Bestial option that's less human looking but still within the realm of plausible as a player race option: Zeroso the count goes
cute:
lala without beards, 1 baby face per male race, catboys in pink clothes, a vanilla looking midlander with freckles
manly:
au ra (sans face 3), roes, highlanders, 1 old/rough face per male race, lalas with beards (?)
somewhere in the nebulous inbetween:
2 elezen faces, catboys that aren’t in pink clothes, vanilla looking midlanders without freckles
Sounds like some actual diversity there.
The argument was that we have too many manly/cutesy archetypes. A beastly face on a lala body would deliver diversity. A lala face on a beastly body would also lol
Id probably fantasia that for fun.
If Hrothgar are listed ahead of Viera, I have to wonder if they were in the works first and then the endless demand for the Viera made them shift to a split race to fit both in?!
More rationally, if they are split, I'm not surprised if the male race is listed first - it seems consistent with males being the first/default setting for other races on the character creator screen.
I feel like Au Ra *is* that less human but plausible option. They've written themselves into a corner with the focus on "men vs beastmen" in ARR's script. Au Ra are striking and have "monstrous" features while still retaining human faces and overall shape.
Ronso would be pushing (if not over) what I'd assume to be the boundary between the two.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Cookie Policy
This website uses cookies. If you do not wish us to set cookies on your device, please do not use the website. Please read the Square Enix cookies policy for more information. Your use of the website is also subject to the terms in the Square Enix website terms of use and privacy policy and by using the website you are accepting those terms. The Square Enix terms of use, privacy policy and cookies policy can also be found through links at the bottom of the page.