Greetings!
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
The first time I saw anything like this, it was hobgoblins in the Kingdoms of Kalamar setting. That was an eye-opener for me, as I had never considered the possibility before. That inspired me to think of hobgoblins as "D&D Klingons", as per TOSTrek.
As far as real-world religions applied to fantasy races, and going beyond the topic slightly, I've observed that elven culture and religion has a very Hindu feel to it. To emphasize this, have each of the elven subtypes, if you use any of them at all, hold a place in an overall elven caste system, one that is perhaps invisible, or unintelligible, to non-elves.
Quote from: RandyB;1118155The first time I saw anything like this, it was hobgoblins in the Kingdoms of Kalamar setting. That was an eye-opener for me, as I had never considered the possibility before. That inspired me to think of hobgoblins as "D&D Klingons", as per TOSTrek.
As far as real-world religions applied to fantasy races, and going beyond the topic slightly, I've observed that elven culture and religion has a very Hindu feel to it. To emphasize this, have each of the elven subtypes, if you use any of them at all, hold a place in an overall elven caste system, one that is perhaps invisible, or unintelligible, to non-elves.
Greetings!
Oh, totally, my friend! Yeah, there are definitely some Hinduesque vibes with the Elven social structure and religion. I agree, I also kind of like it that it isn't something especially noticeable or is unintelligible to non-elves. Elven religion, society, the culture, in my view, also doesn't *have* to be entirely comprehensible to non-elves. I think that is a good thing, too, RandyB.:D
In my own campaign, I have several original religions, numerous quasi-historical religions and philosophies, and apply them here and about. When you consider how religion influences morality, behavior, values, dress, and hence also the economy and government, spreading outwards and going deeper, it becomes this huge, pervasive thing that when you reach a heightened point, the culture really is very distinct and different from others, and can also have many layers to it.
I long since grew bored with traditional humanoid cultures, as they all seemed static and brute-primitive, stuck perpetually in this kind of helpless stone-age mentality. The deeper and more advanced I got into my own academic studies of history, I soon came to the conclusion that such world building elements had a salient and fatal flaw--such sad, primitive societies wouldn't be a threat long-term to anyone, such as trying to pose as a threat to a culture with a medieval economy and government, let alone some super-state like that of the Roman Empire, or the great kingdoms of Classical Greece.
That is when I realized such humanoid cultures needed to embrace something else entirely, a culture, a way of governing, an economy, that would allow them to learn, grow, and change. This was essential for them to maintain any semblance of relevance whatsoever. Otherwise, it seems logical, that they would be bulldozed into slavery and absorption from their stronger neighbors many years ago in the campaign world. Not to say that every culture must be on some equal footing entirely, but the whole stone-age thing and hunter-gatherer mentality just had to go, you know?:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1118152The Bugbears have recently embraced Confucianism as a social and political philosophy, and Daoism as the state religion.
I think that once you start including real-world religions in your elf games, you've fucked up big-time.
And the notion of Taoism as a "state religion" is fucking hilarious.
You start "humanizing" the non-humans you make it much harder to kill them and take their stuff.
Have you noticed how few games have human opponents?
As you may know. The first step in war is dehumanizing your opponents. The reverse of what you are talking about.
Unless, you just mean giving them a recognizable structure to tear down.
Despite problems I have with Eberron, it did much to make its humanoids interesting. In particular, it made orcs and goblinoids very different from one another. Yes, it does humanize them to a degree and thus make it harder to view them as simply unharvested XP, but I don't see this as a bad thing.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118158I think that once you start including real-world religions in your elf games, you've fucked up big-time.
And the notion of Taoism as a "state religion" is fucking hilarious.
Greetings!
*Sigh* Gnomeworks, it was a hypothetical example of Bugbears being different from a standard stone-age level of society.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Greentongue;1118161You start "humanizing" the non-humans you make it much harder to kill them and take their stuff.
Have you noticed how few games have human opponents?
As you may know. The first step in war is dehumanizing your opponents. The reverse of what you are talking about.
Unless, you just mean giving them a recognizable structure to tear down.
Greetings!
Well, recognizable structure to tear down can be fun, as well. *laughs* I think that certainly *humanizing* them adds problems, but giving them more tools in which to advance with makes them a bit more challenging as opponents as well, you know?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: HappyDaze;1118162Despite problems I have with Eberron, it did much to make its humanoids interesting. In particular, it made orcs and goblinoids very different from one another. Yes, it does humanize them to a degree and thus make it harder to view them as simply unharvested XP, but I don't see this as a bad thing.
Greetings!
"Unharvested XP":D Nice, HappyDaze! I'm not familiar with the details of Eberron, but having distinctive cultures is always something good, I think. I'm also reminded, though, of how historically, the Germanic tribes went from being naked savages fighting in a stone-age mentality--some were using simple weapons of flint and wooden spears, and wearing simple animal furs in early encounters with the Romans--to several centuries later, of course, the Germanic tribes of the Goths, the Cherusci, the Franks and Lombards and others had become very sophisticated, with steel weapons, chainmail, horses, huge armies, and complex kingships and nobility. I think that kind of economic, technological, and cultural dynamic can be useful and important for monster races and humanoids in the campaign.
What are your problems with Eberron, my friend?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
My orcs are humans mutated by a global magical cataclysm to be stronger, faster and with sharper senses (nightvision and scent specifically) than men. Their only downside is their terrifying appearance; blood-red eyes, pig-like snouts, grotesquely overdeveloped muscles and an over abundance of adrenaline making them more violence prone. A rare few don't actually stop growing and become 8-10' tall behemoths called Ogres.
And one of the first of their number was the only surviving son of the Emperor who ruled the known world as the Cataclym burned that world down. His descendants have spread the belief among the orcs that the world is theirs to rule and have formed a remnant Empire that for the past two-centuries has ruthlessly conquered its neighbors and subjected them to their rule.
First among these were a species of beastmen called goblins. Once small bat-men with an advanced civilization, a hundred generations of brutal enslavement (beastmen become adults at two years of age) have so stunted that they lost their wings and turned the goblins into little more than feral beasts used by the orcs as slave soldier cannon fodder.
Structurally, the Orc Empire is the worst qualities of the Roman Empire (and I use Roman-styled armor and weaponry in depictions of them... and the old fallen Empire as visual shorthand for things linked to the Pre-Dark Age world that existed before the time of the present campaign (vs. the more Medieval designs I use for kingdoms established after the Empire's fall).
Militarily, the Orcs are organized and train relentlessly as legionnaires in order to claim the spoils of conquest (wealth, land and slaves). Only the recent loss of their latest Emperor before he could declare one of his four young children as official heir (success in battle not birth order determines that right) has slowed the Orcs' advances as factions backing each of the four have plunged the Orc Empire into civil war.
I like my non-humans to be...not human. Considering how difficult it is for humans to understand humans from different cultures, and understand how those cultures work, I assume that difficulty would be far greater when dealing with creatures that aren't human.
Also, most monsters are evil. Any society built upon evil as its code isn't going to look like a society built on neutrality or good. That doesn't mean every monster society must be barbaric and primitive, but an inherently evil society...is all about evil stuff.
