Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
#greytalk
JOIN THE CHAT
ON DISCORD
    Canonfire :: View topic - Monster taxonomy
    Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion
    Monster taxonomy
    Author Message
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 14, 2008
    Posts: 222
    From: Modena, Italy

    Send private message
    Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:45 pm  
    Monster taxonomy

    I did very little science in my high school, but I remember animals were classfied using a specific taxonomy.
    We have the dragon names in the Monster Manual (Draco Conflagratio Horribilis) which suggest some (Oeridian?) scientist from the past started this system.
    I was considering clasifying some monsters using a sinilar system.
    I suppose all of you know better than me in this topic - would this make any sense?
    BUGBEARS
    Species: local ethic groups (or "races")
    Genre: Bugbears (buchveer is Flan, i suppose Oeridians had latin-sounding names?)
    Family: Goblinoids

    Also, shall we consider all humans in the flanaess part of the same species?
    Could be interesting to classify at least the goblin "tree".
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 14, 2008
    Posts: 222
    From: Modena, Italy

    Send private message
    Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:46 pm  

    INC Frost and Fire Giants are two different species of the same genre (Jotni).
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2700
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Fri Jun 21, 2013 7:30 am  
    Re: Monster taxonomy

    MToscan wrote:
    Also, shall we consider all humans in the flanaess part of the same species?


    Please don't try to classify human races as different subspecies. That only feeds into racism. Wink

    Otherwise, you have a good idea. The goblinoids include goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, and xvarts, off the top of my head.

    If you are unsure about the ecological relationships between certain monsters, you can check which god they revere. This may help establish such relationships.

    SirXaris
    _________________
    SirXaris' Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/SirXaris?ref=hl
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Fri Jun 21, 2013 7:44 am  

    You are barking right up my tree! Happy

    Science is my background: I have a degree in biology with a zoological emphasis. I am a high school science teacher and have taught the following life science courses: Pre-AP Biology, Zoology, and Human Anatomy & Physiology. The only non-life science I have taught was what we call Integrated Science (Freshman course), a blend of geology, basic physics, chemistry, meterology, and astronomy.

    I love this idea, personally, and if you have read any of my postings, you know that I have typically tried mixing science with fantasy. Oftentimes this is not an issue, but occasionally one runs into a roadblock where scientific reason slams dead into fantasy-based mythology. With respect towards classification and nomenclature, I don't think you'll run into too many problems.

    The traditional Linnean system of classification goes like this:

    Kingdom
    Phylum
    Class
    Order
    Family
    Genus
    Species

    Names (Genus species) are typically descriptive and based on Latin/Greek roots. When I reach taxonomy and nomenclature in my zoology class (second semester) I have my students try to 'decode' various mythology creatures based on sample Genus species names I have offered. If I can find a copy, maybe I will offer the list on this thread for all to enjoy.

    I think this is a do-able, and FUN, enterprise, MToscan, and I would be quite willing to assist on this endeavor, should you want some input.

    Just for the scientific record, ALL humans would be of the same species. We all have the same basic genetic code (with only very minor differences accounting for ALL the variety you see the world over). As one of my good friends noted to me once, "What we call race among humans is like what we call 'breeds' among dogs." I found that remark to be amusing, and rather sound. After all, ALL breeds of dog belong to the SAME species, Canis familiaris, and their basic genetic code is nearly identical! What makes a Chihuahua different from a mastiff are which genes are switched "on" and which others are "off." (Enough of the science lesson for now.)

    In game terms, 'race' applies to non-same species of intelligent bipeds (elves, dwarves, halflings, goblinoids, etc)...

    Let me know how I may be of service, if at all...

    intrigued,

    Lanthorn, DM-biologist
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: May 12, 2005
    Posts: 934
    From: Woonsocket, RI, USA

    Send private message
    Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:28 pm  

    I don't have access to it now, but there was an early DRAGON article that did this with the humanoids. Basically, humans, elves, and orcs were all homo sapiens (which is why they can interbreed). Halflings were just pygmy homo sapiens. What I found interesting was that the goblinoid family was equated with australopithicus.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Mar 05, 2007
    Posts: 290
    From: The Pomarj

    Send private message
    Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:47 pm  



    Last edited by BlueWitch on Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:41 pm; edited 2 times in total
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Fri Jun 21, 2013 9:06 pm  

    BlueWitch wrote:

    Why is it that when it's humans, people will cry racism more instinctively than breathing?


    It should suffice for me to remind you that humans are real and elves aren't.


    Last edited by rasgon on Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:47 pm  

    Great. What starts as an off-hand joke obviously intended to lighten the mood gets ramped up to two people. Knock it off.

