Implications of Social-Construct terms of "Humanity" and "Beast"

beastmen is literally a social construct within the games lore. As in you can point to a amal'jaa and say "thats a beast man", but that term was only invented in the sixthed astral era to keep amal'jaa out of Ul'dah.

If Ul'dah were at war with the hrothgar at that time for example, they might have been considered a beast tribe instead. You can kind of see this idea later in shadowbringers, with the lalafell/dwarves being labeled as a beast tribe and the amal'jaa being intergrated in the crystarium like every other "human" race.

Are the dwarves ever called beastmen? As you said, the term originated in Ul'dah, I don't recall ever hearing it on the First.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

Are the dwarves ever called beastmen? As you said, the term originated in Ul'dah, I don't recall ever hearing it on the First.

---

This is very true, I guess I mean the way they are treated on the first is more akin to the other beastmen you encounter there (like the pixies, ondo and nu mou) while the amalj'aa are treated like a more "civilised" race. They're also called a beast tribe in the crafting log, which seems like a clue for the player.

So it feels like though there might be a biological component to what counts as a "beast tribe", in the cases of the hrothgar, au ra, kyojin, goblins, amal'jaa and ananta the distinction seems to be arbetrary at best and depending on local politics within the setting.

A better term to use would probably be barbarian as the "beast" component doesn't always seem to fit.

The First doesn't use the term "beastman" / "beast tribe," as that was mostly a construct created by wealthy Ul'dahns to discriminate against peoples that don't conform to Eorzean standards (worship of the Twelve, etc). The Doylist reason for it is the game originally had many similarities and parallels to XI, which actually did have significant differences between the races of man and beastmen, but once Yoshi-P took over from Hiromichi Tanaka they had to explain and recontextualize all that stuff in order to push the game out of XI's shadow.

Tellingly, "beast tribes / beastmen" have been discriminated against less and less as the game's gone on, with Heavensward featuring mostly peaceful unless under a primal's thrall beast tribes, Ananta being integrated to a degree into Ala Mhigan society, and no distinctions being made between the two in the Far East or on the First.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

The First doesn't use the term "beastman" / "beast tribe," as that was mostly a construct created by wealthy Ul'dahns to discriminate against peoples that don't conform to Eorzean standards (worship of the Twelve, etc). The Doylist reason for it is the game originally had many similarities and parallels to XI, which actually did have significant differences between the races of man and beastmen, but once Yoshi-P took over from Hiromichi Tanaka they had to explain and recontextualize all that stuff in order to push the game out of XI's shadow.

Tellingly, "beast tribes / beastmen" have been discriminated against less and less as the game's gone on, with Heavensward featuring mostly peaceful unless under a primal's thrall beast tribes, Ananta being integrated to a degree into Ala Mhigan society, and no distinctions being made between the two in the Far East or on the First.

---

Which further cements the idea that these terms are primarily of social or political constructs and etc. Even the term, Human, was later replaced with the term, Spoken, later in the game's life cycle, but in the end it doesn't even matter, esp to the game's main baddies. Of course, there are differences in the biological appearances between the demihumans(they're not actual Humans but rather are very human in their appearances) and the beast races, but as some have noted, they're pretty arbitrary as you begin comparing the Hrothgar or the Au Ra with say the Lupin for example. I'd say that the Hyurs which they're called Humes in The First are the actual Humans in the franchise but with a different name..but even that it's pretty much up to the player's own headcanon really. Personally, all of the sentient races in FFXIV, both Spoken and Beasts, are basically derived from the ancients. There are races that are more closer to the apperances of the Ascians than others, but that's really about it.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DemiHuman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lihtleita

This is very true, I guess I mean the way they are treated on the first is more akin to the other beastmen you encounter there (like the pixies, ondo and nu mou) while the amalj'aa are treated like a more "civilised" race. They're also called a beast tribe in the crafting log, which seems like a clue for the player.