I agree that OUR history says civilization does better than barbarism long term, but we're human. The average human is a 0-level commoner, but an average bugbear is a 3HD monster with unnatural stealth....and their "god" is a DEMON LORD. AKA, they are the spawn of something infernal, or at least, worshipers of demons. Maybe Chaotic creatures can only exist in Chaotic societies?
Of course, there are neutral, and even good monsters, and their societies would look quite different than a culture built upon evil. And as with everything, a GM can always do away with alignment and "humanize" monsters to make their societies more akin to those of our history.
But the "humanizing" of monsters (or aliens) opens moral quandaries at the game table...which is great for some groups, but not for others. FOR ME (and that's enough for me), I prefer the broad strokes of "us vs. them", and I'll be the first to agree that's childish and unrealistic.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1118175I like my non-humans to be...not human. Considering how difficult it is for humans to understand humans from different cultures, and understand how those cultures work, I assume that difficulty would be far greater when dealing with creatures that aren't human.
Also, most monsters are evil. Any society built upon evil as its code isn't going to look like a society built on neutrality or good. That doesn't mean every monster society must be barbaric and primitive, but an inherently evil society...is all about evil stuff.
I agree that OUR history says civilization does better than barbarism long term, but we're human. The average human is a 0-level commoner, but an average bugbear is a 3HD monster with unnatural stealth....and their "god" is a DEMON LORD. AKA, they are the spawn of something infernal, or at least, worshipers of demons. Maybe Chaotic creatures can only exist in Chaotic societies?
Of course, there are neutral, and even good monsters, and their societies would look quite different than a culture built upon evil. And as with everything, a GM can always do away with alignment and "humanize" monsters to make their societies more akin to those of our history.
But the "humanizing" of monsters (or aliens) opens moral quandaries at the game table...which is great for some groups, but not for others. FOR ME (and that's enough for me), I prefer the broad strokes of "us vs. them", and I'll be the first to agree that's childish and unrealistic.
Greetings!
Oh yes, my friend. I like that US vs THEM too! I like monster societies to be monsterous, after all. You make a good point about Bugbears having three Hit Dice, with the average human being a 0-level Commoner. I suppose I was thinking too much in historical terms. 3HD Bugbears don't need to worry about advanced weaponry. A primitive hammer they use can likely pulverize anything a human is wearing by overwhelming, brute power. That fancy plate mail? You are just a dressed up can of jello for the Bugbear. I suppose when your martial and combat prowess is such a natural advantage, well, there's no need for them to understand economies, either, or farming. They can just march in and take what they want, plundering and eating at will.
Interesting perspective, my friend. I hadn't thought of it that way. I got lost in historical and economic theorizing. *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Rather than making humanoids a more interesting brand of humans, I prefer to make humans more interesting humans. They are always the best heroes and villains.
Humanoids are human-shaped monsters, and with respect to them I prefer to focus on making them more interesting monsters.
I use the listed intelligence ratings in the MM as tactical intelligence. I assume that only humans (including demi-humans) have free will. Monster alignments are locked and they act them out by instinct; they do not intellectually embrace their ethos. As reflected by their tribal names (leg breakers, slow killers, marrow suckers), their concept of philosophy is limited to various forms of torture and murder.
QuoteAs they seek to build on the ruins of human or other more sophisticated creatures, a hobgoblin village may be of better construction than indicated, possibly having solid stone works, buildings or a keep. (MM 1e, p. 52)
So humanoids, being evil, will always commit the foulest acts possible regardless of whether it is in their best interest to do so. This overrides any ability to think strategically.
QuoteEach [hobgoblin] tribe is jealous of its status, and if two tribal bands of hobgoblins meet there will be at least catcalls and derision (85%) and open fighting might break out (15%) unless a strong leader such as a powerful monster or fighter or evil high priest, etc. is on hand to control them. (ibid.)
Their actions are dictated first and foremost by their instinct. When multiple tribes are in the same area, destructive war is inevitable unless they are controlled by superior creatures, so their natural tendency is to self-destruct. The tribe (20-200 members) is the maximum level of organization they can achieve on their own, thus as a rule they will be dominated by humans.
Quote...This is because blink dogs [average intelligence] do not intellectually embrace the ethos of lawful good but are of that alignment instinctually; therefore, they do not speak the tongue used by lawful good....(DMG 1e, p. 24)
I assume that hobgoblins and other such creatures speak their alignment language, but they do so in a manner as indicated by Tolkien, in the same way that a parrot is taught to speak (see Morgoth's Ring), by imitation of superior creatures.
In my opinion this restriction on strategic acumen also applies to creatures of high intelligence, such as god-like beings like angels and demons. They can beat you at Chess, but only as a computer would. They are not living creatures, they do not have physical bodies (except when they manifest on the prime material plane), thus they do not grow and change as humans do; their alignments are invariable and they have no free will -- they must act out their alignments, intelligence notwithstanding. This also applies to intelligent undead who are "soulless monsters" (DMG 1e, p. 230); their state of mind is locked at the moment of death; so a lich who was obsessed with getting revenge against someone at the moment of death will forever have that obsession, to the exclusion of all other considerations.
Superior intelligence extends tactical capability only within the creature's particular purview. But strategic thought, imagination, vision, and free will -- these all remain exclusive to human beings. (a sci-fi game would presume the existence of other intelligent, free-willed beings; aliens.)
In Tolkien some of the earliest orcs might have been Maiar spirits (demons) in physical form. These would have been much more powerful than regular orcs, but after many generations of breeding with Men, Elves, and animals, they would've lost the ability to go back to spirit form. These degraded creatures would have souls like animals (which cease to exist after death), not immortal souls like humans. This interbreeding would explain the many different types of humanoids (including pig-faced orcs), but all would be base and vile creatures, mockeries of humanity and animals.
This is something I've struggled with for years, though, I keep falling back on using goblinoids as brutal savages and go-to adversaries in my campaigns. And in a way it's OK, I suppose, cuz there's certainly room for savage cultures, as they existed (and continue to exist to some extent) in real life--often at the periphery of civilization; a thorn in the side of empires. But such savage cultures are bound to adopt the technology of more advanced cultures around them, if only to survive against better equipped civilized warriors, as Germanic tribes and other "barbarian" peoples did in real life--which is along the lines of how I tend to portray orcs in terms of technical advancement.
One thing that always bothered me in particular was the treatment of goblins as low level brutish cannon fodder, when goblins are supposed to be comparable to humans in their level of intelligence. Why would small, cunning humanoids known for their craftiness in trap making behave as suicidal savages constantly storming human or dwarven strongholds poorly equipped in mass numbers only to be slaughtered en masse and die at the end of a human or dwarven blade?
Such a creature would adapt in order to make the most of their assets. Since they can't face larger or stronger races head on they would use cunning and guile instead--not just rush into the inevitable slaughter. Since they're cunning and inventive they would use their intelligence instead to become craftsmen and engineers. Since they're agile and small they would keep to the shadows and make effective thieves as well, making their homes beneath human cities, as marginalized ethnic groups sometimes do, acquiring a reputation for thievery and smuggling. Coupled with their talent with mechanical things they would also become locksmiths and trap makers--crafting security devices for the big folk in exchange for being allowed to dwell in the city. I also see them as experts in appraisal--capable of assessing the value of goods and perhaps using their underground connections to fence them.
