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.

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?

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" 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.