Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General From D&D lore Humanoid doesnt mean Human looking

https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Humanoid

'Humanoids include humans and other bipeds with few natural magical abilities.[1] Most are around human size, are capable of speech, and have well-developed cultures.[2]

Besides humans, humanoids include dwarves, elves, and goblinoids.[1]

The term "humanoid" has also been used for human-like creatures that are neither human nor demihuman (demihumans being dwarves, elves and half-elves, gnomes, or halflings).[3][4]'

As I had thought, the term 'Humanoid' was used in video games and such things to simply mean 'Bipedal', because whoever first decided to use that word didn't know the word 'Bipedal'.

Theres a full list of D&D humanoids here https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Humanoids

Im quite sure that most if not all other than Humans are supposed to actually look like humans ...

Take for example Aarakokra:



These are classified as Humanoid but very clearly have no discerning human features other than being bipedal.

It seems that there is no evidence within the lore of D&D / Forgotten Realms that 'Humanoids' are supposed to look anything like 'Humans'.

One could simply go through these in alphabetical order, an Abeil is a biledal bee:



There is no indication or anything written that they are supposed to look like Humans just because they are Humanoids.

Next would be an Alaghi. Whatever alaghis are meant to be, despite being Humanoids they are clearly not Humans:

[img]https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...3e.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20200719214607[/img]

Sir, this is an Arby's.

Do I need to continue through the whole list?

Has someone said that humanoids need to be human-looking then?

Ok what is the point of the thread?

I'm a trapezoid... my father was a bridge.

That means you are oppressing we circular folk.

Your shapist, you.

I'm reformed!.. I swear!

Well well. He's clearly got something to say. Too bad he never said it. Not a great thread, 1/10.

Pretty much everyone has been saying as such to defend non humans having human faces.

This thread has quickly become a wrecked tangle.

The only humanoids that are meant to look human are humans.

The outer resemblance is not the deciding factor. It is more the inner structure that provides the "humanoid" feature. So it is an upright movement on two legs, but also the general physis, like having two arms (or more), hands (with opposing thumbs, number of fingers), the general sceletal structure of a man. Having a language for communication and culture, is another part of the concept. In any case it is a very broad definition and not all have to apply.
So, the outer resemblance can vary much more greatly. A humanoid can have human skin, a metallic or stone-based skin, feathers, fur or scales. It can have wings, and even more arms, can vary greatly in size and also stature. It can live underwater, in the darkness or up in the air, technically they can even be undead or inanimate or machines.

So much for the pseudo-scientific definition, as we do not really have or need to define it, since there are no other things yet (apart from some robots) that would qualify. In that regard the standard mech of Battletech or Pacific Rim is humanoid, yet the robots from AI are mostly android (which means man-like). So this is more the word you might look for if you want to refer to other beings that do look like humans.

Most franchises and universes also choose or modify their own definitions.

Did you look at the picture of the bipedal bees you provided? Here's the first thing I noticed: Their faces look vaguely human(ish). So I guess the next question would logically be: What defines a "human" face?

Two eyes? Check.
A nose? Check.
A mouth? Check.
Ears? Check.
Relatively flat face, ie, no wolf like snout, hello gnolls, or catlike features? Check.

No matter what mythos you look into, an orc has a roughly human face. It meets all the criteria, but it's definitely not human. Goblins are the same.