So it feels like though there might be a biological component to what counts as a "beast tribe", in the cases of the hrothgar, au ra, kyojin, goblins, amal'jaa and ananta the distinction seems to be arbetrary at best and depending on local politics within the setting.

A better term to use would probably be barbarian as the "beast" component doesn't always seem to fit.

---

Well, I can say that these terms are pretty much meaningless anyway, esp since the first doesn't even use these terms as well. The people of Ul-dah are the true a-holes really which the Ascians gladly exploit aka divide and rule. Now, there is differences in their appearances between the demi-human races and the beast-tribes, but as some have noted, they're pretty much arbitrary terms which even the two groups wanted to abandon these terms in it's entirety.

It's really too vague of a term to really be much use anyway outside of its original racist intention to 'other' them, given how differnet culturally and physically the beast tribes are not just from hyur but also EACH OTHER.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeppermintBrown

It's really too vague of a term to really be much use anyway outside of its original racist intention to 'other' them, given how differnet culturally and physically the beast tribes are not just from hyur but also EACH OTHER.

---

Dayum straight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

Are the dwarves ever called beastmen? As you said, the term originated in Ul'dah, I don't recall ever hearing it on the First.

---

Well, for me, terms like Spoken, Human, Beast and etc are all arbitrary terms that are used to divide the sentient races apart. If anything really, they should abandon these terms all together really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

Are the dwarves ever called beastmen? As you said, the term originated in Ul'dah, I don't recall ever hearing it on the First.

---

Nobody ever referred to them as such, they were merely referred to upon reveal as our new Beast Tribe. The NPCs ingame never refer to them as beastmen or anything other than Dwarves.

Dwarves are only ever referred to as a "beast tribe" by game interface structured that are set up around the concept of beast tribe quests, and also the very early pre-launch announcement that they would be regarded as one – but perhaps that was just a simplification of how they were going to be used in the story.

Within the game itself, they are simply regarded as a race of people rarely seen outside of their own territory, and even the special site launching the quest line quietly dropped the "beast" bit and just announced new "tribe quests".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

One issue is players will continue to use the term "beast tribes", because the actual game UI uses the term "beast tribes".

I'm kind of hoping this will change in Endwalker, but I don't know if it's actually technically feasible.

---

The marketing materials for Endwalker seem to be going that way, with the introduced tribes of the Arkasodara and the Loporrits being denoted simply as that, "New Tribes", rather than "beast tribes".

It would be thematically fitting if the game itself changed that going forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

Are the dwarves ever called beastmen? As you said, the term originated in Ul'dah, I don't recall ever hearing it on the First.

---

They are according to the game's UI. It's all about framing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zero-ELEC

The marketing materials for Endwalker seem to be going that way, with the introduced tribes of the Arkasodara and the Loporrits being denoted simply as that, "New Tribes", rather than "beast tribes".

It would be thematically fitting if the game itself changed that going forward.



They are according to the game's UI. It's all about framing.

---

I'm guessing that the terms like man and beastmen are nothing more than social constructs in othering the other for political reasons which is something the Ascians wanted in the first place. I think we'll be seeing these terms disappear in Endwalker.

All I'm really getting out of this thread is that Lalafell invaded, coined the phrase Beast Tribe, and set about exterminating them to take their land.

In other words; blame the Lalafell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

All I'm really getting out of this thread is that Lalafell invaded, coined the phrase Beast Tribe, and set about exterminating them to take their land.

In other words; blame the Lalafell.

