is a deviation from the books in both cases.

[DM Brimstone]

Hags are monstrous humanoids (with the exception of night hags).

[zDark Shadowz]

Tareks, hags, hagspawn and maybe scorpionfolk (if they are similar to "Stingers") are the ones flagged as monstrous humanoid I believe.

Trolls and ogres and by extension, scrags should all be giants. Salamanders should be outsider, or elemental, but I'll leave that to the rangers/MHs with bane bow to figure out for sure.

[myrddraal]

Salamanders are actually outsiders.

[slash]

im a monstrous humanoid

[slash]

im a monstrous humanoid

I think that it would be helpful to try to define a Monstrous Humanoid ontologically - in order to be classified as a Monstrous Humanoid, what characteristics must you possess?

Unfortunately, most of the terms we use in DND to describe creature types are frustratingly vague. Many if not most creatures fit the definition of Humanoid, like trolls. Yet Trolls are classed as Giants. However, Caliban (which can reach heights similar to trolls) are not Giants, but instead Humanoid. At a certain level it is arbitrary and futile to try and delineate singular, exclusive creature types for creatures in DND.

With that said, the best working definition I currently have of "Monstrous Humanoid" is "any humanoid whose existence or form is the result of an unnatural process i.e. magic". This is differentiated from Aberrations (whose name would seem to imply that they are similar) because Aberrations are not necessarily formed from unnatural processes, but rather formed naturally outside of the Prime Material Plane.

Of course, that makes me ask: why are Calibans (humanoids born from ostensibly unnatural influence on fetuses in utero) not Monstrous Humanoids, and why are the Aberrant Gendarmes in the Old Sewers classified as Aberrations instead of Monstrous Humanoids? My best answer to this is that perhaps Caliban are naturally formed by some process left obfuscated to the player by the Mists of Death, and maybe the Gendarme Thralls are considered to not be an individual creature but instead an extension of their leader the Abeloth, kind of like tentacles over brain wi-fi.

Anyway, that's the best answer I got. I hope that helps!

[EarlofEtheria]

"Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features. They often have magical abilities as well."

"A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities..."

So the primary delineation between humanoid and monstrous humanoid is the dehumanization of limbs or magical abilities. Minotaurs have cloven legs and bull heads, centaurs have a horse body, harpies have animalistic claws/talons/wings and their song. The minimum appears to be inborn magic, or a minor feature like claws or hide with origins on the material plane.

Now lets look at giants:

"A giant is a humanoid-shaped creature of great strength, usually of at least Large size."

Ogres and trolls are for the most part humanoid, and it seems like it is superseded by more monstrous/animalistic features or a minotaur would be a giant. This implies a hierarchy exists, and an external origin from the material plane takes precedent:

Humanoid -> Giant (Large category, strong humanoids) -> Monstrous Humanoid (dehumanized limbs) -> Outsider/Aberration/Elemental/Construct/Fey/Draconic
Humanoid -> Monstrous Humanoid -> Outsider/Aberration/Elemental/Construct/Fey/Draconic
Humanoid -> Outsider/Aberration/Elemental/Construct/Fey/Draconic

Caliban are medium category, their deformities are typically malignant and provide no magical abilities. Caliban have a modifier for strength but this is not enough to make even the weakest Caliban far above humanoid averages to be giant.

These categories appear to ignore corruptions or transmutations which could become a permanent part of a humanoid, the soul seems to be the constant (which itself may be mutated into other types).

[slash]

"A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities..."

Counter-example: Any humanoid race with supernatural abilities, ex. Drow/Duergar (Darkness as a spell-like ability), Chaos Gnomes (Entropic Shield as a spell-like ability) etc.

"Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features. They often have magical abilities as well."

So the primary delineation between humanoid and monstrous humanoid is the dehumanization of limbs or magical abilities. Minotaurs have cloven legs and bull heads, centaurs have a horse body, harpies have animalistic claws/talons/wings and their song. The minimum appears to be inborn magic, or a minor feature like claws or hide with origins on the material plane.

Counter-example: Tieflings are classified as Humanoid despite having monstrous or animalistic features and inborn magic. Lizardfolk (as a subtype) are humanoids with animalistic features with origins on the material plane. (this is closer to an answer than I can think of though )

Humanoid -> Giant (Large category, strong humanoids) -> Monstrous Humanoid (dehumanized limbs) -> Outsider/Aberration/Elemental/Construct/Fey/Draconic
Humanoid -> Monstrous Humanoid -> Outsider/Aberration/Elemental/Construct/Fey/Draconic
Humanoid -> Outsider/Aberration/Elemental/Construct/Fey/Draconic

I like this idea of humanoid being the sort of "vanilla" option that is superseded by the addition of attributes that exclude a race from the category. I think beyond that however, it is simply up to the creature race in question's theming rather than a hierarchy, though maybe I'm wrong here.

