Quote from: SHARK;1118167it was a hypothetical example of Bugbears being different from a standard stone-age level of society.

My point stands: using real-world religions in elf games is a terrible idea.

Also, "bugbear" is a silly word and I don't use them because I don't like it.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118184Also, "bugbear" is a silly word and I don't use them because I don't like it.

You might even say that it is a personal bugbear.

Quote from: SHARK;1118152Greetings!

Whenever dealing with bands and tribes of monstrous humanoids, do you make any of them larger tribal societies which develop some kind of culture?

If and when such humanoid races develop a stable culture, a civilized culture of at least a town-based society, simple agriculture, a basic body of laws, and basic language, trade, and religious ritual, have such larger scale societies had an influence on the wider campaign world?

Imagine a large confederation of Bugbears that have small-scale agriculture, iron-age technology, a mixed barter/coin based economy, rural farm and herding communities, and a broad network of fortified towns and villages, with a growing tradition and system of trade with distant neighbors. The Bugbears are led by a newly-instituted hereditary kingship model of government. The Bugbears have recently embraced Confucianism as a social and political philosophy, and Daoism as the state religion. How different such a Bugbear society would look like, compared to other Bugbear communities!:D

Do you enjoy experimenting with humanoid societies, governments and religions? In my own campaigns, such experiments have led to some very dramatic and colourful changes and influences across entire continents.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark this is a great idea for a thread, one of the better ones to come along. As regards comments made about "moral quandaries" and "unharvested XP" both of these assume "murderhobo" games where the PCs kill everything they encounter. I know several DMs (both IRL and online) who do not give any XP for killing things, this encouraging other options.

As for introducing actual communities of humanoid monsters with economies, that is an excellent idea and some have done so and are happy with the results. Using real world religions is an excellent idea and you can have a lot of fun with that at a mature table. Using hive mind religions IMO would make humanoid monsters such as Bugbears much more dangerous opponents than they normally are. Instead of being more individualistic they would be more cooperative and more dangerous automatically. It is rather funny that people still believe these religions are "pacifistic" when that is not what they work out to be in the real world.

Quote from: ElBorak;1118186Using real world religions is an excellent idea

No. No, it fucking isn't.

Greetings!

Great, Gnomeworks. Who gives a fuck? I merely used Taoism as a hypothetical example of a different religion for Bugbears, in organizing a different society for them. Instead of Daoism, it can be "Rainbow Barneyism". Whatever. I was never making some huge argument for putting real world religions in anyone's game campaign.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1118198Who gives a fuck?

I get that you're a flippant jackass who likes to act all tough on the internet, but there are some lines that you shouldn't cross.

Mixing real-world religions with elf games is a bad idea for a whole host of reasons that are obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together.

And in this very fucking thread, you already have someone else agreeing that their use is a good idea. So really, you maybe should've put a bit more thought into your example if it was purely "hypothetical."

The particular real-world religions you picked are irrelevant.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118199I get that you're a flippant jackass who likes to act all tough on the internet, but there are some lines that you shouldn't cross.

Mixing real-world religions with elf games is a bad idea for a whole host of reasons that are obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together.

And in this very fucking thread, you already have someone else agreeing that their use is a good idea. So really, you maybe should've put a bit more thought into your example if it was purely "hypothetical."

The particular real-world religions you picked are irrelevant.

Greetings!

Whatever, Gnomeworks. You obviously do not understand what a *hypothetical example* is. I'm not arguing that real-world religions *should* be used in particular campaigns. Thanks.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118199Mixing real-world religions with elf games is a bad idea for a whole host of reasons that are obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

QuoteAnd in this very fucking thread, you already have someone else agreeing that their use is a good idea. So really, you maybe should've put a bit more thought into your example if it was purely "hypothetical."

That's his opinion, and he's entitled to it. And Shark's not responsible for anyone else's opinion, nor is he responsible for both of you taking his hypothetical too seriously and going off on a tangent.

That said . . . my response to the OP:

Always, ever since I started in this hobby. Heck, the writers of D&D already did that by, y'know, giving most(all?) of them languages and a moral alignment. Those scream sapience to me. I still recall my first ever session with a group. We were exploring some caves because, duh, D&D loves caves. And in the course of exploration we found a room full of makeshift beds with sick children in them. Only they were kobold children. Sick, scared kobold children who could talk and beg for their lives and apparently who comprehended morality and everything and . . . yeah, the rest of the party just slaughtered them and moved on. I thought that was shallow and stupid and actually pretty damn evil and wasn't exactly sad to leave that group after a few sessions.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1118203That said . . . my response to the OP:

Always, ever since I started in this hobby. Heck, the writers of D&D already did that by, y'know, giving most(all?) of them languages and a moral alignment. Those scream sapience to me. I still recall my first ever session with a group. We were exploring some caves because, duh, D&D loves caves. And in the course of exploration we found a room full of makeshift beds with sick children in them. Only they were kobold children. Sick, scared kobold children who could talk and beg for their lives and apparently who comprehended morality and everything and . . . yeah, the rest of the party just slaughtered them and moved on. I thought that was shallow and stupid and actually pretty damn evil and wasn't exactly sad to leave that group after a few sessions.

And you were quite right. That is how I would describe people like that, I would also suspect that is how they would behave IRL if they thought they could get away it and file them under people not to get stranded on a desert island with.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118194No. No, it fucking isn't.