---

Basically this. The fact that even the author of the encyclopedia Eorzea is baffled by the terms like Beasts and Men, and sees the Beast tribes as simply men which is a word for any sentient creatures or species of FFXIV.
https://i.redd.it/86g4mkeg00v21.jpg

Of course, as the author even explains it, even some members here have their own biases or takes on what constitutes "beasts" and "humans" esp based on their appearances even though the Hrothgars are no more less beastly looking than say the Lupin for example. Of course, Demi-humans are a thing(non-Human races look pretty Human if you will) which perhaps what makes the "civilized" races of Eorzea more fearful to the "Beast" tribes due to their more beastly looks if you will, but as the author showcases that the definition has no definite meaning at all which is indeed a term used by the rich Lalafells to justify the racial cleansing of native tribes for money and etc. What also funny is that these terms don't seem to exist in the First either since the politics in that world are different from the Source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

All I'm really getting out of this thread is that Lalafell invaded, coined the phrase Beast Tribe, and set about exterminating them to take their land.

In other words; blame the Lalafell.

---

It's not just Lalafell. Imperials also call all other races 'savages'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiagenwa

It's not just Lalafell. Imperials also call all other races 'savages'.

---

The Garleans, yeah. The Ascians don't even consider you and other lifeforms as alive either. At the end of the day, these terms are nothing more than made up social terms for political ends. The First seems to cement that idea even further since say the conventional beast races aren't even called as such there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strongfat900

The Garleans, yeah. The Ascians don't even consider you and other lifeforms as alive either. At the end of the day, these terms are nothing more than made up social terms for political ends. The First seems to cement that idea even further since say the conventional beast races aren't even called as such there.

---

Lol I mixed the terms with FFXV

SPOILER PATCH 5.5

It is part of a larger trend, I think... the immortal, the mortal, and the problems derived from those seemingly tiered relationships.

The othering gets imposed upon the people who are conquered by civilizations but who still have their own culture--basically, Emet-Selch's sermon at the Ladder combined with the idea of the "ages of man" and development and fall of societies (with Eulmore in the background...ugh this scene is so perfect). Part of his character's problem is that he can't reconcile his intimate knowledge of the nature of problems like the men/beastmen othering with the communal, uniform society he knew before (getting nostalgic over like-minded people gathering, dreaming of Amaurot, in the face of someone who clearly doesn't hold those ideals). I hope someone gets what I am saying because I have ideas but cannot put them into words well. Based on the Thomas More book, I also think he is misremembering and that he wasn't always one of the better-off people in that society, and it gives him insight into the divisions that go to the core of his character. Writing off Ascians as "genocidal maniacs" really makes no sense to me after this story but I appreciate seeing what other people see.

Also, our attitudes are supposed to change over time. I am really ashamed that I did not care much about the Ala Mhigans after running up and down the steps at Camp Drybone (THAT WAS INFURIATING TO ME!!!) and Little Ala Mhigo (ALSO VERY INFURIATING MULTI LEVEL CAVE I HATE IT!!!), but it said more about my preconceptions they had reinforced in-game (with Ilberd and some very hopeless, lost people we met) than it did with the situation. Of course conquered peoples and beast tribes are important, and instead of correcting close-minded people we go befriend people and make connections between groups. I wish it were so easy in real life.

The First

Maybe there is also something about the societies on the First being dystopic that leads to less othering. By the time we get there, they didn't really have wars and stagnated (the aether is referred to as stagnating but I think cultural stagnation enabled that...it's why there are sin eaters ultimately, but Alphinaud also makes sure to point out to the people of Eulmore that they bear some responsibility). I haven't been through all the side quests but I know that I felt the strongest vibes in Kholusia where people are isolated in multiple ways, whether by walls of Eulmore or the unnavigable harbors (they are using the harbor to deconstruct ships run aground for materials, if you don't remember...the Crystarium is also set up for isolation naturally because they are inland and paid taxes to Eulmore for everything).

ctd...

General

I think the writers have pushed the WoL's fondness and talent for associating with beast tribes to draw attention to that being a big part of the story of FFXIV--empathy and leaving the familiar city are prerequisites to being a hero.