    Leave off this course of discussion and stick with the purpose/topic. People have been classifying and naming things for forever. People can classify as they wish, but if somebody starts saying something like, "What you got against blink dogs? Is it because they are yellow or something?!", or anything like that, I will drop the hammer on the first person. So, everyone make a point of NOT inserting your heads in your butts, and the hammer will remain hanging on the wall.

    And don't even reply to anything that has already been said regarding anything along these lines. Just let it go, and leave it gone. If you have nothing constructive to post with regard to the topic, don't post anything.

    And apparently Flan is the accepted language among scholars for classifying things (probably because the geographical area is referred to as "The Flanaess" and not "Happy Funtime Oeridian-Suel Playground, Yeah!"), so I would recommend sticking with Flan for naming things.


    Carry on.
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:24 pm  

    Cebrion wrote:


    And apparently Flan is the accepted language among scholars for classifying things (probably because the geographical area is referred to as "The Flanaess" and not "Happy Funtime Oeridian-Suel Playground, Yeah!"), so I would recommend sticking with Flan for naming things.


    I think not using Latin would involve too much reinventing of the wheel. The Linnean classification system is a great starting point. Is 'Draco' Flan, Suel, or Oeridian? Or Draconic, for that matter? Are we really supposed to come up with a Flan equivalent of 'Canis?' Some 3rd edition sources suggest that Latin corresponds to Celestial. In the end it doesn't really matter; Latin wins for pragmatic reasons.

    The Flan aren't really renowned as scholars anyway, Vecna aside.

    The Orcs of That Gazetteer offered pseudo-scientific names for orcs, kobolds, gnolls, trolls, goblins, bugbears, hobgoblins, and ogres, but they were seriously awful.
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Sat Jun 22, 2013 12:22 am  

    The Linnean format is fine, but I see this as an excuse to translate things into the Flan- Greyhawk specific stuff, which we already have "scholarly" examples of. Wink
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Sat Jun 22, 2013 5:58 am  

    The 3rd edition conceptual artists created a taxonomy for lizard men, troglodytes, kobolds, and urds. Of course, half an edition later they decided that kobolds are more closely related to dragons than lizardfolk or trogs, so I wouldn't call it canon, even if I thought that word meant anything.

    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 14, 2008
    Posts: 222
    From: Modena, Italy

    Send private message
    Sat Jun 22, 2013 1:11 pm  

    In italian breed and race have the same transation.
    To make things interesting, the orc entry in the mondter manual says orcs can interbreed with hobgoblins as well. That raises an interesting probem. Are hobgoblins homo sapoens too? What about ogrillons?
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Sat Jun 22, 2013 6:15 pm  

    Please bear in mind that our (humans') definition of the term "species" (coined by Charles Darwin) only reflects our basic understanding of the concept, meaning to be 'a group of genetically related organisms that successfully interbreed to produce fertile offspring.' It is our way, as scientists, to comprehend and define a perpetually ongoing natural process. However, it is not a 'perfect' term in that there are shades of grey based on the fact that certain 'defined' species can and do successfully hybridize, therefore muddying the scientific waters.

    For instance, a domestic dog can successfully mate with a coyote (or even a wolf) and produce a litter of little hybrid pups that can, in turn, reproduce without any detrimental effects. Does this mean that a dog, coyote, and wolf are the same species? Wink Undoubtedly, most folks can quite certainly tell the difference between these three 'defined' species.

    Thusly, to answer your query, I would say, "No." Orcs, humans, and all manner of demihumans and humanoids would not be the same species, but are close enough genetically (the Powers forbid!) to hybridize, barring certain exceptions.

    Again, we are trying to place scientific rules on a fantasy-based system, which sometimes gets me into heated debate with my friend(s), but, hey, I relish the challenge! Happy

    Hope this helps,

    Lanthorn
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Sat Jun 22, 2013 7:27 pm  

    It's not even clear that inheritance works the same way in the magical universe of Greyhawk that it does in the real world. If humans can mate with demons, angels, transformed dragons, fairies, elementals, and spirits, does reproduction necessarily have anything to do with DNA? Quite possibly not. I wouldn't make any assumption that creatures are closely "related" in any way just because they can successfully hybridize, particularly since they may be independent creations rather than the product of evolution.

    This gets more complicated when you consider that while humans and elves can breed, and humans and orcs can breed, it's often said to be impossible for elves and orcs to breed. Orcs and hobgoblins can produce offspring (who are essentially orcs statistically), but depending on the campaign it may be impossible for humans and hobgoblins to produce offspring. Likewise with orcs and goblins. Or perhaps in your campaign just about everything that can fit slot A into tab B can produce offspring, which would indicate that either all forms of life are the same species or species has nothing to do with the ability to successfully produce young.