This sounds like a likelier presentation of goblins to me than that of brutal suicidal savages too small to go toe to toe with larger yet persisting on trying anyways to their demise despite being smart enough to know better.
Quote from: SHARK;1118171What are your problems with Eberron, my friend?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
My issues with Eberron are mostly just personal preferences. I don't like the premise that Eberron is based upon that "if it exists in D&D, it exists in Eberron," at least not as it is commonly interpreted as a reason to just cram everything in there. For certain types of players, this becomes a "anything in print can be used in Eberron and the DM is a dick if he says no to me" line of bullshit. This can happen in any setting (e.g., Forgotten Realms) but Eberron seems to really bring this out in several players I've encountered. This even applies to edition updates, as the 5e version of Eberron has Dragonborn and Tieflings now
because of course it does and they have always been there. To be fair though, I guess a revisionist insertion is better than an asspull that sticks them in like they did in Forgotten Realms 4e.
Beyond this, the "society that integrates magic into everything" that Eberron is suppose to be just doesn't really feel right to me. The common people are supposed to have magical lighting and take magical conveyances to commute into the city to work each day (from over 200 miles away!) yet they simply cannot afford such because the economy is still based on what D&D sets up in the PHB (meaning the magic is once again just in the hands of PCs and significant NPCs). This doesn't necessarily impact gameplay, but it plays hell with my immersion into the world.
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. :p
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.
Quote from: Zalman;1118257This 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.
Oh absolutely, excellent point! For instance, the aggressive saltwater angler fish dudes in one of my own campaign worlds are extremely alien and don't mirror human societies much at all, so little in fact that the two can't even communicate with each other. As you can imagine this doesn't much help with peaceful relations... luckily they spend most of their time in the inky black depths.:)
Quote from: Zalman;1118257In 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).
That's cool! It calls to my mind the way the uruk-hai are born in the LotR films. I totally agree that not every monster needs some sort of ecology, culture or form of evolution beyond what you've described, in fact in some cases I find it not only unnecessary but patently absurd such as with for example elementals or golems. Come to think of it I have something similar to your black ooze in my setting, although it usually corrupts existing creatures into evil mindless monstrosities rather than spawning them outright.
Quote from: Zalman;1118257In 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).
This is something that definitely has an impact on how certain "humanoid" races can be portrayed in a setting. It makes sense for different races to have their own cultural development if you're treating them like something resembling a natural species with their own evolutionary development and minds capable of free will and personal hopes and desires. But if we're talking about artificially created beings or creatures born out of evil essences or strange magical substances then it becomes a question what those beings where created to accomplish and how much free thought their nature allows them.
If orcs in your world are magical creations made for conflict, like orcs in Middle Earth, then it makes more sense for those to be irredeemably evil or incapable of having anything but a destructive nature. But if they're born out of natural processes or are at least capable of free thought (even if artificially created) then things become more complicated.
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
Talislanta: The Savage Lands. Complete with tribe-mechanics, and mass-combat. 5e D&D rules which can be lifted and used in any 5e game. (or d6 or Tal classic if you're special).
Quote from: VisionStorm;1118264But if they're born out of natural processes or are at least capable of free thought (even if artificially created) then things become more complicated.
As I said about "humanizing" the opponents. Obviously we don't even want to even consider bringing a recognizable religion into the mix.
I believe that for a lot of people gaming is an outlet. It should be as guilt free as possible. In fact if we can visualize the opponents as "Pure EVIL" all the better.
However, there are some of us that like the "What If" side of things and that opens up possibilities that others may find uncomfortable.
Quote from: Greentongue;1118161You start "humanizing" the non-humans you make it much harder to kill them and take their stuff.
Have you noticed how few games have human opponents?
As you may know. The first step in war is dehumanizing your opponents. The reverse of what you are talking about.
Unless, you just mean giving them a recognizable structure to tear down.
Yes, it sometimes does make it harder to kill them and take their stuff. Actually, humans are frequently the foes of our human player-characters, perhaps the most frequent. The reason Goblins, Hobgoblins and Trolls are the enemy is their religion and their culture. A Troll on a Vow Hunt, can only kill and eat speaking prey, doesn't have to be dehumanized.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1118264This is something that definitely has an impact on how certain "humanoid" races can be portrayed in a setting. It makes sense for different races to have their own cultural development if you're treating them like something resembling a natural species with their own evolutionary development and minds capable of free will and personal hopes and desires. But if we're talking about artificially created beings or creatures born out of evil essences or strange magical substances then it becomes a question what those beings where created to accomplish and how much free thought their nature allows them.
If orcs in your world are magical creations made for conflict, like orcs in Middle Earth, then it makes more sense for those to be irredeemably evil or incapable of having anything but a destructive nature. But if they're born out of natural processes or are at least capable of free thought (even if artificially created) then things become more complicated.
Orcs in my campaigns are created to serve a would-be Dark Lord when one pops up, which is rare. Those that survive the Dark Lord's demise are still impossible to put up with and are eventually killed off, until the next Dark Lord. Goblins and Hobgoblins are tribal and the tribes that worship the Spider Goddess Charlotte (she also goes by other names) are hostile to all other sapient life. The tribes that worship Vishilaq, the Tiger Goddess, are a bit subtler in their evil but you can generally count on them to be hostile. There are examples of tribes that people can get along with but they are rare.
Quote from: ElBorak;1118210Oh 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.
Okay, you ignorant boomer fuck, how about this: how would you like it if I used Christianity in my D&D setting and made them out to be the villains all the time, treating your deity (presuming you are, of course, Christian) like the asshole that atheists often portray him as, then telling you to suck it up because it's just elf games?
Now you wouldn't like that very much, I imagine, primarily because you get pissy with people and accuse them of being some variety of leftist when they say something you don't like, which strikes me as "boomer conservative chic."
So how about we not include anything resembling real-world religions, hmm? And don't give me the whole "oh these are ancient heathen religions no one cares," because guess what, jackass: I fall into the Asatru camp. This shit fucking
matters way more than what you think is good fun for stupid elf games, and I'd appreciate it if you treated it with some degree of respect.
This is why we stay well away from things even beginning to look like they're real world religions, modern or ancient. I'm sorry you have all the imagination of a fucking gopher,
build your own fucking fantasy religion(s). Shit, I'll even allow thinly-veiled expies. Using the real world as inspiration for your own stuff is a given, as well: it's the only model we have for culture, so I don't see a problem with using it as inspiration or as a model. But straight-up ripping religions out of reality and including them in fantasy games? Fucking absolutely goddamn retarded, full stop.
No real-world politics, no real-world religion. This isn't fucking rocket science.
None of this applies, obviously, if you're doing a historical thing. Those are weird and not my cup of tea, but since real-world religions are part of real-world history, they are going to come up. I avoid them precisely because of this problem, but if you can do it and not be a dick about it, then you do you, I guess.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118289Okay, you ignorant boomer fuck, how about this: how would you like it if I used Christianity in my D&D setting and made them out to be the villains all the time, treating your deity (presuming you are, of course, Christian) like the asshole that atheists often portray him as, then telling you to suck it up because it's just elf games?
I would say, of course having you even met a Catholic? Evil to the bone.