The people in the societies that send you out to do the work of interacting with them think they know more about the situation in the world, when really, the beast tribe quests are some of the most endearing and human in the game because they focus on reconciling the past and the future--rebuilding from the ground up in a sustainable image that honors their heritage (in the Moogle and Qitari questlines, that involves interpretation of the past), forces them to go to war for their beliefs and culture (the Vath/Nonmind stuff versus the Hivemind), or requires them to build their own traditions to avoid stagnation and basically extinction (Namazu). The sustainable part comes largely from the alliances with other beast tribes (I have only done the Heavensward allied beast tribe stuff but I assume it is similar for the others).

I think the divide between the cities and the beast tribes would be a lot bigger if we weren't there to befriend them, or they might even be extinct. I like to think that they had more freedom to build out on this idea on the First because it would be hard to go back on the Source and show how society has changed in every major hub. At least until we got the untempering and alliance quests where the leaders now are understanding that allying with beast tribes is kind of a virtuous duty and a true reconciliation of past injustices and not just something to be done out of pity or necessity.

I think the writers are saying a lot about the sociological implications in the overall story over and over again and on these different levels. Maybe there are better scenes that illustrate it (Stormblood maybe?) but I think the Ladder scene is amazing and you can apply it to humanity to understand how the mental gymnastics of "beast tribes" came about. It is also central to the character of Emet-Selch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

You're getting a little heavy handed here. Jandor's just trying to say and reinforce that there are differences, and that's why the use of the term beastman has spread around. As well as why the beastmen refer to the spoken races as stuff like, "Shorewalker" "Uplander" "Walking Ones" etc. As much as there is an othering by the Spoken races, the beastmen often other the spoken as well. The beastmen themselves acknowledge their differences, and they are quite proud of themselves in a lot of cases (particularly where their differences allow them advantages, such as inborn flight or breathing underwater).

Also, don't forget that even learned people like Sharlayans, who are technically not Eorzean, even use the term beastmen. Look further still to the Auspice questline in Stormblood. A kojin takes on the role of Genbu and eventually becomes a spiritually inclined Adamantoise. Despite what the devs say, there are differences.

---

Not exactly. The Sharlayans were part of the Eorzean alliance till they left it recently, and they're descendants of Eorzean colonists that were brought over to the island by Nyunkrepf Nyunkrepfsyn 1,500 years ago. The term was first created in Ul-dah as a socio-political term to persecute those they despised(amaljaa among others). The term is never used in Norvrandt for example(the First), or in the case with Lupins who are not considered as such by the locals except by the Garleans. The Hrothgar for example look just as beastly as the Lupin, but they're not considered as beasts for obvious political reasons which the latter story of FFXIV began to show that the people of Eorzea began to change their attitudes of them. Even this guy that written this wish to throw this term as useless.
https://i.redd.it/86g4mkeg00v21.jpg

fyi, Sharlayan is part of Eorzea in it's geographical location.
https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Eorzea

The term is also used in the continent of Ilsabard as well. It doesn't diminish the idea that these terms were created by the Ulda'ans which spread all over the continent which the Garleans took that as well. The differences in physiology is apparent, but then again, so do the beastmen with each other as well. It's basically a continuum really rather than stricly this or that. Hyur look the most human obviously with the rest going in a direction from human looking to beast looking. In other words, the fact that these terms are not used in the Far East(except for Garleans and etc), or not at all in the First speaks volumes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strongfat900

fyi, Sharlayan is part of Eorzea in it's geographical location.
https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Eorzea

---

Sharlayan, the island place we go to in the north that is labelled as "Old Sharlayan" in our teleport menu, is not part of Eorzea.

Sharlayan, the colony place in the Dravanian Hinterlands that was abandoned fifteen years ago, is part of Eorzea.

Both are called "Sharlayan" by everyone, including people from (Old) Sharlayan and from Eorzea. When told that this causes much confusion, people from both Sharlayans went "that sounds like a you problem". If forced, they call the Dravanian Sharlayan "Emporium". (We only learn of this in Endwalker while browsing the Noumenon, so it could be something the lore team came up with offhand.)

