Catfolk inconsistency


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

51 to 100 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Umbranus wrote:

@Zotpox: As I didn't find good pictures showing Kiziniti or your Catfolk examples (or I don't think what I found to be good examples of what I expected) what would you say should be the differences between werecats and catfolk?

I'd see them both as having a humanoid body with fur, catlike tails, catlike legs/feet. For a catfolk I'd expect a face that's somewhere between cat and human, for the werecat I'd expect a more catlike face. I could see the werecat having more than two mammals, making them distinctly different from catfolk.

Your example for anthropomorph (nekomimi) for me looks just like a catfolk-fangirl with false ears. Or, you could say, like a perfect example how catfolk should never look like.

In your opinion, perhaps. People have the right to disagree.


Icyshadow wrote:
Umbranus wrote:

@Zotpox: As I didn't find good pictures showing Kiziniti or your Catfolk examples (or I don't think what I found to be good examples of what I expected) what would you say should be the differences between werecats and catfolk?

I'd see them both as having a humanoid body with fur, catlike tails, catlike legs/feet. For a catfolk I'd expect a face that's somewhere between cat and human, for the werecat I'd expect a more catlike face. I could see the werecat having more than two mammals, making them distinctly different from catfolk.

Your example for anthropomorph (nekomimi) for me looks just like a catfolk-fangirl with false ears. Or, you could say, like a perfect example how catfolk should never look like.

In your opinion, perhaps. People have the right to disagree.

Sure. To repeat myself: I think the best path would be to not nail it to only one official answer.

But If you like this kind of catfolk, perhaps we should retcon ratfolk to look like This or This.

Liberty's Edge

I want to see a male of the b3 version and in a more standard pose so we can get a better comprehension of the look. As of now I prefer the B3 version but the pose makes for some awkward features. Especially the feet/ankles.


If ratfolk looked like that umbranus then they would called mousefolk.


Here are sum examples

cat boy/girl

human with cat features

catfolk

50/50 mix

wherecat

larger heaver frame, catlike legs, pawlike hands


Umbranus wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Umbranus wrote:

@Zotpox: As I didn't find good pictures showing Kiziniti or your Catfolk examples (or I don't think what I found to be good examples of what I expected) what would you say should be the differences between werecats and catfolk?

I'd see them both as having a humanoid body with fur, catlike tails, catlike legs/feet. For a catfolk I'd expect a face that's somewhere between cat and human, for the werecat I'd expect a more catlike face. I could see the werecat having more than two mammals, making them distinctly different from catfolk.

Your example for anthropomorph (nekomimi) for me looks just like a catfolk-fangirl with false ears. Or, you could say, like a perfect example how catfolk should never look like.

In your opinion, perhaps. People have the right to disagree.

Sure. To repeat myself: I think the best path would be to not nail it to only one official answer.

But If you like this kind of catfolk, perhaps we should retcon ratfolk to look like This or This.

You are bad and should feel bad! /Zoidberg


Zotpox wrote:

Here are sum examples

cat boy/girl

human with cat features

catfolk

50/50 mix

wherecat

larger heaver frame, catlike legs, pawlike hands

Of those I'd be ok with all 3. None of those looks like disguised humans. But from my subjective opinion the third is nearest at what I'd like to have as catfolk.

In the end I guess it boils down to: Do you want a cat in a humanoid body (my preferance) or do you want a cute furry.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huh I always presumed the more animal like catfolk were examples of catfolk with the new racial feats or alternate race traits. The feats representing catfolk with a more primal cat like appearance and nature.


Alternate Racial Traits. That is what I thought of as well.

The B3 is after a lot of Adaptation to living among humans.

ARG is them living among their own kin.


You don't need an animal's head to have the scent ability in a fantasy setting, or claws, or darkvision, or a climb speed. So I don't see a connection with those options and transforming my catgirl into a weretiger wannabe.


Ravenovf said wrote:

Huh I always presumed the more animal like catfolk were examples of catfolk with the new racial feats or alternate race traits. The feats representing catfolk with a more primal cat like appearance and nature.

