It is easy to 'grok' (sorry) centaurs. Half-human, half-horse, their behaviour and culture is obvious: they are souped-up raiders of the steppe - Scythians, Huns, Alans, Massagetae, Mongols, Comanches - who like to daub themselves in blood, drink from the hollowed-out skulls of their victims, and live a life of freedom and liberty under only the vastness of the sky.
The centaur model of 'human torso/something else hindquarters' is widely deployed (manscorpions, wemics, formians, bull centaurs, bariaurs, etc.), but rarely thought about. I would like to here postulate some important principles governing its optimal use.
First, it seems important that '-taurs', as I will call them, have to be based on an animal that has a roughly elongated, oblong torso in order that it can be easily imagined without giggles. Bull centaur works, because one can imagine a cow with a human torso coming out where the neck and head should be. Seagull -taur doesn't really work, because it conjures in the mind an image which is intrinsically a bit silly. Similarly, a -taur should not neuter the most interesting characteristic of the base animal. A crocodile -taur is a bad idea because it takes away the snappy jaws which are a crocodile's best feature.
Second, it is a worthwhile endeavour to think through what it is about a prospective -taur that makes it worth creating aside from the aesthetic. A bull centaur is a good concept because the thought of a thing that is half-human and half-bull in temperament as well as physique is both conceivable and cool, and because it suggests certain abilities (to 'charge', to get angry, etc.). What good, though, is a giraffe -taur or camel -taur? What are they bringing to the table in terms of flavour, basic concept, abilities, and so on?
Third, a good -taur has a suggestive role or culture that fits in with both halves. The centaur is a bit like a person and a bit like a horse not just in terms of how it looks or feels, but in terms of how it behaves and what it does. The same is true of a bull centaur - an aggressive, impetuous, single-minded, beast that entirely lives up to the stereotype of the angry bovine. What, though, about the bariaur - what would it mean for human beings to be more 'sheeplike' or 'goatlike'? What would the culture of the aforementioned giraffe -taur, or a rhino -taur, lion -taur, wolf-taur, etc., be?
Fourth, I will go out on a limb and say that I prefer the physical size of the real-world creature to be roughly commensurate with that of a human. One problem with bariaurs is that human beings are a bit too big to imagine sitting on the hindquarters of a sheep or goat - I know sheep and goats, and that would be ungainly. Don't get me started on formians or manscorpions. Part of the genius of the centaur is that it requires no shrinkage or giantism.
With all of that in mind, what are some suggestions for good -taur concepts, and how would you describe their character and culture?
When you mentioned giraffe-centaurs I immediately thought "How would they pick things off the ground?". Then I started imagining giraffe-centaurs with really long, flexible abdomens that could flex enough to let their arms touch the ground (possibly with splayed front legs, as giraffes do when drinking from water holes). I can imagine them being a more haughty, noble inhabitant of tropical savannahs and light forest, literally and figuratively looking down on other creatures.
ReplyDeleteIt was just an example that popped into my head but now you've put some flesh on it, I like it.
DeleteNice thoughts. Are harpies gull-taurs? I've a feeling (but no source) that they have that pest-with-dirty-nest vibe
ReplyDeleteAnzon
Ha, yes, I suppose they kind of are!
DeleteFighting Fantasy, many of whose monsters grew out of the DnD 80s zeitgest, hedged its bets with Centaurs, Felinaurs (basically Wemics), and Xoroa (ant people, though interestingly there were no statted up Giant Ants in the original Out of the Pit book) as initial archetypes, to which were added Ishkarim (spider-people) and Accursed (scorpion-people), which were hand-waved away as Demonic creatures and guardians, rather than humanoid-style races, and then left it at that. Does this include Merfolk, which are basically fish-taurs? It also has Spider Men (people) and Death-Spiders (demons) which are spider bodies and legs with human heads (but no torsoes or arms). Also, if you have Satyrs or Beast Men, why do you need Goat Centaurs? MM II (ADND 1e) also had deer-centaurs if I recall. Always liked the Zoats from Warhammer, but the Dragon Ogres seemed a bit ridiculous even if cool to deploy on the battlefield. FF also has a profusion of beast-head people - Rhinomen, Minotaurs, Cat People (at least 2 types), Moon Calves, Dog People, Gnolls, Reptile races (at least 10, including 2 two-headed varieties. and 2 serpent-taur varieties), and at least 5-10 each of ampbibian, fish and mollusc people, which is starting to get a bit ridiculous, but hey, you don't need to use all of them for whatever area your campaign is set in. Character and culture vary widely but generally nothing too revolutionary.
