# Small Woodland Creatures?



## Shreddies (Jan 8, 2013)

I'm writing up a race of small people, maybe two inches tall. And I wanted them to have a form of steed to ride around on, on occasion.

I immediately though of Ferrets or maybe Weasels. But can anyone think of another smallish creature that might work?

I was also wondering if the creature should be a Herbivore, like a Pika.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Jan 8, 2013)

Chipmunks, squirrels...would give access to trees and such via climbing. Or possibly a bird of some sort...crow, bluejay, etc.


----------



## Ireth (Jan 8, 2013)

Rats might work as well.


----------



## Maid Of Glass (Jan 8, 2013)

I think a herbivore would be a good idea, since it lends itself to the idea of a steed, you can leave them to graze


----------



## kilost (Jan 8, 2013)

Hmm, I'd steer clear of rats. Unless you're incredibly gangster, you're gonna find it really difficult to reign in a fierce omnivore which could eat you, and domesticating it in the first place is nigh impossible. Even squirrels don't seem realistic. I'd go for tortoises for cargo and so forth, and then something like a guinea pig or other fairly stocky herbivorous rodent. Pika's are a good idea. Or maybe some kind of pygmy marmot. Or maybe all three.


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 8, 2013)

Rabbits, Hares...

Hares have the advantage of being expert boxers


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 8, 2013)

I like ferrets.


----------



## Shreddies (Jan 8, 2013)

How about a small mythical creature? I could just tweak it a bit, but the only one that comes to mind is the jackalope.


----------



## Ireth (Jan 8, 2013)

You could do a variation of the gryphon, with the eagle being replaced by a smaller bird and the lion being something else entirely.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 8, 2013)

It's actually a bit of a tricky question. There are certain limitations to why some animals can be ridden and why some can't. For example, they need a strong enough back to be able to carry a rider, and it must be possible to domesticate them. And even if you can do that, getting an animal tame isn't the same thing and teaching it to carry a rider.

Heck, look at the animals we human have managed to turn into dedicated mounts: Horses, donkeys, camels, dromedaries, yaks and elephants. So, six animals? That's not really a lot, is it?

I mean, you would think there are lots of other options, but you don't see people riding zebras around, even in Africa where that would actually make sense. The reason is that zebras are more unpredictable than horses - they are meaner and have a tendency to panic under stress. Up here in Scandinavia and Russia, attempts have been made to domesticate the moose, but it doesn't appear to have worked out. Cows don't have the right kind of back muscles to support riders and their gait isn't appropriate either. Llamas, though used as pack animals, aren't strong enough to carry the average human. People do occasionally ride reindeers, but it not to any great extent.

So, the animal in question needs to strong enough to carry the rider, be social enough to be properly domenticated, have the right temperament, and have the right build and gait to be comfortable to ride. It gets even trickier in that these people are just two inches tall. I'm not even sure there is any appropriate riding animal in that size class.


----------



## Kit (Jan 8, 2013)

Rats are da bomb!   :mouse:  

They are sweet (if domesticated well), affectionate and very smart.  They could be taught to guard, to fight for their riders. They can chew through anything, and have very dexterous little "hands". Their diet is wide and varied, so they wouldn't be too difficult to keep fed. They would be my choice, hands down. Ferrets would be #2.


----------



## Phietadix (Jan 8, 2013)

Shreddies said:


> How about a small mythical creature? I could just tweak it a bit, but the only one that comes to mind is the jackalope.



But jackalope are awesome enough that you need no other. I'd be more likly to buy a book with a jackalope on then any other animal. But problems with animals small enough for two inch tall men is that most animals that small would run away when danger strikes.


----------



## mbartelsm (Jan 9, 2013)

Phietadix said:


> But jackalope are awesome enough that you need no other. I'd be more likly to buy a book with a jackalope on then any other animal. But problems with animals small enough for two inch tall men is that most animals that small would run away when danger strikes.


That is if the danger comes in our scale, I don't think a rat would run away from another rat, much less a two inch man (if something, it would try to eat him). BTW, jackalopes are almost the definition of awesome if they are going to be used as war mounts by two inch men

here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Wall_drug_jackalope.jpg


----------



## wordwalker (Jan 9, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> So, the animal in question needs to strong enough to carry the rider, be social enough to be properly domenticated, have the right temperament, and have the right build and gait to be comfortable to ride. It gets even trickier in that these people are just two inches tall. I'm not even sure there is any appropriate riding animal in that size class.