Ultimately, I think that the category of Monstrous Humanoid was created for the sole purpose of facilitating gameplay over roleplay. One trait most (if not all) monstrous humanoids share is that, due to being "monstrous", it is more morally acceptable to kill or harm them without having to consider them as moral agents. They become the Trash Mobs of a dungeon's design because all players are largely given the freedom to slaughter them.

If we considered "Monstrous Humanoids" as individuals just as capable of good and evil as we are, then would they not cease to be "Monstrous" as a whole? Conversely, would that mean the most deplorable of Humanoids becomes "Monstrous" in turn?

[zDark Shadowz]

The most deplorable of humanoids acquire enough DP checks to become monstrous player characters yes.

[slash]

The most deplorable of humanoids acquire enough DP checks to become monstrous player characters yes.

Technically yes. I am speaking a bit more broadly than the scope of just within Ravenloft though

[Day Old Bread]

I think this question stems more from the mechanical side of things rather than the theoretical. I don't know the answer, but I think the OP is looking to identify which enemies would fall under the Monsterous Humanoid category, perhaps for the purpose of some build they are working on?

Correct me if I'm wrong mappinger

[remnar]

NWN (and likely DnD's) racial types are pretty granular in some ways, and super vague in other senses.

You'll never make sense of it, aside from undead or oozes.  (And I bet a lot of people think bone golems are undead when they're actually constructs *wink*)
The best bet is to look at the NWN wiki and see what they categorized as whatever, and extrapolate from there with POTM's specific things.

Undead are undead, various forms of dead animated by negative energy.  Zombies, skeletons, vampires, etc.
Constructs are things animated by magic but are otherwise inert.  Golems.
Oozes are oozes.  Slimes, cubes.
Elementals are elementals, beings of elemental forces.  Fire elementals, water elementals,

Spoiler: show

mist dragon

Outsiders are from other planes (including elemental planes).  So, Salamanders, pit fiends, balors, cornugons, etc.
Animals are animals.  Wolf, rabbit, mink.  Normal animals that could be from IRL.
Beasts are a specific category of mythical but NOT magical animals.  Stirges, bulettes, and grey renders are these.
Magical Animals are mythical AND magical animals.  Winter wolves, krenshar, manticores.
All the player races are their own creature type.  Yes, this includes half-X's.  I have no idea what a caliban from ravenloft counts as.  Half-orc?
Shapechangers are things that turn into something else.  Werewolves, wererats, etc.
Abberations are either things from the outer whatevers, like...beyond the planes.  Or things that got messed up for some reason.  This means aboleths and the various freak-monsters in markovia.  And umber hulks.
Dragons are dragons.
Reptillians are lizard folk.  That includes kobolds (are our kobolds the same? beats me), sahuagin, and lizard folk.
Goblinoids are goblins.  But also hobgoblins.  And bugbears.  And goblyns, which are goblins.
Giants are big mfs.  Giants, ogres, and trolls.  And scrags.  Except scrags are the result of experimentation, so they might be abberations.  Except I don't think they are, I think it's still giant.
Monstrous humanoids are humanoid monsters that aren't part of the other categories.  Minotaurs, harpies, stingers...maybe other things people have said in the thread!  Maybe not.
Vermin are mostly insects and bugs.  Except the spiders that aren't.

Long story short, being a bad person is not what makes someone a monstrous humanoid.
And when you pick your favored enemies, you better pick the right ones!  (those obv are elf, half elf, half orc, gnome, and halfling)

[mappinger]

I think this question stems more from the mechanical side of things rather than the theoretical. I don't know the answer, but I think the OP is looking to identify which enemies would fall under the Monsterous Humanoid category, perhaps for the purpose of some build they are working on?

Correct me if I'm wrong mappinger

I am pleased to see the consideration of monstrous humanoids from a philosophical and game design standpoint. This angle was an added treat. But, yes, ultimately my basic question was: is monstrous humanoid a particularly limited group in NWN/PotM if one is thinking of "Favored Enemies"? My previous character took Favored Enemy: Monstrous Humanoid for the sake of Hags being very much a core part of the character's RP. Beyond the RP consideration, it never felt like a good value-for-your-moneyfeat pick (and that is sometimes okay as not everyone wants to base their persona on what the strongest and most numerous top-tier enemies on a server are).