Here's how I handle beastmen in ACKS. I have used barbarian horticultural cultures as the baseline, but I am explicit that they are cannibalistic chaotic-worshipping hybrids who genetically lack any capacity for compassion, kindness, or love whatsoever. Their sexual relations are just rape by the strong beastmen of the most fertile women, and their child-rearing is just child abuse until the strong ones grow up. Every beastman is a full-blown innate psychopath and cannot be redeemed. An adventurer in ACKS needn't worry about the lives of kobold children anymore than Ripley worries about the lives of facehuggers in ALIENS - killing them all is morally good and benefits humanity.
****
The monstrous humanoids known as beastmen were created by the Zaharans in the centuries before the Empyrean War. Through magical research, they combined humans and humanoids with beast stock in repeated cross-strains. Their creations included bugbears (hobgoblins and bears), gnolls (gnomes and trolls), kobolds (lizardmen and dogs), goblins (gnolls and dwarves), hobgoblins (men and goblins), ogres (men and gorillas), orcs (men and boars), and trolls (ogres and hydras).
Beastmen were created to be soldiers for the Zaharan army – ruthless and blood-thirsty, but susceptible to control by a powerful leader. In the absence of an external authority (such as a Zaharan sorcerer-king), beastmen organize themselves into bands of loosely-related gangs ruled by a chieftain. Endemic warfare between nearby bands is constant, until eventually one of the chieftains succeeds in unifying the bands into a clan under his rule.
Isolated bands usually have no permanent home, living a nomadic existence that follows seasonably available wild plants and game. Nomadic beastmen dwell in tents made from animal hides sewn together or woven hair wrapped around wooden poles. These tents are usually small, but can be as large as thirty feet in diameter. Less fortunate nomads may just take shelter where they can find it. Nomadic beastmen survive by hunting wildlife, gathering wild forage, and raiding civilized settlements. Roving bands are often composed of only males, their females having been lost to stronger rivals.
Established clans tend to permanently or semi-permanently dwell in ruins, caves, captured strongholds, or villages. Beastmen in villages generally live in roundhouses constructed of whatever materials are at hand. In wet, wooded climates, roundhouses with timber or wattle-and-daub walls and thatched roofs will dominate. In other terrain, the walls are constructed of mudbrick or stone, mortared with sand, soil, and dung, while the roof covering is of woven hair or animal-hide, sewn to short spars. Stone-lined pits are dug for iron forges, kilns, food storage, and waste. Sometimes the buildings are gathered to form a ring fort or hill-fort, surrounded by ditches, moats, earthen ramparts or piled stone walls.
When settled, beastmen clans practice horticulture, cultivating small plots of mixed crops using hand tools. Beastmen care nothing for crop rotation or soil sustainability, and will simply burn or cut away a clearing, then farm it until the soil is exhausted. It is not uncommon to find large tracts of exhausted scrub around beastmen settlements. In arid terrain, they may herd goats, sheep, cows, pigs, and other livestock that can graze on the scant vegetation. Beastmen tribes that have captured many prisoners in raids may have slave laborers working farms, but these are usually short-lived; beastmen do not breed or care for their slaves, and simply eat those that die.
Family relations are brutal; beastmen males are considerably larger than the females, whom they dominate. Both sexes lack the capacity for compassion, kindness, or love. High-status males maintain large harems, within which the females compete for provision and protection. Low-status males have no chance to mate at all, except by gaining status through violence or subterfuge. As a result, beastmen males typically spend much of their time fighting, hunting, and raiding. More than half die from wounds sustained in such activities before middle age. Females are left with responsibility for domestic labor such as farming, foraging, cooking, and camping. Beastmen care little for their prepubescent children, feeding them scraps and often exiling them to the edges of the camp fires. Many whelps die of exposure or under-nourishment, leaving just the toughest and most cunning to survive to adulthood.
Beastman females can craft blankets, clothing, furniture, tools, and shelter from the woven hair of sheep and goats, or the leather, bone, sinew, and hide of animals. Metal-working is the province of males, and is typically limited to working wrought iron in pit-furnaces. Knowledge of weapon- and armor-smithing is rare, with only a handful of smiths in a tribe. Knowledge is handed down orally within families.
There are no shops or standards of exchange in beastman settlements, but beastmen nevertheless prize wealth as a means to display their power, status, and valor in battle. A beastman with holdings of animals, food, mates, treasure, equipment, slaves, troops, gold, and weapons is inevitably a mighty and respected warrior within his band – for if he were he not tough enough to guard what he owns, he would soon lose it. The moment a beastman shows weakness, he soon finds himself stripped of all possessions.
To acquire better weapons, armor, and treasure, beastmen raid border settlements and trade with Kemesh and the Ivory Kingdoms. Beastmen mercenaries frequently serve in Kemeshi armies, bringing home weapons of steel, slaves, and treasure. Through raiding and trading, this loot spreads throughout the beastmen clans. Beastmen mercenaries may also bring knowledge of siege craft, engineering, and tactics to their tribe, and a tribe led by such a veteran can be very dangerous.
Beastmen warriors like to adorn themselves with war-paint, tattoos, and boy jewelry. They often wear their horn shorn to a single lock, in a great mane, or in a mohawk. They fight with slings, javelins, spears, bows, swords, morning stars, flails, and axes, and generally wear light armor, such as hide, leather, or scale. Champions and chieftains are, of course, better-equipped. Raids may be accompanied by blowing horns and war-pipes or beating drums. On the battlefield, their formations are irregular, relying on numbers, shock, and ferocity (hobgoblins are the sole exception, being as disciplined as Auran troops).
Beastmen worship the chthonic gods, with religious traditions passed on orally by shamans and witch-doctors. Bel, the Slaughterprince, is their favored god, but the full pantheon is recognized and called on when appropriate. After battle, they practice ceremonial cannibalism, believing that by eating the flesh of the slain they devour their souls and gain their strength. As is common within chthonic tradition, they preserve and bury their own dead, often with slaves, arms, armor, and treasure for great chieftains. Indeed, those who have studied the black lore of Zahar recognize beastman religion as a debased version of the Zaharan's own practices.
The beastman languages are actually a variety of vulgar dialects descended from the ancient Zaharan language. Scholars who have studied these dialects have discovered that their grammars and vocabularies have devolved along similar lines into pidgin-like simplicity, but their pronunciations have become quite varied due to the mutated lips, tongues, and vocal chords of the beastmen who speak them. Beastman dialects are rarely written, but if necessary they can be adequately represented with Zaharan glyphs.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118289This is why we stay well away from things even beginning to look like they're real world religions, modern or ancient.
I hope you never discover Yrth. You'll have an aneurysm.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;1118294Yrth
It's a stupid, bad idea.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118289Okay, you ignorant boomer fuck, how about this: how would you like it if I used Christianity in my D&D setting and made them out to be the villains all the time, treating your deity (presuming you are, of course, Christian) like the asshole that atheists often portray him as, then telling you to suck it up because it's just elf games?
I don't think I follow your point here. Plenty of movies, films, and TV shows use Christianity. And not just historically; for instance, Miles Cameron's Red Knight series uses Christianity in an explicitly fantasy setting. Is there something in particular about RPGs that you believe makes it unacceptable to do the same? What if all the players in the game are OK with it?
