Scifi aliens described in Elite/Oolite terms

[Bicorn]

There's been a fair bit of discussion about what the various species in Elite/Oolite actually look like based on the vague in-game descriptions.
How about a look from the other angle - how would you describe the aliens in different franchises using the Elite categorisations?

Only the descriptors and categories existing in Elite should be used, and ideally the description should fit the limits of the original algorithm (e.g. no "fierce" and "large" on the same species.)

Here's some examples:

Alien
Engineers: large blue humanoids. Xenomorphs: fierce black insects. (Xenomorphs aren't sapient so they probably wouldn't get a classification in Elite but included for completeness.)

Ringworld
Kzin: large furry felines.

Star Trek
Andorians: blue humanoids. Gorn: green bug-eyed lizards. Klingons: fierce humanoids. Pakleds: harmless fat humanoids (Yes, I know they aren't actually harmless, but they actively present this image.)

Star Wars
Ewoks: small furry rodents. Hutts: large frogs. Rodians: green insects. Wookiees: large furry humanoids. Yoda's species: small green... hmm, frogs maybe?

[Cholmondely]

Hutts: large frogs.

[Bicorn]

Hutts: large frogs.

What would you classify them as, then?

[Redspear]

Hutts: large frogs.

What would you classify them as, then?

All of the elite 'species' have legs, prominently so in the case of frogs. Hutts don't, so it's a tricky one.

Molluscs (slugs etc.) aren't really represented. Molluscs are invertebrates, more like 'insects' and 'lobsters' than frogs in ancestral terms if not appearance.

The 'xenomorph' often gets called insectoid, even though in many ways it isn't (four limb, bibedal, no wings etc.) but using the elite categories, you're probably right: probably black and definitely fierce

[Bicorn]

What would you classify them as, then?

All of the elite 'species' have legs, prominently so in the case of frogs. Hutts don't, so it's a tricky one.

How do we know they all have legs? Hutts' upper half looks pretty froglike, it might be enough for whoever in GalCop is in charge of classifying new species.

[Redspear]

How do we know they all have legs?

We don't and you're quite right to point out the assumption.

However, the idea of a human comparable intelligence evolving with a slug-like locomotory system (I'm not a star wars expert) is rather unlikely for reasons I'd rather not take the time to spell out here (nutshell version: slug's main 'defence' is sheer numbers, once that's working there's little selection pressure to favour intelligence).

Octopus, by comparison, are also molluscs but they're intelligent partially on acount of being highly mobile. Without the mobility they would be less effective predators and less likely to develop intelligence. Although some slugs are predators those that are prey on other slugs or similarly slow invertebrates requiring little in the way of tactics. AFAIK they're all hermaphroditic and generally non-social, again suggesting less cranial real estate be required.

So as strange as an intelligent insectoid might be, taking away its legs and giving it the movement of a slug isn't likely to help at all in evolutionary terms. Sure: different enviornments, different outcomes so I can't call 'impossible' but I'm going to say that the assumption that they all have legs given the descriptors is highly probable. The only Hutt I know is Jabba and even without the eye stalks, I still don't see a frog, sorry.

[Bicorn]

On the topic of aliens, how do you picture Oolite aliens' "large" and "small" adjectives work out in practice? Are all species roughly the same size unless they have one of the adjectives, or does e.g. "large insect" mean "large for an insect?"
I personally lean towards the former because it fits better with all ships and whatnot coming in standard sizes.

[Redspear]

I personally lean towards the former because it fits better with all ships and whatnot coming in standard sizes.

Yeah me too and for that same reason. Although it's also because that was the best fit for my c.1984 undestanding of sc-fi 'races', largely based on the cantina scene from star wars

[Bicorn]

Another thought. Elite's algorithm allows the same species to be both fierce and harmless; how would that work out in practice? Can you think of an example of a species in some franchise that could be described as "fierce harmless <something>s"?

[Redspear]

Another thought. Elite's algorithm allows the same species to be both fierce and harmless; how would that work out in practice? Can you think of an example of a species in some franchise that could be described as "fierce harmless <something>s"?