    There certainly seems to be something strange where elves are concerned. Consider that (according to the Complete Book of Elves) the offspring of a half-elf and and elf is always a half-elf. There are no three-quarter elves. Once human blood has been introduced into an elven bloodline, that bloodline will never be elven again. In contrast, there are also no quarter-elves; the offspring of half-elves that don't mate with elves become simply human. They may have subtly elven features, but their children lack all half-elven abilities. According to that source, it's not even possible for half-elves to have half-elf children with other half-elves (the child of two half-elves is a human). Nor is it possible for elves to have children with anything but other elves or with humans.

    This might be related to the 1st edition idea that where humans have souls, elves have spirits that reincarnate endlessly. If someone isn't born with an elven spirit, they're not an elf, regardless of who their parents were, and elven spirits won't enter a body without at least one elven parent. A half-elf, then, would be an elven spirit whose full elven powers are diminished by a partly human body.

    It's not even possible for elven subraces to hybridize with one another (at least according to the Forgotten Realms campaign set). The child of a high elf and a gray elf would be a high elf or a gray elf. The child of a high elf and a drow would be a high elf or a drow. There are no mixed breeds. Does that make them distinct species? Does it mean they differ at the spiritual level, so that gray elven spirits always result in gray elven bodies?

    And what does it mean, for example, that the children of humans and medusae are always humans or medusae? Surely it doesn't mean that a human and a medusa belong to the same species. Likewise with humans and hags, or hags and ogre magi.

    For what it's worth, here are the "scientific" names for various humanoids in the Orcs of Thar Gazetteer.

    Bugbear: Ursus bipedis (Goblinus ursus would be better)
    Gnoll: Canis erectus (but hyenas aren't canines...)
    Goblin: Goblinus goblinus
    Hobgoblin: Goblinus grandis
    Kobold: Canis minor
    Ogre: Homo monstrum
    Orc: Orcus porcus (seriously)
    Troll: Monstrum carnivorous

    As far as non-D&D sources go, the 3rd edition Runequest game gave us the following names:

    Dwarf: Lithanthropos mostali
    Halfling: Homo minutem
    Elf: Dendro sapiens
    Dark troll: Styganthropus uzko
    Sea troll: Hydrostyganthropus mutans
    Mountain troll: Styganthropus snangus
    Cave troll: Styganthropus mutans

    Of course, Runequest dwarves are literally made of stone and Runequest elves are plants, so that may not apply.

    Arthur Spiderwick's Field Guide to the Fantastical Word Around You, illustrated by Tony DiTerlizzi, is a fun book with taxonomical names for a variety of fantastic species. Brownies belong to the Homunculidae family. Pixies belong to the Pusillipraedonidae family. Salamanders to the Flammieuntidae family. The cockatrice family is Serpentigentidae, the elf family is Circulifestidae, the leprechaun family is Ingeniosidae, the manticore family is Bestiaedae, dryads belong to the Hamadryadidae family, unicorns to the Monoceratidae family, kelpies Equidae, merfolk Sirenidae, nixies Naiadidae, sea serpents Serpentimaridae, trolls Nocturnidae, dwarves Brevihominidae, giants Gigantidae, goblins Adentidae, ogres Stultibrutidae, dragons Draconidae, griffons Mixtidae, phoenixes Vetustidae, gargoyles Bestialapidae, will-o'-the-wisps Falsilucidae.

    So, for example, in the Spiderwick series the common house brownie is Custos domesticus, a field piskie is Hamadryas compensis, a fire salamander is Salamander flammulaticus, the European cockatrice is Basiliscus europeanus, a wood elf is Dryas nemorivagans, a leprechaun is Sutor netus, a manticore is Martigan martigan, a maple hamadryad is Hamadryas acenis, a unicorn is Unicornatus cristatus, a Pacific mermaid is Siren pacificus, a freshwater nixie is Nympha lymphae, a river troll is Vorax fluminicus, a common ground goblin is Diabolus vulgaris, an ogre is Horrifer pennaultanus, the North American griffin is Gryphon americanus, a spitting gargoyle is Ecclesiahabitans despuens, a will-o'-the-wisp Candentiphaera floccata.