Personally, I think all religions share very similar gods and morality because human beings are very similar. Whether we're similar because we were made in God's image, or because we have a Jungian collective unconscious, or because we evolved to have similar spiritual needs filled by faux gods - it doesn't matter. The myths and gods are repeating patterns. History illustrates this for us; the gods are often known under numerous names in different languages, and the ancients tended to assume that similar gods with different names were just different words for the same god. Zeus was Ammon... Ishtar was Inanna... etc.
For that reason I don't see much difference between, say, using Christianity directly or using "the Magisterium" or "the Sept" or other ersatz Christianity. It's just a new label on the same thing. In both cases, if the GM fills the Church with pedophiliac torture-loving inquisitors, I can easily take offense as a Christian, and I can just as easily say that what's being portrayed isn't real Christianity. Likewise, if Zeus, Jupiter, and Ammon were all seen as the same god, then if I call my sky-thunderer-patriarch Imran, am I actually creating a new god, or am I just assigning a new label to the same god?
Trying to use logic ... has that ever worked?
---
ACKS does look like an interesting system. I have some of the stuff but finding people to play is always a challenge.
Quote from: amacris;1118297I don't think I follow your point here. ... I think all religions share very similar gods and morality because human beings are very similar.
The point is that people tend to take their religions seriously, and fictionalized portrayals are going to irritate someone (this is not a matter of "if," but "when"). Elf games in particular are susceptible to this because it's a very participatory thing; if a movie or book is portraying your religion in a way you don't like, you put it down. If your buddy the DM is portraying your religion in a way that's disrespectful, it's significantly worse because you know the person in question doing the thing (whereas the author of a book or director of a movie is most likely not in your monkeysphere so it has less impact).
This is further amplified by the fact that deities in D&D are typically a lot more active than we see in the real world. It just... it's a mess.
Unless you're doing a real-world modern or historical thing - and maybe there are some other weird cases, as well - there's not really a good reason to wholesale import real-world religions in a D&D game. There's just not.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118289Okay, you ignorant boomer fuck, how about this: how would you like it if I used Christianity in my D&D setting and made them out to be the villains all the time, treating your deity (presuming you are, of course, Christian) like the asshole that atheists often portray him as, then telling you to suck it up because it's just elf games?
That pretty much describes the basis of my homebrew setting for Lamentations of the Flame Princess (currently in hiatus). Adding in all the nonsense with relics, saints and miracles... and a version of Jehovah that bears a good resemblance to old uncaring Azathoth.
As for non-humans... I tend to default to humans for my monstrous needs... unless I need something particularly weird and alien. Like, I have goblins in my Lamentations setting, but they're born from human abortions and their 'culture' is a mockery of human values. They're not an organized tribe... more like a spiritual plague.
Never used orcs/kobolds/bugbears much... Skaven are a temptation though, again as a sort of subterranean antipode of mankind.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118289Okay, you ignorant boomer fuck, how about this: how would you like it if I used Christianity in my D&D setting and made them out to be the villains all the time, treating your deity (presuming you are, of course, Christian) like the asshole that atheists often portray him as, then telling you to suck it up because it's just elf games?
Now you wouldn't like that very much, I imagine, primarily because you get pissy with people and accuse them of being some variety of leftist when they say something you don't like, which strikes me as "boomer conservative chic."
So how about we not include anything resembling real-world religions, hmm? And don't give me the whole "oh these are ancient heathen religions no one cares," because guess what, jackass: I fall into the Asatru camp. This shit fucking matters way more than what you think is good fun for stupid elf games, and I'd appreciate it if you treated it with some degree of respect.
This is why we stay well away from things even beginning to look like they're real world religions, modern or ancient. I'm sorry you have all the imagination of a fucking gopher, build your own fucking fantasy religion(s). Shit, I'll even allow thinly-veiled expies. Using the real world as inspiration for your own stuff is a given, as well: it's the only model we have for culture, so I don't see a problem with using it as inspiration or as a model. But straight-up ripping religions out of reality and including them in fantasy games? Fucking absolutely goddamn retarded, full stop.
No real-world politics, no real-world religion. This isn't fucking rocket science.
None of this applies, obviously, if you're doing a historical thing. Those are weird and not my cup of tea, but since real-world religions are part of real-world history, they are going to come up. I avoid them precisely because of this problem, but if you can do it and not be a dick about it, then you do you, I guess.
I think you are doing a fine job of showing how you are unable to handle it, but that doesnt mean everyone has the same hangups. For some gamers (and nongamers too), what you are decrying as badwrongfun is nothing of the sort.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118302The point is that people tend to take their religions seriously, and fictionalized portrayals are going to irritate someone (this is not a matter of "if," but "when"). Elf games in particular are susceptible to this because it's a very participatory thing; if a movie or book is portraying your religion in a way you don't like, you put it down. If your buddy the DM is portraying your religion in a way that's disrespectful, it's significantly worse because you know the person in question doing the thing (whereas the author of a book or director of a movie is most likely not in your monkeysphere so it has less impact).
This is further amplified by the fact that deities in D&D are typically a lot more active than we see in the real world. It just... it's a mess.
Unless you're doing a real-world modern or historical thing - and maybe there are some other weird cases, as well - there's not really a good reason to wholesale import real-world religions in a D&D game. There's just not.
I 100% agree that people do tend to take their religion seriously. 100% agree.
Where I think we disagree is on whether using fictionalized religions makes it any better. I don't think it does. I think *any* religion in an RPG is going to offend those who want to be offended.
Let me give you two examples.
1) People who dislike Christianity dislike Chronicles of Narnia. There is no explicit mention of God, Jesus, or Christianity in any of the books, but we all know what's what; and people with negative sentiments towards Jesus feel the same way towards Aslan.
2) People who like Christianity dislike His Dark Materials. Again, there is no explicit mention of Jesus or Christianity in any of the books, but again we all know what's what; and people with positive sentiments towards Jesus are annoyed at Pullman's portrayal.
Based on those cases (and many others), I conclude that people who get offended about religion in RPGs will be offended whether I use the real-world religion or an ersatz version that is inspired by or analogous to it (TV Tropes "https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCounterpartReligion"). Perhaps they wouldn't be offended by a truly unique religion that is unlike anything ever in the real world...but I've honestly never ever seen such a religion in any fantasy material ever.
Since I think religion is an important part of mankind's history, I always include religions in my game. Since I know this will annoy some people, my solution therefore is not to game with people who are annoyed by it.
E.g. your position is:
1. I want to include religion in my game.
2. It's not fun to have people be offended in your game.
3. If I use real-world religion, I will offend some people.
4. If I use fantasy religion, I will not offend those people.
5. Therefore I should use fantasy religion. The problem is real world religion.
And mine is:
1. I want to include religion in my game.
2. It's not fun to have people be offended in your game.
3. If I use real-world religion, I will offend some people.
4. If I use fantasy religion, I will still offend those people.
5. Therefore I should not play with those people. The problem is the people.
So we agree on 1, 2, and 3, but our difference in 4 means we reach different conclusions for 5.
Quote from: Zalman;1118257In 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).
