All this discussion about humanoids lately has my mind awhirl with myriad thread ideas. This one follows along the lines previously proposed about how each of us DMs humanoids, especially with respect to the level of cultural 'sophistication' and advancement.
1) For instance, do you consider the humanoids in your game to be Paleolithic (Stone Age), Bronze Age, Iron Age, or Steel Age?
2) Are some humanoids more advanced than others?
3) Are some humanoids more abundant than others?
4) Do your humanoids live in small tribes, larger towns, or even cities?
5) Are they hunter/gatherers, agrarian, or merely plunderers and despoilers?
1. Orcs and such have access to the same metals as everyone else (and as sturdy, subterranean creatures are more than competent miners, though they force slaves to do the work if they can) and have learned human metallurgy (who could stop them?), though they're not the best in the world at it. Their culture values warriors more than craftsmen (or miners), and weapons captured in battle or inherited from their ancestors have more resonance for them than virginal weapons that have never seen blood. As such, an orc will always choose a weapon taken from a fallen foe that proves his battle-prowess before taking a freshly-forged thing from an orcish (or any other) smith. Human see orcs with scavenged, piecemeal arms and armor and think they're somehow too stupid to work metal. Even if this was so, they wouldn't be inexplicably bound to bronze, copper, or stone.
2. On the other end of the spectrum, the wild orcs and hobgoblins of the Northlands are very close to their neighbors, the Rovers of the Barrens and the Wolf and Tiger Barbarians in culture, and as such not as advanced or civilized as those in the southern states. Those who live closer to civilization have learned more from civilization.
3. Bugbears are rarer than hobgoblins. Hobgoblins are rarer than orcs. Orcs are rarer than goblins.
4. Some orcs and hobgoblins live in cities, certainly: Molag, Highport, Blue, Dorokaa, Spinecastle, and some of the cities of the former Great Kingdom all tolerate orcs and goblinkind. Greyhawk City did prior to the rise of Turrosh Mak, but life in Greyhawk City has been hard for those with orcish blood since then. Other tribes live in caves and ruins. Hobgoblins are better builders than orcs.
5. Some of the monstrous nonhuman cultures will keep domesticated animals, including cattle, horses, and dogs as ugly as they are, as both companions and meat. Hobgoblins will eat their domesticated apes, though this isn't their primary purpose. They will eat human, elven, dwarven, and halfling slaves in a pinch, though there are faster-maturing animals that make for cheaper meat and some groups may have taboos against defiling their bodies with the accursed blood of humans, dwarves, or elves (nobody has a problem with eating halflings - I mean, who cares?). The most savage tribes are purely hunter/gatherers, but most are more than smart enough to practice animal husbandry. If they keep animals as hunting companions and guardians, they can certainly keep them for food. Orcs and most goblinoids (except goblins) are carnivorous and may actually be allergic to grain, though they aren't averse to stealing grain from humans to feed their animals with, or even forcing human slaves to provide them with regular tributes of grain. There are certain herbs, roots, and berries that they find edible and gather from the wild. Underground, many tribes deliberately raise fungi, fertilizing their gardens with corpses, dung, and whatever else the fungi seem to like. They supplement their meals with raiding and hunting.
1) For instance, do you consider the humanoids in your game to be Paleolithic (Stone Age), Bronze Age, Iron Age, or Steel Age?
I've vacilated a few times on this, but generally speaking, I consider orcs and hobgoblins to be the most advanced technologically. This is due to their military style structure and how they seem to be warring constantly with other dominant races, esp. dwarves and elves. I don't think orcs and hobgoblins could compete effectively with their demi-human racial enemies if they were somehow 'backwoods' with respect to armor and weaponsmithing technologies. I wouldn't necessarily put them 'on par' with dwarves and elves in the crafting of such items, but they are not unskilled savages, either. For orcs and hobgoblins, I usually put them in the Iron or Steel Age category UNLESS I wanted to DM a truly primitive tribal structure. I've never featured a lot of goblins in my games, but I'd consider them about as skilled as orcs/hobgoblins, or slightly less so.
