mabon5127 wrote:
Blackadder23 wrote:
mabon5127 wrote:
Interesting difference. The spell includes humanoids as well so the distinction narrows somewhat. I'm not sure how humanoids are defined in AS&SH?
I would tend to be very strict with only very slight variation on the human base.
Personally I would define a "humanoid" in AS&SH as any normal, living, basically bipedal creature. So ape-men, orcs, vhuurmis, snake-men, minotaurs, etc. would all be affected. Undead, automata, and bipedal daemons (for example) would not be.
Not to be argumentative but would that also include Trolls, Troglodytes, Yeti, Ogres, etc. Or have we wandered into "monster" territory. From your list I would omit minotaurs, and snake-men. I'm not sure I can define exactly why, but I feel as though mino's are monsters and snakes are too alien to be "humanoids".
I don't consider it argumentative. You should rule however you like.
The key for defining a humanoid, to me, is that it be shaped like a man, and also a normal, living creature. Of the creatures you list, I would include ogres (they're just giant cave-men, right?), yeti, and troglodytes. I would also include lizard-men (which are affected by the AD&D version, for whatever that's worth). I wouldn't include trolls because I consider them magical creatures due to their regenerative abilities. I wouldn't include gargoyles or night-gaunts for similar reasons. I wouldn't include bird-men because, while they are living creatures, they're not really man-shaped. On reflection I might not include snake-men because they have an inherent magical ability to alter their appearance, which might tip them over into the "unnatural" category. I would include fish-men, because they are (notoriously) closely akin to humans. And so forth. It's a rule of thumb I'm comfortable with, anyway.