Getting kind of bored with the tangent, so I'm going back to this. ^^^
See, this is the kind of thing I can get behind. Having an actual explanation for why certain races(if they can even properly be called that) aren't actually sapient moral agents is something I'd totally accept if done well. There might still be some philosophical issues - I don't expect the average game designer to be a philosopher, after all - but I can suspend disbelief easily enough and not let that bother me. Whether you go this route or you go the route of giving the various races actual culture, all I'm really wanting is a decent explanation. In the former case, I can see my character not exactly being
happy with mowing the monstrous humanoids down, much like how they wouldn't feel good about putting down a rabid dog. It's necessary, but you don't have to like it. If the latter, then . . . well, that's when things get more complicated(but IMO usually more fun).
I really liked how Earthdawn handled certain things. One great example is the Ork's gahad, which is where their reputation for violence comes from. It's a physiological condition that occurs in states of extreme emotion. The Ork
must act on it or their brain literally begins to boil. It can be done, but doing so always causes pain and too much will shave years off of their already-short lives. Fellow Orks understand, but members of other races often don't get it or don't think it's as serious as it is and have no idea just what they're asking of an Ork when they say "just keep it in" or "just ignore it" or whatever. A very cool detail on its own, I think, but even better for its explanatory power. You can see why Orks get marginalized a lot, and why even people sympathetic to them might still be wary since every Ork is different and you don't always know what's going to set off a specific person's gahad.
That's just one example of some good worldbuilding using a race normally considered "monsters" in other games. Earthdawn does this a lot. It takes something from older games(mostly D&D, let's be real) and builds an explanation around it. In this case, the Ork's perceived penchant for various types of violence. If they are sapient, and if they aren't evil, then
why do they blow up like they do? Answer: physiological reason that pushes them to action lest they incur internal injuries and possibly shave years off of their lives. This then hurts other races' perceptions of Orks, making them more likely to do or say something to set off gahad, and thus a perpetuating cycle is born.
I might not care for the rules that much, but I really loved reading the lore stuff in Earthdawn. Good stuff.
Quote from: Shasarak;1118292I would say, of course having you even met a Catholic? Evil to the bone.
This Catholic will pray for you.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118289Okay, you ignorant boomer fuck, how about this: how would you like it if I used Christianity in my D&D setting and made them out to be the villains all the time, treating your deity (presuming you are, of course, Christian) like the asshole that atheists often portray him as, then telling you to suck it up because it's just elf games?
Assuming that I am not being forced to play in your game (I imagine that would be excruciating in and of itself) go for it, why should I care what you do in your game? Sure I and others in other discussions advocate for the things that have been found to be fun for a lot of people. But every DM is welcome and expected to do his own thing at his own table.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118289Now you wouldn't like that very much, I imagine, primarily because you get pissy with people and accuse them of being some variety of leftist when they say something you don't like, which strikes me as "boomer conservative chic."
Thanks for the compliment I am a boomer conservative. I tend to get upset when people try to paint me with any of the leftist perversions which I do not ascribe to. Just like leftist get upset about good morals and decent behavior.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118289And don't give me the whole "oh these are ancient heathen religions no one cares," because guess what, jackass: I fall into the Asatru camp.
I'm sorry, I hope you get some help with that. I have gamed with people who claimed to believe in all kinds of pagan stuff, I had fun gaming with them, but I never for a moment believed they were stupid enough to believe any of the nonsense they were spouting.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118289No real-world politics, no real-world religion.
We'll have to disagree on that, I use both. OH and yea, I do file the names off and use my own names, but the basics I leave alone and use as is. When you want a really evil religion, it is really hard come up with something more evil than the real thing.
Quote from: Shasarak;1118292I would say, of course having you even met a Catholic? Evil to the bone.
I wasn't expecting that, ice tea came out my nose, at least I avoided the keyboard.:cool:
Quote from: GeekEclectic;1118294I hope you never discover Yrth. You'll have an aneurysm.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118296It's a stupid, bad idea.
Start a new thread about Yrth so that he can avoid it.
Quote from: amacris;1118305E.g. your position is:
1. I want to include religion in my game.
2. It's not fun to have people be offended in your game.
3. If I use real-world religion, I will offend some people.
4. If I use fantasy religion, I will not offend those people.
5. Therefore I should use fantasy religion. The problem is real world religion.
And mine is:
1. I want to include religion in my game.
2. It's not fun to have people be offended in your game.
3. If I use real-world religion, I will offend some people.
4. If I use fantasy religion, I will still offend those people.
5. Therefore I should not play with those people. The problem is the people.
So we agree on 1, 2, and 3, but our difference in 4 means we reach different conclusions for 5.
Nailed it!
Quote from: GeekEclectic;1118315Getting kind of bored with the tangent, so I'm going back to this. ^^^
See, this is the kind of thing I can get behind. Having an actual explanation for why certain races(if they can even properly be called that) aren't actually sapient moral agents is something I'd totally accept if done well. There might still be some philosophical issues - I don't expect the average game designer to be a philosopher, after all - but I can suspend disbelief easily enough and not let that bother me. Whether you go this route or you go the route of giving the various races actual culture, all I'm really wanting is a decent explanation. In the former case, I can see my character not exactly being happy with mowing the monstrous humanoids down, much like how they wouldn't feel good about putting down a rabid dog. It's necessary, but you don't have to like it. If the latter, then . . . well, that's when things get more complicated(but IMO usually more fun).
I really liked how Earthdawn handled certain things. One great example is the Ork's gahad, which is where their reputation for violence comes from. It's a physiological condition that occurs in states of extreme emotion. The Ork must act on it or their brain literally begins to boil. It can be done, but doing so always causes pain and too much will shave years off of their already-short lives. Fellow Orks understand, but members of other races often don't get it or don't think it's as serious as it is and have no idea just what they're asking of an Ork when they say "just keep it in" or "just ignore it" or whatever. A very cool detail on its own, I think, but even better for its explanatory power. You can see why Orks get marginalized a lot, and why even people sympathetic to them might still be wary since every Ork is different and you don't always know what's going to set off a specific person's gahad.
That's just one example of some good worldbuilding using a race normally considered "monsters" in other games. Earthdawn does this a lot. It takes something from older games(mostly D&D, let's be real) and builds an explanation around it. In this case, the Ork's perceived penchant for various types of violence. If they are sapient, and if they aren't evil, then why do they blow up like they do? Answer: physiological reason that pushes them to action lest they incur internal injuries and possibly shave years off of their lives. This then hurts other races' perceptions of Orks, making them more likely to do or say something to set off gahad, and thus a perpetuating cycle is born.
I might not care for the rules that much, but I really loved reading the lore stuff in Earthdawn. Good stuff.
I've never looked at Earthdawn, I will have to look around and see what I can find, that sounds like a very good inspirational resource.
Quote from: Zalman;1118257This 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).
There's an even simpler solution.
Nits become lice. At what point do you deal with the problem?
Volo's Guide to Monsters, for D&D 5E
Monster Codex, for Pathfinder 1E
Are both great sources for building upon the typical Monster Manual / Bestiary content.
Are people still laying down the law on the internet like they have some kind of authority? And people responded with "Fuck You I won't do what you tell me!". And then, like, they doubled down and shit?
Weird.
If you'll excuse me, I have to touch up some of the saints in my Catholic religion simulacrum. They need more... controversy I think. Happy Gaming!!
Quote from: GeekEclectic;1118315I really liked how Earthdawn handled certain things. One great example is the Ork's gahad, which is where their reputation for violence comes from. It's a physiological condition that occurs in states of extreme emotion. The Ork must act on it or their brain literally begins to boil.