ReplyDeleteI like the serpent-taur concept, probably inspired by the Yuan-ti and Ophidians in MM II - in FF they are a warrior servitor class for more intelligent snake people such as the Caarth.
Bunch of random ramblings, really! :-)
Yes, I remember the felinaurs. As somebody who is a big fan of '-men' (as in rhinomen, dog men, etc.) I tend to think it's a case of 'the more the merrier'.
DeleteProblem with your terminology: the minotaur is the other big taur, and is inconsistent with it. And when you look into the etymology, the centaur is the odd one out, not the minotaur.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find that "man torso, beast body" doesn't work very well except as an explicitly magical creature (like the drider). You end up with weird questions like "so how many hearts does it have?" and "what do they eat?" Notably, beastmen (i.e. head of a beast, body of a man) don't run into this issues nearly the same way, and allow you all the upsides artistically.
Good point about minotaurs - weird that I forgot about them.
DeleteI'm sure it's been done somewhere, but Stag-men would fit the bill of what you're looking for and seem somewhat underused. I imagine that physically they'd appear fairly similar to centaurs, except for the antlers sprouting from the human brows of the men. I envisage their culture as being somewhat divided, with some living in forest-dwelling communities where a single battle-scarred old male presides over a harem of women, while others form roving nomadic bands of young bucks. PCs are most likely to encounter the latter, either as antagonists or recruits; some young Stag-men like to temporarily join adventuring parties of other species, in order to hone their combat skills for an eventual challenge against an elder to win control of their own herd. Not sure what the appropriate pseudo-Greek name would be though: elaphotaur perhaps, but that sounds confusingly like an elephant hybrid.
ReplyDeleteGood idea. I also have a vague idea it's been done somewhere but your spin on it is great.
DeleteThe size thing makes sense, but bug-taurs work pretty well because giant insects are such a staple of the genre. Manscorpions and driders are both great.
ReplyDeleteI know it's a little silly, but kangaroo-taurs would work pretty well visually.
Would their young still be joeys?
DeleteAbsolutely, Joey the young Kangataur cries out for inclusion in a Fantasy Australia Campaign.
DeleteOthers have mentioned mermaids, harpies etc already. The animal that meets all your qualifications but that I've NOT seen portrayed anywhere as a centaur is the bear. It's the right shape, it loses its jaws but not its strength or claws, it comes in a variety of sizes so the scale can be whatever looks best, and it's easy to associate its lifestyle with that of fisher-hunter cultures like say the Inuit or the Ainu. Bears prefer to mind their own business but are easily irritated and extremely dangerous when riled, the females' protectiveness of her cubs is legendary, the males get into terrific duels amongst themselves, they eat anything and seemingly fear nothing - all good qualities for a fantastical race. I'm not sure how I feel about them rearing up on their hind legs though, they would look unbalanced.
ReplyDeleteThis brings to mind a favorite of mine: the humantaur. It's ridiculous and breaks several of the rules noisms laid out in the post, but I still like it.
Deletehttps://psshaw.tumblr.com/post/74539532072/maariamph-the-majestic-man-taur-half-man-half
https://notxela.tumblr.com/post/146489514420/i-turned-my-oc-anaya-into-a-mantaur-no-hate-pls
Love the bear idea.
DeleteMost probably, "centaur" comes from the endonym of a tribe of Thessalian horse-riders, so it's only a coincidence that it resembles the etymologically more solid "bull of Minos" - all the "piercing bull" etymologies smack of rationalization to me.
ReplyDeleteAnother linguistic coincidence, equally far-out, led to the surmise that legends of centaurs and satyrs mirrored the phonological division between "centum" and "satem" Indo-European languages - though I can't for the life of me find the attribution.