I dont see myself agreeing completely. I can see feats and traits altering the appearince of cat boy/girls, catfolk, and wherecats. While primal is a direction to go with those changes i dont see it as the only direction.


I have to say I totally go for the Capcom version of catfolk. Complete human faces but with slightly pronounced fangs, larger cat ears, relatively hairless human bodies but with tails, and then fur covered outer limbs (forearms, hands, elongated feet and lower legs) with exaggerated claws. Its an extreme anime version, but then I'm not a fan of the full furries. I think the mostly human face is important for the more standard races to see them as relatable people, as opposed to monsters or animals that can talk.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

An alternative representation of catfolk courtesy of BBC's Red Dwarf.


M'aiq doesn't see a problem with the Catfolk depicted in the Guide of Advanced Races.


we doesnt either.....

skooma trade has come to golarion

Grand Lodge

Our Gaming group just want a new name for Catfolk.


fasthd97 wrote:
Our Gaming group just want a new name for Catfolk.

M'aiq agrees that it seems a little unimaginative. M'aiq envies Tengu and Kitsune. The latter only a little bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

IIRC: Catfolk is actually a legacy name from a D&D Race...


Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:
Nope. Scientists did in fact recently unearth evidence of a 'hobbit'-like subspecies of humanity. It has been independently confirmed & everything.

Unearthed evidence...? You mean like that hundreds of them still alive today?


The Hobbit of History is a very different creature than the Hobbit of Tolkien lore, though obviously, the former is named in honor of the latter.

For the curious, anyway.

EDIT:
Catfolk, Catfolk, Catfolk, and Catfolk.

The last image, although posted on the dandwiki, is actually from Races of Wild.

So, it's totally a Legacy name. :)


I thought they were.

I still like the thoughts of "wild" races.


Ijust looked at the physical description of catfolk in the ARG and it actually implies a look more like that in the Bestiary, as it compares their features to humanoids all the time and never states anything of the sort of a straight out cat-like head or face, or even the "toe-stance. This is unlike for example Tengus which are called Avian humanoids with features strongly resembling crows or Kitsune which are outright described as anthrpomorphic Foxes. (with ratfolk and grippli, the ARG kind of forgot to go into a proper description)

To me the description in the book could add up to anything between Thundercats with tails and the Shifter on the 3.5 Eberron Player's Guide cover.
A typical simian humanoid except with very feline facial features (but no cat face), a tail and fur.


I'd definitely prefer the ARG catfolk to the "soft and plushy" furries from the B3 (which honestly give me the creeps ).

honestly, the B3 one is shudderworthy.

I can live with the rendition from "Shattered Star" #3 , but there should be somthing feral and dangerous about catfolk, not some furry-festival-fantasy "cuddle me" approach.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't quite see what about them being a bit more human makes them "soft and plushy", furry or "cuddle me" to you.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

And just to show how wildly subjective art really is, the B3 version actually seems the least "furry" of the three to me, while also avoiding the "lazy anime catgirl"(throw some ears and tails on and call it a day) approach. A lot of that comes down to the art style it was rendered in, especially on that latter note.

Heck, the only change I think I'd want to the B3 version is maybe have digitigrade legs instead, but even that's a maybe.

(I can't help but imagine how this thread would be going if the Internet had fetishized thri-kreen instead)

((wait, just remembered they did that too))


Is there a picture of the illustration from Shattered Star online anywhere? I'm kind of curious about the "Thundercats" version.


Threeshades wrote:
Is there a picture of the illustration from Shattered Star online anywhere? I'm kind of curious about the "Thundercats" version.

I'd technically be able to grab it from the pdf and post it, but I deeply fear there will be some legal obstacles regarding copyright and linking it away from the electronic document etc. without some ok from paizo's side.... I will refrain

As for "furry" : in the sense of furries, especially the LARP-kind.
Less in the way of amounts of fur.

