"Are Beastmen inherently Chaotic?" Topic

The usual definition of Beastmen is that they are men who have been corrupted by their animal natures.

So are Beastmen inherently servants of Chaos?

Are "good" Beastmen impossible, since they would become less beastlike by virtue of being "good"?

no rare as they may be some will deify that nature

That is the "GW" definition, not the "usual" definition

In the 40k realm they can be stalwart members of the Imperial Guard/ Army.

I built an army of cat men for my son. I used Splintered Light's Leonine range. link
These figures are wearing great kilts. I gave them allies from the Hyenamen range link
These figures are in kilts. I then took some of the beastmen from the old Demonworld miniatures. These are pig men either in chainmail with two handed axes or unarmored spearmen. I added large round shields to these figures.

So, the catmen are highlanders, the dogmen are lowlanders and the pigmen are Viking mercenaries from the Porkney and New Pigradies Islands. No chaos at all, just some very noble cats, dogs, and pigs.

FYI, the dogs and cats suffer from animosity when they're allied and the cats hate the ratmen I'm working on.

That is the "GW" definition…

I doubt it's unique to GW.

I thought beastmen of GW were a more genericised form of the Broo of Glorantha fame. But then they were chaos creatures as well.

Animals aren't chaotic, humans are far worse. So in reality it shpuld be the opposite

How are we defining beast men? In the GW sense, they have always been chaotic. There aren't any in Dungeons & dragons that I recall.

But, if you consider Centaurs (who are half beasts, just the other end), GW made them chaotic while D&D had them as a neutral good being. I think Satyrs were originally good, too.

Maybe it depends on what half is beast. Upper body/head = evil while lower body can still be good?

Personally, I think that they can be good or neutral. It's just typical of the race of men to treat anything that doesn't look like them as subservient or evil.

> The usual definition of Beastmen is that they are men who have been corrupted by their animal natures.

If this were true then yes. I'd say it was 50/50 rather then "usual". So as with any fantasy trope – anything goes.

The usual definition of Beastmen is that they

… were bio-engineered (men->beastmen or beasts->beastmen).

… were magically merged/created (see parenthetical above)

… were the product of … well … you know.

… were divine/celestial manifestations, thus always like that.

… evolved from non-simians.

So … let's see …

Minotaur (third one above). Neither chaotic nor evil. Possibly less intelligent than normal people of the milieu, but hard to tell. Abused, neglected, starved, and thrown into an underground maze.

Dr. Moreau's creations (first one). Deliberately engineered, but also neglected and abused when they weren't exactly what papa was looking for. Poor parenting morality play again.

Already, I'm feeling there should be a fictional PETB.

Cat from Red Dwarf (five). Definitely chaotic and self-centered (bordering on evil-ish). But that has more to do with feline DNA than beastman nature. All cats are like that.

Ka-moho-aliʻi, Varaha, Ganesha, Hanuman, Bobb-Bobbi …

Then again, Dagon, Apophis, Maashes, Coyote …

… so, it depends.

Inasmuch as there is no bedrock "classic" conceptualization of "beastmen," (apart from Moreau,) they can be whatever you like.

It would depend on the degree to which they are men who have been cursed to "descend" into bestial forms, or animals "elevated" into human forms.

I would tend to think that their situation, and their collective point of view of it, would dictate their game play orientation. Either beings who are striving to retain, or earn their humanness, or beings who have abandoned any humanness out of resentment of their situation, or incomplete attainment of it.

Recall that Tolkien's orcs are, at bedrock, the descendants of elves who were captured, tortured, perverted and corrupted. Beast-elves.

Personally, I would field them as Goodly/Lawful. Creatures who strive to live up to the human part of their nature. Rather noble actually.

After all,…

"Are we not men?"

Ultimately, whatever floats your boat.

"Are we not men?"

YouTube link

All mine are !

Depends entirely on the setting, sometimes good, sometimes evil. If anything at least in more recent fantasy novels i've read they tend to be put upon by humanity baser nature to hate, fear and victimise the different.

In every iteration of Warhammer Fantasy, yes, inherently chaotic.

Actually I think in early editions of Warhammer centuars were of the friendlier non-chaotic type (perhaps akin to Greek mythology)--Chaotic ones appeared with the arrival of "Chaos" Centuar miniatures and the early Wathmmer Chaos tomes of the late 80's.

Looking at any of gw's recent plastic chaos I notice they are anything but chaotic. Both warriors and beastmen look very orderly and similar. And the beastmen are just a race of mean, misguided goats. The warriors are as alike as Roman soldiers. No chaos to see here. Move along.

Choas/evil is definitely the GW version.

D&D they are usually neutral or good, with most being from the outer plane of the beastlands or related to guardinals. Minotaurs are usually evil except in Dragonlance.

Other settings they are more natural creatures, similar to fauns.

In the 40k realm they can be stalwart members of the Imperial Guard/ Army.

Until GW did away with that and basically made all Imperial Guard Cadians.

In Glorantha Broos are a chaotic form of beastmen, but other forms exist. GW's Ungor, Gor and Bestigor don't need to be chaotic unless the figure has visible chaotic features, otherwise they are just a Wild Race, IMO.

In the Elric saga he encounters Beast Chariots, ridden by former humans, now mutated into various beast forms: "Pig-head", "Horse-head", etc. I'm not sure if they were even cabable of speech when Elric encounters them.