    According to Dragon #150, the illithid family is Illithidae. Aboleths might conceivably be part of it.
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2700
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Sat Jun 22, 2013 9:14 pm  

    rasgon wrote:
    It's not even clear that inheritance works the same way in the magical universe of Greyhawk that it does in the real world. If humans can mate with demons, angels, transformed dragons, fairies, elementals, and spirits, does reproduction necessarily have anything to do with DNA? Quite possibly not. I wouldn't make any assumption that creatures are closely "related" in any way just because they can successfully hybridize, particularly since they may be independent creations rather than the product of evolution.


    But, Rasgon! The owlbear is the missing link between the Strigidae and Ursidae. It's obvious that the two species are evolutionarily related. Razz

    SirXaris
    _________________
    SirXaris' Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/SirXaris?ref=hl
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:40 am  

    I think you'll find that owls, giant owls, bears, owlbears, winged owlbears, quaggoths, vowelbears, cowlbears, and trowelbears all descend from a common ancestor, an owl-sized scavenger with a tiny bear's head and beak that lived in the early Creteceous, evolving from more primitive mammal-like birds in the late Jurassic that also evolved in turn into griffons, hippogriffs, pegasi, horses, eagles, lions, sphinxes, manticores, wemics, winged cats, platapuses, ducks, beavers, penguins, and lammasu.

    An interesting source that I found at Barnes & Noble just now is The Resurrectionist by E.B. Hudspeth. It contains detailed anatomical drawings of a variety of mythological creatures as well as complete taxonomies. For example, the sphinx belongs to phylum Verebrata, class Echidnae, order Praesidum, family Felidae, genus Sphinx and species Sphinx alatus. The book also details the mermaid, satyr, minotaur, ganesh, chimaera, cerberus, pegasus, oriental dragon, centaur, and harpy.

    Other good sources on fantasy taxonomy are Dracopedia and Dracopedia: The Great Dragons by William O'Connor.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 07, 2004
    Posts: 1846
    From: Mt. Smolderac

    Send private message
    Sun Jun 23, 2013 7:09 am  

    Off topic, sort of, but it just clicked for me that stirges, the scientific name for owls, and the Italian word for 'witch' are all linguistically related... probably.
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Sun Jun 23, 2013 7:29 am  

    It is true that most beings (demihumans and humanoids particularly) are derived from a Creator and do not have a common ancestor. Thus, their origins are not the products of evolution.

    What the DM will have to determine is if he/she fancies adaptive forces in his/her campaign world via natural selection. If not, the point is quite moot. If this is the case, then scientific explanations are also unnecessary.

    However, if one takes a scientific/fantasy-based blend, then such concepts as genetics, natural selection, and evolution have a basis. Magic can be used to explain those things that science cannot (this has always been true, not only in our real world past, but in our modern era, too).

    I personally am a fan of this second pathway, and have long been an avid reader of the Ecology of article series featured throughout many Dragon Magazine editions since scientific explanations are offered with respect to creature anatomy, behavior, etc.

    Ultimately, DM call, but, as a scientist myself, I enjoy the mental exercise puzzling through logical explanations for clearly illogical, fantasy-based beasts. Happy

    As a side comment, I always thought that most 'hybrid' creatures (ex: owlbear) were the magical constructs of experimenting mages, and were not the result of 'natural' processes. There is a mage kit called the Merlane that was introduced in an older Dragon Magazine. These sorcerors use special magicks (likewise introduced in this article) allowing them to alter and fuse various creatures, thus explaining and confirming this idea.

    -Lanthorn


    Last edited by Lanthorn on Sun Jun 23, 2013 7:49 am; edited 1 time in total
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 07, 2004
    Posts: 1846
    From: Mt. Smolderac

    Send private message
    Sun Jun 23, 2013 7:48 am  

    That's the approach I take. When and where it can be natural, with no magic involved, it's natural. When it's unnatural... magic! In the latter case there may or may not be a hybridization of features, it all depends on what the magic says.
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:05 am  

    Lanthorn wrote:

    As a side comment, I always thought that most 'hybrid' creatures (ex: owlbear) were the magical constructs of experimenting mages, and were not the result of 'natural' processes. There is a mage kit called the Merlane that was introduced in an older Dragon Magazine. These sorcerors use special magicks (likewise introduced in this article) allowing them to alter and fuse various creatures, thus explaining and confirming this idea.

    -Lanthorn


    Sir Xaris and I were mostly joking, but I like to avoid "a wizard did it" as an explanation if possible. Particularly with regard to creatures from real-world mythology credited to gods and titans, explaining them with mere mortal wizards feels like a tremendous letdown. It makes what was once epic seem mundane. It's one thing crediting legendary named wizards of fearsome power or ancient civilizations with now-forgotten arts, but I would object to letting mid-level magic-users build viable, non-sterile races in their garages like amateur taxidermists usurping power once reserved for gods.
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2700
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:56 am  

    Lanthorn wrote:
    It is true that most beings (demihumans and humanoids particularly) are derived from a Creator and do not have a common ancestor. Thus, their origins are not the products of evolution.