And I do like the digitrade-feet, although I'd feel... squeamish about allowing such characters to use most boots etc.


vikingson wrote:

As for "furry" : in the sense of furries, especially the LARP-kind.

Less in the way of amounts of fur.

And I do like the digitrade-feet, although I'd feel... squeamish about allowing such characters to use most boots etc.

The problem with that is, that Furries really cover the entire spectrum from slight animalistic features over anthropomorphic animal all the way to stylized animal with human demeanor. You can't make an animal themed humanoid race that won't have somebody call furries on it, unless the entire animal theme just entails totem animal worship or something.

Shadow Lodge

I really don't like the ARG version. I'd go for either the B3 version or take it all the way up to a Char from guildwars.


Threeshades wrote:


The problem with that is, that Furries really cover the entire spectrum from slight animalistic features over anthropomorphic animal all the way to stylized animal with human demeanor. You can't make an animal themed humanoid race that won't have somebody call furries on it, unless the entire animal theme just entails totem animal worship or something.

I admit... I am judging on account of some friends from my institute who regularly attend Cons as furries^^.... not everything IS a pretty sight *evil grin*

and basically... for the old-style gamers : The Kzin and Vargr in the Traveller universe were animalistic anthropomorphs but not in a cute, cuddly way. Little grin or even other human expression, no huge and wide "love me" eyes.

Oh, and just try to anthropomorph a reptilian or amphibian species into something cute and furry.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
vikingson wrote:
Oh, and just try to anthropomorph a reptilian or amphibian species into something cute and furry.

Well I think that car insurance mascot fulfills the cute part at least.

OR

TURTLE POWER!

OR

It's not easy being green. :(

;)

(actually do have a type of "frog fairy" in my homebrew, though they lean much more towards "humanoid" than "frog". That and a player race with octopus-based features and a centauroid race with crab features. I'd be hard-pressed to consider any of them "furry" though. And only the frog fairies are meant to lean hard towards "cute"(the octopoids get a similar range as humans))


I admit to being not too knowledgeable about this- but wasnt there a cat-centaur race in AD&D? I think they were called wennics or sumthing?


Wemic. They were a centaur style race with a feline lower body.
One of the PF Lamia types also.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:

And just to show how wildly subjective art really is, the B3 version actually seems the least "furry" of the three to me, while also avoiding the "lazy anime catgirl"(throw some ears and tails on and call it a day) approach. A lot of that comes down to the art style it was rendered in, especially on that latter note.

Heck, the only change I think I'd want to the B3 version is maybe have digitigrade legs instead, but even that's a maybe.

I'm probably going to regret weighing in on this, for numerous reasons, but I can't help but add my two copper.

The etymology, as much as the physiology, is what drives the need for distinction and official decree in my book. Much as the term 'halfling' is from the humanocentric perspective, giving the impression that they are half of a human when they are anything but save for size, I see catfolk from the perspective of being 'like people, but with cat traits' - more theriomorphic (people as animals) than anthropomorphic (animals as people). When something is called '-folk', there's a certain sort of implied camaraderie, even if it is out of fascination or intrigue, rather than genuine closeness. I would anticipate the more ARG look being referenced as a race as 'catmen', not out of a gender bias or overall disdain, but because it seems more typical to describe a more animalistic-appearing race in such a manner; minotaur get referenced as 'bullmen', rather than bullfolk, sahuagin more often get referenced as sharkmen then sharkfolk, and reptile races tend to be called scaleykind or lizardmen, rather than reptile folk.

That's just my take on it, naturally your mileage may vary, see your GM for details, contact a physician if nerd rage persists for longer than 5 minutes.

Mikaze wrote:
(I can't help but imagine how this thread would be going if the Internet had fetishized thri-kreen instead)

You obviously haven't been to-

Mikaze wrote:
((wait, just remembered they did that too))

...godsdamnitsomuch. XD

Was about to mention something involving champions, corruption of same, and then recalled the board policies. And now I want to run a game themed in such directions.

I should be ashamed.

SHOULD.


It occurred to me, how would one easily tell the difference between a catfolk and a rakshasa?