Excellent analysis; I'm a big believer in knowing the facts and finding a Least Resistance path for how to choose fantasy that amplifies more of them than it waves away.

Still, square-cube law. The same rule that makes giants so heavy makes two-inch creatures so light, proportionate to their strength, that there may be quite a few things able to carry them.



Phietadix said:


> But jackalopes are awesome enough that you need no other. I'd be more likly to buy a book with a jackalope on then any other animal.



That's just too good an opportunity to pass up. Much of writing is fine-tuning something that might be nearly as good other ways-- but some things you just grab and use.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 9, 2013)

wordwalker said:


> Still, square-cube law. The same rule that makes giants so heavy makes two-inch creatures so light, proportionate to their strength, that there may be quite a few things able to carry them.



Yep. You can't just assume proportional requirements for such things, as though from the smaller frame of references everything operates in the same way, except as to visual scale.

I still like ferrets. I'm not sure I'd buy into the idea of them riding jackalopes, unless it was supposed to be an out-and-out comedy, in which case I'd go with it.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 9, 2013)

Honestly, I think all the animals suggested are far too big to be ridden by two-inch men. The only animal in that size class are hummingbirds. (Which would be awesome!) So if you really want two-inch people, I'd go with them. But if you're willing to make your mini men a little bigger (5-7 inches) the other suggestions in this thread become more viable.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 9, 2013)

wordwalker said:


> Still, square-cube law. The same rule that makes giants so heavy makes two-inch creatures so light, proportionate to their strength, that there may be quite a few things able to carry them.



Point. Anyway, is this size category we're basically left with small rodents an the like. There's not much to chose from.



Steerpike said:


> Yep. You can't just assume proportional requirements for such things, as though from the smaller frame of references everything operates in the same way, except as to visual scale.
> 
> I still like ferrets. I'm not sure I'd buy into the idea of them riding jackalopes, unless it was supposed to be an out-and-out comedy, in which case I'd go with it.



I like ferrets too, but mostly in the sense that little people riding ferrets is an awesome mental image. Ferrets are easy to like. On the other hand, they seem to have very flexible backs. Somehow I imagine that would be hard to ride.

Rats probably make more sense for reasons Kit mentioned above: Very common, easy to breed, surprisingly intelligent, can be tamed, very strong for their sizes, insanely adaptable, etc.



Mindfire said:


> Honestly, I think all the animals suggested are far too big to be ridden by two-inch men. The only animal in that size class are hummingbirds. (Which would be awesome!) So if you really want two-inch people, I'd go with them. But if you're willing to make your mini men a little bigger (5-7 inches) the other suggestions in this thread become more viable.



I don't think something roughly the size of a rat or squirrel would be too large. It would be larger than horses are to us, but not quite elephant sized.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 9, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> I like ferrets too, but mostly in the sense that little people riding ferrets is an awesome mental image. Ferrets are easy to like. On the other hand, they seem to have very flexible backs. Somehow I imagine that would be hard to ride.



Yes. And they might not have the best temperament for mounts, either. At least, the one I had growing up was a bit unpredictable that way.


----------



## wordwalker (Jan 9, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Honestly, I think all the animals suggested are far too big to be ridden by two-inch men. The only animal in that size class are hummingbirds. (Which would be awesome!) So if you really want two-inch people, I'd go with them. But if you're willing to make your mini men a little bigger (5-7 inches) the other suggestions in this thread become more viable.



Or, choose a character size to make one creature the classic horse-like match, and other animals like elephants with their howdahs. 

(Warriors on ferret cavalry with a jackalope "tank" in the center... how's that for a cover image?)


----------



## Ireth (Jan 9, 2013)

wordwalker said:


> Or, choose a character size to make one creature the classic horse-like match, and other animals like elephants with their howdahs.
> 
> (Warriors on ferret cavalry with a jackalope "tank" in the center... how's that for a cover image?)



That is awesome.


----------



## Shockley (Jan 9, 2013)

I'd say fashion your own creature - a fantasy rodent, with a description and name similar enough to give it a clear appearance. Something like 'meesa' or 'rowse' (off the top of my head) give me a vague rodent image without getting to specific.


----------



## Ireth (Jan 9, 2013)

Shockley said:


> I'd say fashion your own creature - a fantasy rodent, with a description and name similar enough to give it a clear appearance. Something like 'meesa' or 'rowse' (off the top of my head) give me a vague rodent image without getting to specific.