Every time Sharlayan is referred to as one of the "city-states of Eorzea", they mean the Dravanian colony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

Sharlayan, the island place we go to in the north that is labelled as "Old Sharlayan" in our teleport menu, is not part of Eorzea.

Sharlayan, the colony place in the Dravanian Hinterlands that was abandoned fifteen years ago, is part of Eorzea.

Both are called "Sharlayan" by everyone, including people from (Old) Sharlayan and from Eorzea. When told that this causes much confusion, people from both Sharlayans went "that sounds like a you problem". If forced, they call the Dravanian Sharlayan "Emporium". (We only learn of this in Endwalker while browsing the Noumenon, so it could be something the lore team came up with offhand.)

Every time Sharlayan is referred to as one of the "city-states of Eorzea", they mean the Dravanian colony.

---

True, but regardless, the term, beastmen, was created by the Ul-daans which was spread by the denizens of Eorzea as well as the Garleans. Y'shtola was born and raised in the colony of Sharlayan, and uses the term early in the game which the term becomes less and less used, and the reconciliation between the two began to take shape. Not to mention that the term was never used in the Far East or in the First.

And yes, the *new* Sharlayan was founded by Nyunkrepf Nyunkrepfsyn due to his prediction of the sixth umbrel calamity which he took many people into his ark to the lands that became the Eorzean Sharlayan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strongfat900

And yes, the *new* Sharlayan was founded by Nyunkrepf Nyunkrepfsyn due to his prediction of the sixth umbrel calamity which he took many people into his ark to the lands that became the Eorzean Sharlayan.

---

Nyunkrepf didn't make New Sharlayan, he made Actual Sharlayan. He made Nyunkrepf's Hope, sailed to Eorzea to save as much of its people as he could (which I think must've been mostly Nymians but that's my vibe), and then teleported that ship out of danger, which marooned it in Gyr Abania.

From there, they journeyed up north on foot, through Abalathia's Spine and picking up people on the way, until they hit the Dravanian hinterlands, at which point he went 'okay, here's the plan: SECOND BOAT' which they use to sail to what is now Actual Sharlayan. It's possible that New Sharlayan was founded there in remembrance of his journey, but Nyunkrepf didn't build anything there except a way to get away from there.

hydaelyns history is surprisingly in-depth if you're willing to look at a few outside sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Nyunkrepf didn't make New Sharlayan, he made Actual Sharlayan. He made Nyunkrepf's Hope, sailed to Eorzea to save as much of its people as he could (which I think must've been mostly Nymians but that's my vibe), and then teleported that ship out of danger, which marooned it in Gyr Abania.

From there, they journeyed up north on foot, through Abalathia's Spine and picking up people on the way, until they hit the Dravanian hinterlands, at which point he went 'okay, here's the plan: SECOND BOAT' which they use to sail to what is now Actual Sharlayan. It's possible that New Sharlayan was founded there in remembrance of his journey, but Nyunkrepf didn't build anything there except a way to get away from there.

---

Huh, thought he was the one who founded the colony. Sadly, I never played the early 1.0 build of the game to know such info. Anyway, my point still stands in regards to the topic at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strongfat900

Huh, thought he was the one who founded the colony. Sadly, I never played the early 1.0 build of the game to know such info. Anyway, my point still stands in regards to the topic at hand.

---

Actually, most of that information came from the Encyclopedia Eorzea volume 1, with some extra info gluing things together from the sightseeing log.

If you don't own the Encyclopedia, it's the backbone for a lot of Gamer Escape's wiki pages, so checking there is a pretty comfy first stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Actually, most of that information came from the Encyclopedia Eorzea volume 1, with some extra info gluing things together from the sightseeing log.

If you don't own the Encyclopedia, it's the backbone for a lot of Gamer Escape's wiki pages, so checking there is a pretty comfy first stop.