Personally, I think the occasional centaur-type is acceptable to leaven a fantasy bestiary full of two-legged humanoids. The real problem being, that bestiary is too richly sown with the kind of pulp-sci-fi critter rightly sent up in the Arcanum RPG as the "-and-a-man."
I would be intrigued by a setting that went whole hog and made every kind of monster or magical creature into some sort of chimerical "creature-with-human-bits" – hyenataur, deer with arms for antlers, pig-head orcs, thing that straddles the line between "snake with a mane of fingers" and "long arm with a mouth"...
DeleteI wonder about combining fantasy/D&D creatures, such as baritaurs being halfling-sheep hybrids. A quirk of D&D I find unappealing is that the fantasy races can be viewed as static (e.g., race as class) with humans being the adaptable (whether in their class or their genetics it seems). I like to take a broader view of those races while still considering distinct cultural traits. For example, there might be set of a nomadic clan-guild halfling/sheep people that trade between the foothills on the edge of a dwarven civilization and their enclaves near the cities.
ReplyDeleteThere are strong arguments both for and against conceptualising fantasy races in that way. I understand your position, but I also like the idea of non-human 'races' as archetypal rather than naturalistic.
DeleteI always thought Driders were pretty cool, especially because they were the result of a divine punishment on those Drow who failed Lolth’s tests.
DeleteFrom the other perspective, if these fantasy creatures/races have distinct traits, I've agreed with your "expressionistic" approach to them - I'm thinking of that post about orcs from a few years ago. Race-as-class, for example, is totally valid; I guess the common implementations of that combine with some old school quirks (like restricted weapons for clerics) that I find stuffy - just personal taste, really.
DeleteI get you!
DeleteSeal- or dolphin-taur. Basically merfolk, but they don't breathe water.
ReplyDeleteTortoise-taur? Physically slow, long-lived, sagely. Even big tortoises might be a bit too small, though.
Gorilla-taur.
Seal-taur would I think be like a selkie? There may have been other seal-man types in AD&D.... Not including sea wolves.
DeleteTortoise-taur is good and creepy - imagine a great big tortoise with a human face.
Tortoise-taurs are basically Zoats, no? :-)
DeletePlatytaurs. Ungainly (on land) river folk. They have lower body temperatures than humans and have a reputation among ignorant humans as lazy good-for-nothings, partly because their metabolism means their activity schedule is different and partly because they have no pair-bonds and only a loose sense of family. The females lactate through their skin patches/fur, which of course is *sinful* and *slatternly*. Males have a venom spur, because they are *cowardly yellow*. Good god-fearing folk don't associate with these backward river types.
ReplyDeleteExcellent work.
DeleteGiraffes have one great advantage as a -taur which is that like us their preferred gait is a brisk walk. Horse imagery is all about the gallop, but all that rocking motion would look ridiculous on a centaur (most films have them amble at speed).
ReplyDeleteHow centaurs keep from pitching forward especially when galloping and coming to a stop is an interesting question. They'd have to balance by keeping their human torso bent far backwards.
DeleteNah. The main element one should concern themselves for this - is finding a real-world mythological roots for an x-taur. Centaurs already carry with them the whole corpus of Hellenic mythology AND , to a lesser degree, medieval bestiaries and astrology. Which, by the way, is why I despise their old-style D&D treatment, where for some reason they were peaceful (!) woodland (!) creatures. %((
ReplyDeleteBullcentaurs have less mythological weight, but they look similar to guardian bulls of ancient Mesopotamia, so they can certainly work as an element of a setting with such culture. WH did this well. Something like manscorpions was also present in this mythology (guardians of the underworld iirc), and was later imported to some others (iirc, Arabian or Indian stories had something similar).
Not sure about Wemics, but someone said something about some of African folklores...
Ants, on the other hand, are present in folk tales (and literature) relatively often - but not in centaur form! %) And appropriately, we have no good portrayal of such. ;))
So, while you can possibly constract a good x-taur without folkloric foundation - if you are an excellent writer - getting it off the ground on the power of your talent and common sense alone will far more often fail in one of two predictable ways: either being silly, or, if you avoid that, by being too bland and uninspiring. Much better probably to find a folkloric basis and work from that, using what 'creativity' you got for actual story, characters, world-buildind, etc. ;)
Mike