I mean I know the outsider has backwards hands and all, but a failed perception check and a failed knowledge check (easy to do at lower level) and we have a party running for their lives in a dungeon after encountering a cat folk.

Also couldnt a catfolk with a high bluff and some minor sorcerory skill also pull off posing as one?

Seems too close to eachother IMO. Thats pretty much why I dont like chewbaccas in my millenium falcon.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TheAntiElite wrote:


The etymology, as much as the physiology, is what drives the need for distinction and official decree in my book. Much as the term 'halfling' is from the humanocentric perspective, giving the impression that they are half of a human when they are anything but save for size, I see catfolk from the perspective of being 'like people, but with cat traits' - more theriomorphic (people as animals) than anthropomorphic (animals as people). When something is called '-folk', there's a certain sort of implied camaraderie, even if it is out of fascination or intrigue, rather than genuine closeness. I would anticipate the more ARG look being referenced as a race as 'catmen', not out of a gender bias or overall disdain, but because it seems more typical to describe a more animalistic-appearing race in such a manner; minotaur get referenced as 'bullmen', rather than bullfolk, sahuagin more often get referenced as sharkmen then sharkfolk, and reptile races tend to be called scaleykind or lizardmen, rather than reptile folk.

Hahaha, that´s a good point! Might there be a link to sexism? Where are all teh female minotaurs, sahuagin and so on? And are catfolk perhaps descendants of Rakshasa?


Hayato Ken wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:


The etymology, as much as the physiology, is what drives the need for distinction and official decree in my book. Much as the term 'halfling' is from the humanocentric perspective, giving the impression that they are half of a human when they are anything but save for size, I see catfolk from the perspective of being 'like people, but with cat traits' - more theriomorphic (people as animals) than anthropomorphic (animals as people). When something is called '-folk', there's a certain sort of implied camaraderie, even if it is out of fascination or intrigue, rather than genuine closeness. I would anticipate the more ARG look being referenced as a race as 'catmen', not out of a gender bias or overall disdain, but because it seems more typical to describe a more animalistic-appearing race in such a manner; minotaur get referenced as 'bullmen', rather than bullfolk, sahuagin more often get referenced as sharkmen then sharkfolk, and reptile races tend to be called scaleykind or lizardmen, rather than reptile folk.

Hahaha, that´s a good point! Might there be a link to sexism? Where are all teh female minotaurs, sahuagin and so on? And are catfolk perhaps descendants of Rakshasa?

I think of it less as sexism, and more as UN-sexism, with hints of UNIsexism. Most tales I see portray minotaurs as a one gendered semi-parasitic race that spawns more of its kind by forcing itself on females of other races. Sahuagin have genders, but the lack of overt dimorphism (RE: boobs) to the human eye leads to the tendency to assume that all of the sharkmen are just that. While a trained eye would be able to differentiate the sexes of scalykind, there are, unless I'm remembering incorrectly, different gender indicators from setting to setting to campaign - in some, the female are clearly larger than the males, in others the only difference is the hip structure to facilitate egg-laying, and I've seen a few takes done where color accents and decoration are what signify the sexes.

This may as much have its cause in monsters and dimorphism being unequally across the proverbial MILF* line**. As the topic I alluded to in my prior post goes, there's settings with female minotaur, fish people, lizard-king, and pretty much any creature you can envision given an adorable/desirable/enticing form as possible...though for the setting in question this purpose is partially nefarious in that the world tends towards the monstrous, and the new queen of the monsters is more interested in enslaving humans by their libidos and integrating them by satiating same, with females subject to assimilation via mystical transformation.

Question not why I know entirely too much about this! <_<;

*MILF -

Spoiler:
Monster I'd Like to *FNORD*

*MILF line -

Spoiler:
The threshold at which an artist's rendition of a monster ceases to be a thing of fear or loathing or enmity and gives way instead to wholly unwholesome longings and desire. A distaff counterpart to the Bishonen Line with more overtly sexual overtones, sometimes accompanying an increase in meta-\physical\ability as the entity in question becomes more alluring and/or irresistible.

