I think the treatment of Animals in [Prince Caspian] is just going to be one of those Your Mileage May Vary things.I just picked up the Pathfinder Advanced Race Guide a couple days ago. And I've noticed that d20 stats basically codify racism. When Dwarves get "-2 Charisma," for example, that's relative to a human. Humans are the exact baseline, and are "perhaps the most versatile" and blah blah blah. Which is basically the human authors' way of saying "We're privileged to be able to regard our experiences as normative."
I, personally, do not like it. I don't like it because it seems to indicate that form dictates behavior and personality in a way that I'm not at all comfortable with because of the various implications contained therein for Otherkin and Transgendered peoples. I don't like it because I have a good deal of experience with animals in my personal life and I see a tremendous variety in personality within the same species, and even within the same genetic family. I don't like it because the variety displayed among the Pevensie children and the Caspian family, combined with the non-variety displayed within an animal species, normalizes "Human Being" as complex-and-varied and pigeonholes Animals as stereotypes, and that reminds me uncomfortably of the normalization of White, Straight, and Male in our society.
-- Ana Mardoll, Narnia: The Privilege of Omniscience
So the question is, are the humans in our Pathfinder setting like that? They're protagonists, but they're not the protagonists. And while they see themselves as normative, everyone else doesn't. How do we portray them, both in terms of lore and in terms of game stats? This is sort of part brainstorming, part describing, so just let me know what your thoughts are on whatever interests you. Also let me know if I got something wrong; I'm very much an amateur at this.
Also also, check out this pic that aliaspseudonym did of a human adventurer.
( Actual lore )
( Messy brainstorming )