This reminds me of the Ramian from
Jorune... giants who occasionally grow tusks and go on violent binges.
I find it ironic (and sad) that this thread has devolved into bickering about not including IRL religions in Elf games started by someone purporting to be Asatru, which is the religion from the culture that got us elves in fantasy games. :rolleyes:
I used to consider myself neo-pagan. I would not care about people including elements of IRL paganism in games, but would welcome it. I doubt many Christians would care about portraying Christianity in game either.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1118353I used to consider myself neo-pagan. I would not care about people including elements of IRL paganism in games, but would welcome it. I doubt many Christians would care about portraying Christianity in game either.
So long as you're not pulling your interpretation of Catholicism from Chick Tracts, sure.
For example, I actually didn't mind how it was portrayed in Vampire the Masquerade lore (there was a bit about how a Catholic Priest with the True Faith merit could consecrate the cup and, provided the vampire could make the humanity check, a vampire could actually drink and regain blood points from drinking it... they're also likely to pick up the True Faith merit themselves and things like not being able to feed on Catholic clergy or even practicing Catholics if this is a recurring thing). I thought the "Wormwood" ending in the Gehenna book with God offering one final shot at redemption before wiping away vampires entirely (including His reasons for holding off final judgement for so long) had some solid religious themes and exploration that were set up to be explored (the one time I saw it actually run, the GM dropped a last minute "would you sacrifice your salvation for an old dying homeless man?" on the group and only those who went to help ended up actually being saved).
The key for me is; if you're going to include a religion in your game then respect that religion. Don't treat it as a joke or as a caricature. You don't have to sugar-coat things; by all means throw in things like the anti-popes and the wars associated with trying to suppress the Protestant Reformation. But don't exaggerate them or paint things that happened a dozen or more generations ago as what defines the religion today.
It also doesn't hurt to actually study how various religions were really practiced. One GM I know has a hard time depicting pagan religions (this one supposedly a Greco-Roman expy) as anything other than in the Christian framework where each god is its own Protestant-style denomination with regular Sunday worship and Ministers/Priests who act just like Christian ones do. They simply have no other frame of reference for religion.
If you're going to do a genuinely Roman expy then study up on the real thing and how it intersected with daily life for the citizens so you don't look ignorant (point number one being; the Roman Way was a STATE religion; the leadership were the religious leaders and you participated on pain of death... Judaism got a pass because it was older than the founding of Rome, but the main reason for persecuting the Christians was they refused to participate in the state religion).
At the risk of continuing the tangent ...
I often don't like real world religion, politics, or any other direct cultural analogs in my elf games. This dislike, however, is more aesthetic than prudential. Probably isn't a coincidence that I also have close to zero interest in running or playing in a historical setting. I did run a setting long ago that had every major race as a direct analog to an ancient or medieval culture. Elves were medieval Italians. Goblins were ancient Chinese. But that was mostly played for laughs and unabashedly stereotypical to set up the non-stereotypical reverse over and over again.
What I do want now is the fantastical. The most practical and aesthetically pleasing means for me to achieve that is to develop each game culture from the ground up. Of course I'm going to pull from real world cultures to do that, because I'm only human, and so are the players. It has to be something to which they can relate. I've got a culture in the process of being developed right now that's a mix of Roman, Celtic, and Norse elements on the surface and in the languages. However, the attitudes of the culture are not recognizably from those cultures, except insomuch as people are people everywhere. Meanwhile, the local "kobolds" are hearkening back to some Germanic roots, with a dose of redcaps, Norse dwarves, Renaissance fey, and some local cultural things that aren't meant to be shared with other "kobold" cultures the players might meet.
As far as player interaction, I want the middle ground between soulless beastmen and just another brand of humans reskinned as something. I'd rather err towards the former than the latter, but still want to pull up just short. Something like the very fey, amoral elves that are possible and advantageous to interact with, but never completely trusted--and for good reasons.
By way of analogy, it's also my approach to powerful magic items. I don't want them to be great or completely cursed or such. I want a good item to have a minor curse, so that the player has an incentive to keep the item and deal with it. Even the cultures that are practically beastmen need to have a little hook to keep them interesting. Normally, you'd kill trolls on sight, but they have their virtues, in their own context, that might make dealing with them preferable in some cases.
Quote from: SHARK;1118152Whenever dealing with bands and tribes of monstrous humanoids, do you make any of them larger tribal societies which develop some kind of culture?
In general, no. I prefer to have monstrous humanoids remain monstrous, so I tend to keep their culture and such mysterious and "off-screen." I think if you develop them (or at least expose that to players) too much you're in danger of "orcs are people too, just different..." territory. Some gamers might enjoy exploring such things and the moral dilemmas that tend to go along with them, but it's not something I do with monstrous humanoids. To me, it's a game thing: keeping monstrous humanoids as true "monsters" is convenient for the kind of game I like to run. If I want to explore varied cultures (and possible moral dilemmas in game), I'm much more likely to do it with human (or possibly demi-human) cultures.
Some old content I have here I thought would be pertinent. :) Comes from an older topic where I practiced making gothic magic items.
Quote from: Opaopajr;746135'Bleed in the Dark' Goblin Courtship Jewelry
Comprised of rhodochrosite (pink) & obsidian (black) beads. Rhodochrosite retains a darker red hue in longer wavelengths, and thus in the darkness of tunnels for those with dim vision appears reminiscent of glowing blood. The shimmering volcanic glass seems like the ichor of non-oxygenated blood or lymph -- or just the all consuming darkness of where they live.
As goblin courtship is often filled with the violent passion of animalistic bites and scratches, these art pieces represents this lustful possessiveness in lasting style. Male and female goblins can wear these, and often it is worn where they themselves were inflicted a 'wound of love'. Some popular variants are:
Bitten Finger - a wide band beaded ring or ring sleeve, sometime a cap if bitten off;
Leg Gash - a cilice, usually worn by men stabbed in the thigh;
Torn Throat - a necklace choker, the greater bead cascade the more one bled;
Cracked Cowl - a unisex skullcap to commemorate a love bash to the head;
Ripped Ear - usually a cap or covering over the holes left by ear avulsions;
Blood Tears Veil - a beaded veil with red tears, often for funerals or mourning the death (murder?) of your unrequited love.
Quote from: amacris;1118293Here's how I handle beastmen in ACKS. I have used barbarian horticultural cultures as the baseline, but I am explicit that they are cannibalistic chaotic-worshipping hybrids who genetically lack any capacity for compassion, kindness, or love whatsoever. Their sexual relations are just rape by the strong beastmen of the most fertile women, and their child-rearing is just child abuse until the strong ones grow up. Every beastman is a full-blown innate psychopath and cannot be redeemed. An adventurer in ACKS needn't worry about the lives of kobold children anymore than Ripley worries about the lives of facehuggers in ALIENS - killing them all is morally good and benefits humanity.
****
The monstrous humanoids known as beastmen were created by the Zaharans in the centuries before the Empyrean War. Through magical research, they combined humans and humanoids with beast stock in repeated cross-strains. Their creations included bugbears (hobgoblins and bears), gnolls (gnomes and trolls), kobolds (lizardmen and dogs), goblins (gnolls and dwarves), hobgoblins (men and goblins), ogres (men and gorillas), orcs (men and boars), and trolls (ogres and hydras).