*FNORD* -

Spoiler:
You're not cleared for that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pendagast wrote:
It occurred to me, how would one easily tell the difference between a catfolk and a rakshasa?...

A catfolk, a rakshasa, a beastbrood tiefling, a wemic, a lamia, a tabaxi, original Cheetara, reimagined Cheetara, Annapuma, and a nekomimi walk into a bar. The hound archon bartender says, "Oh, hell no; these kind of jokes are bad for business!" The tengu dabo girl just faints dramatically.


Back on topic, I recall in the Scarred Lands, there were also the Proud, who were not unlike some manner of Anthropomorphic Manticores, fairly badass things suitable to service to Vangaal, the CE Berserker God of Slaughter and such. I almost want to see that being incorporated into a sort of fighting style for catfolk, specializing in claws and a tail-blade of some sort. Possibly a coeurl-esque fighting style involving dual-wielded whips....

Waitaminnit. Whip fighting? Displacement effects? THAT'S what Tigra was working on in the original series!

Contributor

Pendagast wrote:

It occurred to me, how would one easily tell the difference between a catfolk and a rakshasa?

I mean I know the outsider has backwards hands and all, but a failed perception check and a failed knowledge check (easy to do at lower level) and we have a party running for their lives in a dungeon after encountering a cat folk.

Also couldnt a catfolk with a high bluff and some minor sorcerory skill also pull off posing as one?

Seems too close to eachother IMO. Thats pretty much why I dont like chewbaccas in my millenium falcon.

I'm just going to slide this and this here.

Both of these pictures are from Paizo products, but only one of them is a ratfolk. If the background in the second picture wasn't there to give it away, I'm willing to bet most folks would find it difficult to differentiate these creatures from one another.

The point being that yes, anthropomorphic anything is going to be hard to distinguish from lycanthropes. Which is personally I fact that I took and ran with in my campaign setting, but that's neither here nor there.


Pendagast wrote:

It occurred to me, how would one easily tell the difference between a catfolk and a rakshasa?

I mean I know the outsider has backwards hands and all, but a failed perception check and a failed knowledge check (easy to do at lower level) and we have a party running for their lives in a dungeon after encountering a cat folk.

Also couldnt a catfolk with a high bluff and some minor sorcerory skill also pull off posing as one?

Seems too close to eachother IMO. Thats pretty much why I dont like chewbaccas in my millenium falcon.

I always think of rakshasa as looking more like Kilrathi (Wing Commander), so I want my catfolk to be different enough to tell them apart... but you're right. Why so many overlapping creatures? Id rather see an zero HD "lesser" rakshasa, if you want to make them playable.


how do cat folk/rat folk come about, how do they deal with the similar creatures, which one might assume they get persecuted for or as?

I mean a ratfolk in CotCT? holy cow the town would kill it on sight!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That ratfolk pictured in Wayfinder #8 is stylin'.


I guess any catfolk would object to the idea that it is easy to mix up catfolk and rakshasa. At the same time I guess they would be of the opinion that it is hard to tell the difference between human, halfelf and elf.

It is the same as many white guys claiming "all black guys look the same" or "All asian guys look the same".
This is not in any way meant to be racist. Just an idea.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You know that for asian people all white guys look the same and they call us "longnoses" (friendly) or "white devil" (not so friendly)?


Well considering the fact that blacks and caucasians (especially in the united states) come from extremely varied parentage, I dont think one looks much like the other unless they are in the same family.

Whites especially have the most varied hair styles, height and weights of any human race on the planet, so, another race saying "all whites look the same" is the equivalent of "oh yea?? you too!"

As fas as asians are concerned, culturally, they are more 'intact' than the typical caucasian, and their tradition is much more solid. Meaning they don't travel far, dress and act much of the same way, and intermarry in much of the same families (this would have been true of whites in the middle ages as well).

