I'm trying to make a generalized classification of fantasy creatures. This is what I have come up with: ANIMAL - Regular animals like birds, reptiles, mammals, etc. BEAST - Beast-like monsters like Minotaurs DRAGON - Various Dragons ELEMENTAL - Fire, Wind, Water, Earth creatures. FEY - Fairies and Lepricauns GIANT - Large humanoid creatures GOLEM - Living creatures made from non-living materials HUMANOID - Form and function similar to a human INSECT - Bugs and spiders JELLY - Gelatenous creatures like puddings and blobs PLANAR - Planar beings such as demons, angels, imps SERPENT - Serpent-like monsters including Gorgon, Lamia, SHAPECHANGER - Lycanthropes, Doppelgangers UNDEAD - Skeletons, zombies, liches Am I leaving anything out? Are there any fantasy creatures that you can think of that would not fit under these classifications? If so, what do I need to change or add to make it more complete?

(What do gryphons fit under?)

There is one creature I can think of that you did not classify, the Nnhmrnaophflg. This creature fits under the Floagmaturgunlion classification.

The problem with classifying fantasy creatures is the fact that they exist only in the imagination. Thus, whatever I think of (see above) can usually be considered fantasy, and thus must be classified.

If you are trying to classify the most used creatures, I think you forgot a group for things like kobolds and lizardmen. They probably don't fit under Humanoid, since you considered giants a different class.

D20 Creature Overview SRD

Ah, yes, plant. I definately forgot about plant creatures.

As for kobolds and lizardmen, I think they are considered humanoid.

ANIMAL
BEAST
DRAGON
ELEMENTAL
FEY
GIANT
CONSTRUCT
HUMANOID
INSECT
INVERTEBRATE
JELLY
MAGICAL BEAST
PLANAR
PLANT
SHAPECHANGER
UNDEAD

I guess that should do.

This is entirely subjective, and so input from us will only confuse the matter further. For instance, I see no reason why dragons would not be a subcategory of beasts, or beasts of animals, for that matter.

Without a fossil record, evolutionary theory or other empirical system by which to determine these connections, you have only your own imagination to work with. Don't be hindered by what you've read or seen. If you try to be exhaustive, you'll build in contradictions that will undermine your system, and if you try to be concrete, you must avoid cross references, like vampires = undead, shapeshifting, humanoid fey. Too much effort, not enough reward.

Why do you need a taxonomy of fictional critters, anyway? Dozens of such works have been written and published, and no doubt hundreds can be founds online with a little effort.

Try this: http://www.e-musicbox.com/crtrmyth.htm

The document itself is fairly interesting, but the works cited are no doubt more thorough.

Well, it is just part of the game I am making. I need a general way to classify creatures to allow racial effects. You know, stuff like turn undead, unsummon elemental, and hold humanoid.

I'm trying to make my game where objects, entities, and effect-driven things like spells can be defined and loaded from an external file. That way, a person will be able to add or change any creatures or objects they want.

Could you link the abilities to attributes? Then you'd get an extensible set of races, each with a listing like this:

name: hobbit
size (avg height, given here in rods): 0.2
strength (scalar value, 1-20): 5
mass (or weight, given here in stones): 8
magic (is this creature the result of magic/magical in essence?): 0
undead: 0
intelligence (is this a mindless beast, a clever beast, a dimwitted sentient, a rational being [0, 1, 2, 3]?): 2
is_ethereal (do physical weapons affect this creature?): 0
change_to (what can this creature turn into?): 0
substance (what is this creature made of?): flesh
magic_use (what type of magic can this creature use--natural, elemental [particular element], spiritual [alignment]?): 0
natural_attack (what special attack does this class have? 0 = punch): 0
fly (speed at which the creature flies, or 0 for ground): 0
swim: 1
walk: 2

This would just be an inheritance set. An individual hobbit might be different, as in the Hobbit Shaman:
name: Hobbit Shaman
class: hobbit
strength: 3
intelligence: 3
change_to: rat
magic_use: natural

And so on. That could define most things, and it would allow for an extensible set of races in which each can be defined and interpreted easily, on the fly. Things such as "hold humanoid" would depend merely on a size/strength comparison. And you could have humanoids hold gnomes, as is realistic, without assigning a new spell to the task.

You could combine serpents and dragons into one type, differentiate based on natural attacks and the ability to fly, and even allow someone to conjure up an undead dragon. Gelatinous creatures might be based on ethereality, but more likely on substance alone. Planars, fey, and elementals are all very similar, sharing the ethereal attribute and using magic. Anything could be a shapechanger (though you'd have to arrange for some way to change the creature back). Anything could be undead, or ethereal. A giant's ghost? Nothing easier! A giant cockroach's ghost? Certainly doable. Or a midget. Anything.

This would give you a method for creating new creature types, but why bother? Let the game engine handle that for you, or make a script to do it.

Systems like this are widespread in MUDs; they'd do well in most games. But most games don't have enough different types of creatures to warrant such a complex system (it's more complex than hard-coding four creature types, at least).

Quote:

Original post by Zefrieg Well, it is just part of the game I am making. I need a general way to classify creatures to allow racial effects. You know, stuff like turn undead, unsummon elemental, and hold humanoid. I'm trying to make my game where objects, entities, and effect-driven things like spells can be defined and loaded from an external file. That way, a person will be able to add or change any creatures or objects they want.

I don't think you should worry about it; if everything is data-driven like you suggest, surely adding in extra categories later won't be much of a problem? Maybe you just need to let this classification be editable by the user/modder/whoever too.

Looking at it from another angle, if it's only about allowing certain effects, then determine what those effects are going to be and make sure you have whatever categories you need to make them possible.