I think you might be conflating the animal part of inhabitant type with species.

Insect, for example (or insecta) is a class, four taxonomic ranks above species, and is so enormously varied as to include ants, bees, mantids, moths, bugs, beetles and so on with an enormous diversity of size, colouring and behaviour (just like the elite descriptions only much more so).

Some of the others are orders or families, at least two steps above (and therefore broader categories) than species.
Feidae (felines) is a family, only two steps above species but the typical house cat and the typical tiger are both members and whilst they may exhibit similar behaviour, their size (if nothing else) grants a servicable harmless/fierce distinction, even if only from a human-centric perspective.

Now we don't know exactly what each of these names might mean in game but assumming that a family/order/class category is actually a species category is... a bit of a leap I think, especially given the other in game descriptors attached to them.

[Bicorn]

Another thought. Elite's algorithm allows the same species to be both fierce and harmless; how would that work out in practice? Can you think of an example of a species in some franchise that could be described as "fierce harmless <something>s"?

I think you might be conflating the animal part of inhabitant type with species.

I'm not conflating anything - I meant the cases where the inhabitants of a specific planet are given both the "fierce" and "harmless" adjectives. See for example the inhabitants of Soinuste in Chart 1.

[Cholmondely]

I'm not conflating anything - I meant the cases where the inhabitants of a specific planet are given both the "fierce" and "harmless" adjectives. See for example the inhabitants of Soinuste in Chart 1.

Well spotted.

To me, fierce signals intent whilst harmless refers to ability. Rather like a fierce toothless chihuahua which yaps incessantly and clearly wishes to rips hunks out of your heels - but is utterly unable to. Slobbering over them is probably its limit!

Presumably the Soinusteans can swarm menacingly but are unable to do much more to you. Can they even slobber?

[Redspear]

I think you might be conflating the animal part of inhabitant type with species.

I'm not conflating anything - I meant the cases where the inhabitants of a specific planet are given both the "fierce" and "harmless" adjectives. See for example the inhabitants of Soinuste in Chart 1.

My apologies. I used 'think' and 'might' because I couldn't be sure based on what you'd written.

To me, fierce signals intent whilst harmless refers to ability.

I'd agree with this: they're not quite opposites, as fierce and timid might be for example.

I think Bell &, Braben were aware of this possibility from the start. If you look at all of the inhabitat descriptors then few of them are truly opposites.

There's small and large but they've contrasted fat with bony rather than skinny, slimy with furry rather than dry and colours needn't exist in isolation.

If there are Small, Large Lobsters somewhere then they might have messed up but I suspect the algorithm might have prevented that one.

[Bicorn]

My apologies. I used 'think' and 'might' because I couldn't be sure based on what you'd written.

Apology accepted. I suppose I could have been clearer in my phrasing.

There's small and large but they've contrasted fat with bony rather than skinny, slimy with furry rather than dry and colours needn't exist in isolation.

If there are Small, Large Lobsters somewhere then they might have messed up but I suspect the algorithm might have prevented that one.

Someone's deep dive into the original algorithm can be found here.
The algorithm is rather peculiar: it takes three groups of bits; each group is associated with a different set of adjectives. Depending on what the value of the bits is it either picks an adjective from the corresponding set or nothing, so you end up with anything from 0 to 3 adjectives.
Small and large are in the same set so they cannot be picked together, but fierce is in set 1 and harmless in set 2. (Everything else in set 2 is a colour so I kind of suspect it was put there by mistake.) Also anything that's not related to size, behaviour or colour is in set 3, so unlike numerous 50's schlock scifi movies Elite can't have slimy bug-eyed aliens.

[Redspear]

fierce is in set 1 and harmless in set 2. (Everything else in set 2 is a colour so I kind of suspect it was put there by mistake.)

Hmm, it would appear to suggest that.
If harmless were a colour... beige?

Also anything that's not related to size, behaviour or colour is in set 3, so unlike numerous 50's schlock scifi movies Elite can't have slimy bug-eyed aliens

Denied