Oh really, well I happen to think that Greek, Roman and Norse religion is a lot of fun in game, you might have heard of Zeus, Jupiter and Odin. Of course those were ancient pagan polytheistic religions. But our world has hundreds, if not thousands of pagan religions that are very gamable. There are religions practiced by 100's of millions of people that involve the worship of cattle and cobras and tens of thousands of "gods" and idols of those "gods". That is all very gamable. Both ancient and modern pagan polytheistic religions are fair game for the game table. There is a church of Elivs, that's gamable. L. Ron Hubbard invented a religion out of whole cloth, and the godless pagan liberals of Hollywood flocked to it and opened their deep pocket to a con that they knew going in was a con and they still wasted millions and millions on it and defend it to this day, that's gamable. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

You sure draw strange boundaries around you "D&D".

Quote from: ElBorak;1118209And you were quite right. That is how I would describe people like that, I would also suspect that is how they would behave IRL if they thought they could get away it and file them under people not to get stranded on a desert island with.

Nah, they were alright outside of the game. As a long-time video gamer, I get irked by people suggesting that what you do to pixels on the screen is what you'd really, truly want to do to actual living humans. This is basically the same kind of thing. I just think these dude's didn't think through things very well. And we were all a lot younger; don't lots of people go through a murderhobo phase? I just didn't like it.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1118240Nah, they were alright outside of the game. As a long-time video gamer, I get irked by people suggesting that what you do to pixels on the screen is what you'd really, truly want to do to actual living humans. This is basically the same kind of thing. I just think these dude's didn't think through things very well. And we were all a lot younger; don't lots of people go through a murderhobo phase? I just didn't like it.

Mature adults realize that pixels on a screen/minis on a map =/= real people.

We don't feel bad when we take out a pawn in chess because we know they're not actually a unit of infantrymen with families being wiped out by your forces... it's just a playing piece. By the same token, the sick baby kobolds (or even baby humans) are just playing pieces in a more elaborate game. Having your PC be outraged by their murder and enjoying games featuring it is one thing; being actually personally outraged by it and judging people as if the acts were performed against real people is quite another.

For that matter; why no judgement against the DM who has the orcs they control rape, slaughter and burn a village? Doesn't their having creatures they control do such things say they're awful people? Or do you recognize that the player (and the DM is a player in the definition of "playing a game" even if their role is different from the other players) and what they're controlling in the game are not the same thing?

RACISM! OTHERING! OPPRESSION! COLONIALISM! GENOCIDE! AAAGGHHH STOP STOP STOP! :mad:

... ahem, sorry I think I had something purple stuck in my throat.

I do like when different humanoids have different cultures, particularly when there is plausible context for their beliefs and traditions based on the circumstances of their lives, homes and biology. It doesn't always have to be fantastically deep or anything, but I deeply appreciate SOME thought put into it and I don't include such races in my own campaigns unless I can think of something at least mildly compelling for each of them. I don't necessarily expect my players to be interested in that stuff, but culture WILL play a role in their interactions with those races should it be by any other means than the tip of a sword (and sometimes still even then). However, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with treating them like walking bags of gold and XP either. That can be fully appropriate in a beer-and-pretzel-type campaign, after all!

I don't mind real-world religions in RPGs at all, obviously in modern day campaigns and especially in historical campaigns (because religion is, or at least should probably be, a HUGE part of and influence on any historical setting). I don't much see the point of bringing them into the world of D&D or an original fantasy setting (Yrth/Banestorm being the only exception I can really think of, but it makes sense in context due to the larger Infinite Worlds setting), but the world of RPGs is larger than just D&D...

Quote from: Antiquation!;1118252I do like when different humanoids have different cultures, particularly when there is plausible context for their beliefs and traditions based on the circumstances of their lives, homes and biology. It doesn't always have to be fantastically deep or anything, but I deeply appreciate SOME thought put into it and I don't include such races in my own campaigns unless I can think of something at least mildly compelling for each of them.

This is how I treat PC races for sure. "Humanoid" is an interesting term, and I often wonder exactly where each person draws the line. In my mind, not everything with two arms and two legs needs to be culturally, psychologically, or even otherwise physically similar to humans in any way.

In my world, orcs, goblins, bugbears and the like are monstrous spawn born of evil souls that emerge from pits of black ooze. No "society" or other "ecology" required. I've never been comfortable with the idea that every monster has to conform to some real-world notion of reproductive evolution (but if you do go that way, then Kyle Aaron's analysis regarding R-selected species is awesome).

Quote from: Chris24601;1118250Mature adults realize that pixels on a screen/minis on a map =/= real people.

Yeah, that was basically my point. Which is why I said I didn't like playing that way(or, more accurately, playing in a group that played that way), but I seriously doubt it reflects on how those guys were IRL. They were pretty stand-up people, really. It just so happens that my first-ever session with that group - my first group ever, short-lived though it was - was relevant to the OP. I just couldn't help but feel like that was put in the module for a reason(yeah, yeah, we were new and used a module; sue me), and that my group had failed whatever it was supposed to be badly. I never read the module myself(I wasn't the GM), so maybe it really was just that shallow. Some kobold children as basically brushfire to remove because "genetic evil" and all that. This was over 20 years ago, so I'll likely never know.