---

Oh. Yeah, the same encyclopedia also stated that the term, beast, is a meaningless term that should be abandoned which the editor even called the "beastmen" as simply men as well.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...encyclopaedia/

I believe the Japanese uses a term that more closely translate as "barbarian" - which is the exact same term Garleans use to refer to Eorzeans. I always thought that made a little more sense that "beast tribe" when it comes to excluding people the Hrothgar from the definition.

Can't quote the exact live letter or whatever, but I want to say YoshiP wanted to change the term or abandon its use in future expansions since using it with the Dwarves of the First who are obviously not "beast" men. I also want to say it was to allow for alternative uses of the beast tribe daily mechanic, such as using it with the Arkasodara which may not necessarily deal exclusively with the Matanga of Thavnair, but the entire village with humans/auri. Or alternatively something like the Omega who are certainly neither "Beasts" nor "men".

Don't know if that is actually the plan with the Arkasodara, but again, I want to say it was to give more freedom to the devs on where or how to deploy dailies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

I believe the Japanese uses a term that more closely translate as "barbarian" - which is the exact same term Garleans use to refer to Eorzeans. I always thought that made a little more sense that "beast tribe" when it comes to excluding people the Hrothgar from the definition.

---

蛮族 ("banzoku"), yes. Literally "barbarian people" ("people" in the sociological sense). And "Primals" are 蛮神 ("banshin"), which literally translates to "barbarian god" or "god of the barbarians".

You are correct that Garleans refer to everyone else (Eorzeans and Othardians) as "savages", which is synonymous with "barbarians". Etymologically, "barbarian" originally meant "the people who are not Greeks", to contrast with the "Greek" identification with "polites", ie "citizen"/"people from the city". Then the Romans took that term and used it to refer to "uncivilized" peoples, ie anyone who was not a citizen of Rome.

So I see it as a sort of parallel development of xenophobia: the Eorzeans use "banzoku" to refer to any culture that is not a citizen of one of the city-states, while the Garleans use "banzoku" to refer to anyone who is not a citizen of Garlemald.

This also happens (deliberately) to correspond to racial lines, rather than simply territorial ones, in both RL and FFXIV. The term "banzoku" or "barbarian" was almost never used in a strict dictionary sense, but much more commonly as an insult or slur. Hence the negative connotations of "beast tribe".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaynide

Can't quote the exact live letter or whatever, but I want to say YoshiP wanted to change the term or abandon its use in future expansions since using it with the Dwarves of the First who are obviously not "beast" men. I also want to say it was to allow for alternative uses of the beast tribe daily mechanic, such as using it with the Arkasodara which may not necessarily deal exclusively with the Matanga of Thavnair, but the entire village with humans/auri. Or alternatively something like the Omega who are certainly neither "Beasts" nor "men".

Don't know if that is actually the plan with the Arkasodara, but again, I want to say it was to give more freedom to the devs on where or how to deploy dailies.

---

Yeah, the devs have been wanting to change the "Beast Tribe" parts of the UI to simply "Tribe" for a while. They've just announced being able to do so recently, while bringing up the Dwarves on the First as an illustrative example.

The reasoning they gave was, well, the same as this thread: it's rude and prejudiced, and it still makes sense to change racially problematic behaviour even when that racism is directed at fictional races.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaynide

Can't quote the exact live letter or whatever, but I want to say YoshiP wanted to change the term or abandon its use in future expansions since using it with the Dwarves of the First who are obviously not "beast" men. I also want to say it was to allow for alternative uses of the beast tribe daily mechanic, such as using it with the Arkasodara which may not necessarily deal exclusively with the Matanga of Thavnair, but the entire village with humans/auri. Or alternatively something like the Omega who are certainly neither "Beasts" nor "men".

Don't know if that is actually the plan with the Arkasodara, but again, I want to say it was to give more freedom to the devs on where or how to deploy dailies.

---

Yeah, esp to remove FFXIV from the shadow of FFXI really to create something much more unique and dynamic.