Rowse works quite well -- it makes me think of R.O.U.S.-es. XD I imagine you'd pronounce the acronym the same way.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 9, 2013)

Hi,

It's the two inches tall that's the problem. At that height the ferret would eat them in one bite. And anyway, while it may sound cool, people don't ride carnivores. My thought would be either make them bigger or you're left with mice. Even rats would be too big - it'd be like riding an elephant, and not a vegetarian one. Among the small rodents your best bet would be gerbils because they're the friendliest and most sociable, but again are too large.

However all of these rodents would be problematic because of their natural behaviour. If you've ever seen a mouse wandering around you'll know that its natural gait is bumpy and when out in the open it likes to dart around, stop, sniff the air, and then race away again in a different direction. This is not a good behaviour to try and modify into obediance for a rider. You need a herd animal, one that likes travelling with others. This is why horses made such capable steeds.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Shockley (Jan 9, 2013)

Ireth said:


> Rowse works quite well -- it makes me think of R.O.U.S.-es. XD I imagine you'd pronounce the acronym the same way.



 Indeed - the only reason I didn't go straight for 'rouse' (which is prettier looking and easier to figure out) is because people would immediately jump to the word 'rouse.'


----------



## Shreddies (Jan 9, 2013)

wordwalker said:


> Or, choose a character size to make one creature the classic horse-like match, and other animals like elephants with their howdahs.
> 
> (Warriors on ferret cavalry with a jackalope "tank" in the center... how's that for a cover image?)



That is just too awesome to pass up. I could use Jackalopes as a steed for their royalty or heavy cavalry.



Shockley said:


> I'd say fashion your own creature - a fantasy rodent, with a description and name similar enough to give it a clear appearance. Something like 'meesa' or 'rowse' (off the top of my head) give me a vague rodent image without getting to specific.



I snorted a bit of my drink when I read rowse. For some reason 'wibble' has been stuck in my head since I saw that Blackadder skit. Feels like some kind of small animal.

I guess creating my own species would probably be the simplist route. So, ideally they would be herbivores, reasonably intelligent, a good temperament, brave enough not to skitter away in the face of danger, a suitable gait for riding upon, possibly a herd animal, and finally, small enough for a two inch rider.

Bonus points for being decent climbers, being able to box or kick hard enough to defend themselves from predators which would give them reason not to be skittish, and maybe running in a herd, like lemmings, only not off a cliff.

I could see that happening, actually. A herd of small rodents majestically running across a field, an eagle swoops down, it gets  mobbed by four or five of them and the herd goes about its business gathering plants and things for their foodstores for winter.

Behold! The majestic Miniature Peruvian Wibbler!

Like how Warblers warble, the Wibblers wibble. And of course something else instead of Peruvian.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 9, 2013)

You know, you don't have to have them ride directly on the animals. They could use them to draw chariots instead.


----------



## Sir Rico (Jan 9, 2013)

They could ride small lizards


----------



## wordwalker (Jan 9, 2013)

Shreddies said:


> I guess creating my own species would probably be the simplist route. So, ideally they would be herbivores, reasonably intelligent, a good temperament, brave enough not to skitter away in the face of danger, a suitable gait for riding upon, possibly a herd animal, and finally, small enough for a two inch rider.



You might still want to say they're a cousin of mice, or some other species, and look a bit like them. That would make a huge difference for the readers to be able to picture something they know-- this sounds like the kind of concept they'd want that bit of comfort with.


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 10, 2013)

An don't forget about custom saddles!!!


----------



## Shreddies (Jan 11, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> You know, you don't have to have them ride directly on the animals. They could use them to draw chariots instead.



I was wondering about this, but wouldn't it be far more difficult for a small wagon to cross a field or something? Although I suppose wagons and carts are usually kept on the road.



wordwalker said:


> You might still want to say they're a cousin of mice, or some other species, and look a bit like them. That would make a huge difference for the readers to be able to picture something they know-- this sounds like the kind of concept they'd want that bit of comfort with.



Yeah, I'll keep that in mind when I introduce them.



Butterfly said:


> An don't forget about custom saddles!!!



Of course.


----------



## Devor (Jan 11, 2013)

It's called a Sugar Glider.


----------



## Ireth (Jan 11, 2013)

Thanks for the dose of squee, Devor! ^^


----------



## wordwalker (Jan 11, 2013)

Now _that's_ what I call a sugar high!


----------