So saying 'all asians' look the same is basically saying 'all the asians I have seen come from the Beijing area' which may be true...because that's a very high population density, and when they move over from there to say... San francisco, they tend to bring over their aunts and uncles and brothers and sisters too. So they are all right there in the same area, and look like each other, because they are related, and have been interrelated for centuries.

This isn't extremely common in a white community, as the caucasians tend to travel away from family, rather than bring them with, especially in the US.

So it's actually a cultural thing, rather than a racial thing. to the casual observer, walking into little china, as saying all the asians look the same...they are right.... they do!

Same thing if you went to visit a village in Vietnam... all these people look the same, well of course they do... because they are all related and have been for generations.

However, to someone who doesn't know the difference. And got shot at by 1000 vietnamese and ran as fast as he could eventually showing up in Thailand and looking around, eh could easily think, oh no! more of them, Run! Where as the Thai people don't want to kill him, they only look similar.
Not having much skill in linguistics might also think the language sounds similar.

Now as to elves and half elves? I'v never looked at any art and mistaken a half elf for an elf or vice versa. I think that has been made abundantly clear to tell the difference.

Humans to half elves, might be harder, especially if the half elf wants to hide it.

Especially tho, In golarion, the elves look a little spookier and 'otherworldly'

Two or more cat races next to each other?
a Rakshasa, a cat folk and a were tiger.

Without good perception checks, and knowledge checks, no I dont see how you can easily know which one is which, especially if one or more is TRYING to deceive you.

I have a hard time telling the difference between someone of Korean decent or Native Alaskan decent, even tho I have spent considerable time in BOTH places.

It is easy for me to tell the korean, from the japanese, from the chinese. But throw in an Athabascan, and neither person has an accent of any kind? And I literally have no idea which one.

I recently met a woman who grew up in florida, cannot speak any language other than english, and was here in Alaska. I rather embarrassingly assumed she was Native Alaskan, even tho I was told about a week before I met her that she had moved up from florida, when I saw her I thought, Oh... she's native....... eeeeeerrrrrrrrr wrong. Korean.....

Liberty's Edge

Pendagast wrote:
I mean a ratfolk in CotCT? holy cow the town would kill it on sight!

In my CotCT? Old Korvosa had one of the largest ratfolk ghettos on the planet. Right next to the kobold ghetto, and you can read any description of old NYC to see how much fun that could be.


prosfilaes wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
I mean a ratfolk in CotCT? holy cow the town would kill it on sight!
In my CotCT? Old Korvosa had one of the largest ratfolk ghettos on the planet. Right next to the kobold ghetto, and you can read any description of old NYC to see how much fun that could be.

As written Korvosa has an on going thing with wererats. that wouldnt really stand if they had a large ratfolk population.

I still dont see how you would tell the difference between the two,

A Ratfolk walks into a bar, HEY Buddy! In comes a Wererat.... we dont serve your kind in here!


IIRC A Wererat would be visibly larger than a Ratfolk.

In my settings the Catfolk, Ratfolk, Bearfolk, & Dogfolk are all descendants of Natural Lycanthropes whose bloodlines only mated with Humans.

The Tengu are descendanded from Dire Corbies or whatever they are called.

Liberty's Edge

Pendagast wrote:
As written Korvosa has an on going thing with wererats. that wouldnt really stand if they had a large ratfolk population.

I don't see why. You've got a nasty murderous shapeshifter problem, you have a nasty murderous shapeshifter problem. The fact that Korvosa tolerates the humans that they look like most of the time doesn't stop that.

Quote:
A Ratfolk walks into a bar, HEY Buddy! In comes a Wererat.... we dont serve your kind in here!

I suspect there's a lot of bars in my Korvosa that don't serve ratfolk. There's no trivial way to tell a wererat in human form from a human, but a wererat in hybrid form is trivial to tell from a ratfolk, as a wererat will point out they have DR 10/gold* and your bouncer is no threat to him, or just kill the bouncer.

(*What, you thought they'd tell the truth?)

51 to 100 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Catfolk inconsistency All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.