And when you pick your favored enemies, you better pick the right ones!  (those obv are elf, half elf, half orc, gnome, and halfling)

Ha!

[Anarcoplayba]

The question is: why cannot the Examine function inform the category of the subject?

[Profezzor_Darke]

The question is: why cannot the Examine function inform the category of the subject?

Make Lore even more useful!

[Hemolymph]

The question is: why cannot the Examine function inform the category of the subject?

Monster Hunters everywhere approve of this message.

[EarlofEtheria]

Counter-example: Any humanoid race with supernatural abilities, ex. Drow/Duergar (Darkness as a spell-like ability), Chaos Gnomes (Entropic Shield as a spell-like ability) etc.

The inclusion of Derro in the Monstrous Humanoid category is an interesting matter, when considering on paper and cursory examination they are not too dissimilar from say Drow/Duergar - but its not accurate.

The main contention is that Drow spell-like abilities are cast as a Sorcerer and Duergar cast theirs as a Wizard (this is a big one) and progresses alongside their class levels. This is a skillful and deliberate spell which a Drow practices as they progress. Derro on the otherhand are so intimate with magic, their spell-like ability is not cast through classes but through their race.

Chaos Gnomes of course break all this apart, but Gnomes are sort of like a subtype of fey, which is again applied like a subtype overtop humanoid, so... it's a weird category. Don't think about what gnomes are, you'll go insane.

Counter-example: Tieflings are classified as Humanoid despite having monstrous or animalistic features and inborn magic. Lizardfolk (as a subtype) are humanoids with animalistic features with origins on the material plane. (this is closer to an answer than I can think of though )

Tieflings, Aasimars and Genasi are all outsiders, you can banish them and the act is enough to slay them. They are not humanoids.

Lizardfolk are an interesting examination, as the Reptilian subtype specifically calls out the main three races, Kobolds, Lizardfolk and Troglodytes:

"These creatures are scaly and usually coldblooded. The reptilian subtype is only used to describe a set of humanoid races, not all animals and monsters that are truly reptiles."

Reptillian races are unique enough that monstrous humanoids who are reptiles don't count. It's more accurately a template, as they retain their Humanoid type, but have the Reptillian template overriding their humanoid type. This is probably due to the lizard people ruling from space angle, and not being as material plane as we all thought (see kobolds believing they are related to dragons). Gnomes, Elves, most non-human humanoids are structured this way. Let's revise that heirarchy:

Human -> Humanoid Subtype -> Giant (Large category, strong humanoids) -> Monstrous Humanoid (dehumanized limbs) -> Outsider/Aberration/Elemental/Construct/Fey/Draconic -> Undead

I like this idea of humanoid being the sort of "vanilla" option that is superseded by the addition of attributes that exclude a race from the category. I think beyond that however, it is simply up to the creature race in question's theming rather than a hierarchy, though maybe I'm wrong here.

Ultimately, I think that the category of Monstrous Humanoid was created for the sole purpose of facilitating gameplay over roleplay. One trait most (if not all) monstrous humanoids share is that, due to being "monstrous", it is more morally acceptable to kill or harm them without having to consider them as moral agents. They become the Trash Mobs of a dungeon's design because all players are largely given the freedom to slaughter them.

If we considered "Monstrous Humanoids" as individuals just as capable of good and evil as we are, then would they not cease to be "Monstrous" as a whole? Conversely, would that mean the most deplorable of Humanoids becomes "Monstrous" in turn?

It's a specific category dependent on their chimeric assembly of material plane creature features or the magical abilities their existence provides without being a spell (spells and magic are distinct from one another). There is no demand of a monstrous humanoid's alignment to be evil, centaurs are often neutral good for instance.

How human centric the design of D&D is, is not lost on me... 

[slash]

(stuff that you typed)

Leading me down a rabbit-hole I see!

Regarding your point about the Planetouched, I do see most sources class them as Outsiders. However, this opens another can of worms - there are variants of Tieflings from different settings, and possibly this is true for other races as well. In Forgotten Realms there is a Humanoid (Planetouched) variant for tieflings for example. I really like where you're going with this though, that logic about Drow and Duergar spellcasting vs Derro spell-like abilities is interesting to me. However, my conjecture for why Derro are considered Monstrous unlike Duergar and Drow is that Derro are, as a race, insane, and that is the source of their monstrous-ness.

[The Doorman]

The question is: why cannot the Examine function inform the category of the subject?

Monster Hunters everywhere approve of this message.

The Vengeful League of Human Supremacists second this message.