Ogres, bugbears, gnolls, and kobolds...I treat them as technologically inferior to the more militant, organized humanoids. If I had to delineate it, I'd rule gnolls towards the top, then bugbears, and ogres and kobolds at the very bottom.
Quote:
2) Are some humanoids more advanced than others?
Answered above.
Quote:
3) Are some humanoids more abundant than others?
The frequency ratings are given in the various manuals, but it seems that orcs are the most common humanoid encountered in my campaigns. That may be a DM-based bias, however. After that, it seems that ogres and goblins tend to crop up a fair amount, followed by hobgoblins and gnolls in roughly the same frequency. Bugbears are rare, and I don't recall the last time I rolled up an encounter with kobolds!
Quote:
4) Do your humanoids live in small tribes, larger towns, or even cities?
I know there are cities harboring large numbers of humanoids, and these are listed in the various sourceguides. Barring those listed, my humanoids tend to fall into tribal structures, although some of these can be quite large. In a former game that I ran located in the Abbor-alz, the main enemies were a LARGE tribe of orcs (with several ogres). They were a roving group that had claimed a huge swath of territory.
Quote:
5) Are they hunter/gatherers, agrarian, or merely plunderers and despoilers?
I don't see most humanoids in the agrarian camp. To me they are hunters and gatherers who supplement by pillaging others for loot, treasure, slaves, food...and FUN!
I also concurr with Rasgon's positions on the various aspects of humanoid ecology discussed herein, but will elaborate a bit as applicable to my own campaign.
Lanthorn wrote:
1) For instance, do you consider the humanoids in your game to be Paleolithic (Stone Age), Bronze Age, Iron Age, or Steel Age?
I consider them to be about Iron Age. By that, I mean that they can fashion any kind of weapon or armor that humankind and its allies can, but they lack the craftsmanship to make true works of art. Thus, humanoid smiths never produce field or full plate or the like nor masterwork items of any sort. This is due to two main facts: a) they, generally, lack the intelligence to become master craftsmen, and b) their society discourages the few truly skilled individuals amongst their race from dedicating themselves to such a craft. Those exceptional individuals become war leaders, not smiths.
Quote:
2) Are some humanoids more advanced than others?
Yes, based upon the races' average intelligences. Basically the same as mentioned above by others.
Quote:
3) Are some humanoids more abundant than others?
Yes, the more powerful the average hit die of the humanoid race, the less prolific they are. Thus, goblins and kobolds would overrun the Flanaess without more powerful predators (humankind, other humanoids, and monsters) keeping their numbers in check (much as rabbits would without wolves), while bugbears and ogres reproduce much less frequently. Orcs and hobgoblins, falling in the middle, reproduce more quickly than humans, but live only about 40 years if they die of old age, so their numbers balance out with humanity barring outside influences.
Quote:
4) Do your humanoids live in small tribes, larger towns, or even cities?
All three, depending upon the needs of my campaign, though true cities of humanoids are extremely rare and exceptions to the norm. Mostly, this is because of the baseness of the humanoid society. Though I don't consider humanoids carnivors, as Rasgon mentioned, but rather omnivores, they are bloodthirsty and belicose by nature, preferring to pillage and kill for food than to grow or raise it themselves. They also dislike work, the like of which would be required to actually build a city. Thus, they tend to prefer cavern systems and the ruins of human/demi-human civilizations.
Quote:
5) Are they hunter/gatherers, agrarian, or merely plunderers and despoilers?
As mentioned above, they are capable of living any of those lives when necessary, but their nature dictates that they prefer to plunder, pillage, and pilfer followed by hunting/gathering and finally living a sedentary, agrarian livestyle raising livestock and planting crops if the first two options are simply non-existant.
One might question whether the humanoids merely lack the ability to become or remain "civilized" or if they also lack the interest to adopt the more civilized ways. It would be interesting to meet a humanoid stronghold where they have attempted to emulate a civilized, feudal society with some of the civilized trappings but have failed to understand the concepts or turned them into a horrible mockery. _________________ Never say blip-blip to a kuo-tua
If memory serves me, there are specific orc enclaves or groups mentioned in From the Ashes as well as Iuz the Evil that are more advanced members of their races, right down to cultural aspects, too.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