Beastmen were created to be soldiers for the Zaharan army – ruthless and blood-thirsty, but susceptible to control by a powerful leader. In the absence of an external authority (such as a Zaharan sorcerer-king), beastmen organize themselves into bands of loosely-related gangs ruled by a chieftain. Endemic warfare between nearby bands is constant, until eventually one of the chieftains succeeds in unifying the bands into a clan under his rule.
Isolated bands usually have no permanent home, living a nomadic existence that follows seasonably available wild plants and game. Nomadic beastmen dwell in tents made from animal hides sewn together or woven hair wrapped around wooden poles. These tents are usually small, but can be as large as thirty feet in diameter. Less fortunate nomads may just take shelter where they can find it. Nomadic beastmen survive by hunting wildlife, gathering wild forage, and raiding civilized settlements. Roving bands are often composed of only males, their females having been lost to stronger rivals.
Established clans tend to permanently or semi-permanently dwell in ruins, caves, captured strongholds, or villages. Beastmen in villages generally live in roundhouses constructed of whatever materials are at hand. In wet, wooded climates, roundhouses with timber or wattle-and-daub walls and thatched roofs will dominate. In other terrain, the walls are constructed of mudbrick or stone, mortared with sand, soil, and dung, while the roof covering is of woven hair or animal-hide, sewn to short spars. Stone-lined pits are dug for iron forges, kilns, food storage, and waste. Sometimes the buildings are gathered to form a ring fort or hill-fort, surrounded by ditches, moats, earthen ramparts or piled stone walls.
When settled, beastmen clans practice horticulture, cultivating small plots of mixed crops using hand tools. Beastmen care nothing for crop rotation or soil sustainability, and will simply burn or cut away a clearing, then farm it until the soil is exhausted. It is not uncommon to find large tracts of exhausted scrub around beastmen settlements. In arid terrain, they may herd goats, sheep, cows, pigs, and other livestock that can graze on the scant vegetation. Beastmen tribes that have captured many prisoners in raids may have slave laborers working farms, but these are usually short-lived; beastmen do not breed or care for their slaves, and simply eat those that die.
Family relations are brutal; beastmen males are considerably larger than the females, whom they dominate. Both sexes lack the capacity for compassion, kindness, or love. High-status males maintain large harems, within which the females compete for provision and protection. Low-status males have no chance to mate at all, except by gaining status through violence or subterfuge. As a result, beastmen males typically spend much of their time fighting, hunting, and raiding. More than half die from wounds sustained in such activities before middle age. Females are left with responsibility for domestic labor such as farming, foraging, cooking, and camping. Beastmen care little for their prepubescent children, feeding them scraps and often exiling them to the edges of the camp fires. Many whelps die of exposure or under-nourishment, leaving just the toughest and most cunning to survive to adulthood.
Beastman females can craft blankets, clothing, furniture, tools, and shelter from the woven hair of sheep and goats, or the leather, bone, sinew, and hide of animals. Metal-working is the province of males, and is typically limited to working wrought iron in pit-furnaces. Knowledge of weapon- and armor-smithing is rare, with only a handful of smiths in a tribe. Knowledge is handed down orally within families.
There are no shops or standards of exchange in beastman settlements, but beastmen nevertheless prize wealth as a means to display their power, status, and valor in battle. A beastman with holdings of animals, food, mates, treasure, equipment, slaves, troops, gold, and weapons is inevitably a mighty and respected warrior within his band – for if he were he not tough enough to guard what he owns, he would soon lose it. The moment a beastman shows weakness, he soon finds himself stripped of all possessions.
To acquire better weapons, armor, and treasure, beastmen raid border settlements and trade with Kemesh and the Ivory Kingdoms. Beastmen mercenaries frequently serve in Kemeshi armies, bringing home weapons of steel, slaves, and treasure. Through raiding and trading, this loot spreads throughout the beastmen clans. Beastmen mercenaries may also bring knowledge of siege craft, engineering, and tactics to their tribe, and a tribe led by such a veteran can be very dangerous.
Beastmen warriors like to adorn themselves with war-paint, tattoos, and boy jewelry. They often wear their horn shorn to a single lock, in a great mane, or in a mohawk. They fight with slings, javelins, spears, bows, swords, morning stars, flails, and axes, and generally wear light armor, such as hide, leather, or scale. Champions and chieftains are, of course, better-equipped. Raids may be accompanied by blowing horns and war-pipes or beating drums. On the battlefield, their formations are irregular, relying on numbers, shock, and ferocity (hobgoblins are the sole exception, being as disciplined as Auran troops).
Beastmen worship the chthonic gods, with religious traditions passed on orally by shamans and witch-doctors. Bel, the Slaughterprince, is their favored god, but the full pantheon is recognized and called on when appropriate. After battle, they practice ceremonial cannibalism, believing that by eating the flesh of the slain they devour their souls and gain their strength. As is common within chthonic tradition, they preserve and bury their own dead, often with slaves, arms, armor, and treasure for great chieftains. Indeed, those who have studied the black lore of Zahar recognize beastman religion as a debased version of the Zaharan's own practices.
The beastman languages are actually a variety of vulgar dialects descended from the ancient Zaharan language. Scholars who have studied these dialects have discovered that their grammars and vocabularies have devolved along similar lines into pidgin-like simplicity, but their pronunciations have become quite varied due to the mutated lips, tongues, and vocal chords of the beastmen who speak them. Beastman dialects are rarely written, but if necessary they can be adequately represented with Zaharan glyphs.
Greetings!
Outstanding, my friend! I love all the little details! It also makes encounters with such beastmen more interesting as well. Even in such barbaric and animal form, their savage culture and habits distinguish themselves from other dark, brute races such as Hobgoblins or Orcs.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1118415In general, no. I prefer to have monstrous humanoids remain monstrous, so I tend to keep their culture and such mysterious and "off-screen." I think if you develop them (or at least expose that to players) too much you're in danger of "orcs are people too, just different..." territory. Some gamers might enjoy exploring such things and the moral dilemmas that tend to go along with them, but it's not something I do with monstrous humanoids. To me, it's a game thing: keeping monstrous humanoids as true "monsters" is convenient for the kind of game I like to run. If I want to explore varied cultures (and possible moral dilemmas in game), I'm much more likely to do it with human (or possibly demi-human) cultures.
Greetings!
Excellent, Philotomy Jurament. I can see why you like to keep their monster cultures vague. The added benefit to having them fulfill their savage roles as antagonists and seldom needing to inspire players to ponder the monster's "rights and feelings" as it were. *Laughs* Honestly, that philosophy has a strong appeal for myself, as well.
I am fortunate that many of my players easily view such races in a heroic, mythical kind of attitude, seeing such creatures as embodying primal forces of chaos, evil, darkness and savagery, and must therefore be opposed and resisted at every turn, as a matter of principle and desire to defend civilization, no matter how imperfect such may be otherwise, at least to some.
On occasion I have to deal with a player that views themselves as being some kind of defender of universal morality. Such players are usually in for a rather rough time of it from the other players, as you can probably well imagine.:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
In a gonzo type of game, humanoids can have any level of society you might want.