    That's a good point, which I incorporate into my own campaign. Each god, or pantheon of gods, created their own race, or races. However, since those gods created most of those races (at least initially) in their own image and the gods themselves are related, to a degree, that explains why their creations are so similar.

    SirXaris
    _________________
    SirXaris' Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/SirXaris?ref=hl
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Mar 05, 2007
    Posts: 290
    From: The Pomarj

    Send private message
    Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:42 pm  



    Last edited by BlueWitch on Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:58 am  

    BW, that is what was written in the creature description, at least...

    -Lanthorn
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 14, 2008
    Posts: 222
    From: Modena, Italy

    Send private message
    Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:47 am  

    So how woudl we fit, for instance, bugbears, goblins and hobogbilms in this system?

    Kingdom
    Phylum
    Class
    Order
    Family = (goblinoid?)
    Genus =
    Species = bugbear

    Should we consider ethnic variations out of this system or shall we say that Flans, snow elves, Suels, Leraras are "subspecies"?
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:39 am  

    MToscan wrote:
    Should we consider ethnic variations out of this system or shall we say that Flans, snow elves, Suels, Leraras are "subspecies"?


    Leraras and Neanderthals probably qualify as separate human subspecies. Perhaps skulks, githyanki, grimlocks, and similarly divergent human descendants as well. Ordinary humans are all Homo sapiens sapiens, the only human subspecies alive on our world today.

    Insofar as groups like the Flan, Oeridians, Baklunish, Olman, Rhennee, Suel, and Touv correspond fairly closely to real-world human races (even if we can't always agree on which correspond to which), they are not different enough to be considered subspecies. Throughout much of the Flanaess they don't even qualify as regional variations of the same subspecies, since they've long since all interbred with one another to the point of no longer existing in their ancestral forms.

    As I wrote above, elven inheritance doesn't seem to work the same way that real-world inheritance does. Members of elven subraces retain their distinctive phenotypes even after crossbreeding, so they probably count as distinct subspecies even when they share the same territory and interbreed constantly. I'm not really sure how it works when different kinds of dwarves or halflings interbreed, but since they don't correspond to anything real I don't see any reason you couldn't call hill dwarves and mountain dwarves sub-species of dwarves if you wanted to.

    As for bugbears, I'd do it this way:

    Kingdom = Animalia
    Phylum = Chordata
    Class = Mammalia
    Order = Primate
    Family = Adentidae
    Genus = Goblinus (or Jebli)
    Species = ursus (or buchveer)
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:50 am  

    MToscan, one thing that most taxonomists can agree on...like so many of us on CF!...is that they often cannot agree on anything! Happy At least, once you get down to the nitty gritty distinctions of Family on down the line.

    Here's why. It is largely based on the individual scientist's own perceptions of what feature, genetic structure, behavioral attribute, etc. is the defining characteristic or trait. Taxonomy is traditionally based on the physical and anatomical features of a given organism, its genetic structure, embryological development (for animals), fossil evidence, and, sometimes, even behavioral traits. What I may see and analyze as most important you may not. Confused

    If you look at older books in the biological sciences, you will note how various organisms (for the sake of this post, let us just consider animals, and not plants, protists, bacteria, and fungi) have shifted around along taxonomic levels. Even names have changed. For instance, earlier books used the term Paranthropus while more modern volumes prefer the term Australopithecus to describe the first hominids (bipedal apes, to which humans are grouped). If memory serves, the panda (bear) has jumped around. Even some predatory dinosaurs, T rex included, have shifted as new evidence comes to light.

    So, bear with me on this scientific 'rant.' Ultimately, each DM will have to determine which features and attributes are most telling to describe the overall relationships between and among your fantasy-based creatures. Obviously, there is no way we can use genetics. Wink However, from the descriptions offered in each entry, as well as individual judgment, one can place creatures according to physical features, overt anatomical similarities, and perhaps, even behavior.

    Let me use your humanoids as a reference point, and keep in mind, this is my personal (and scientific) perspective:

    Based on the descriptions and write-ups alone from a variety of different sources (Monster Manual and other books, for example), I would place the goblin, bugbear, and hobgoblin along a similar taxonomic clade, or grouping, with orcs along another.

    Perhaps humanoids share a similar Family: Goblinidae (or, if you prefer, Humanoidae, Parahominidae, Subhominidae, etc.), for instance, that would comprise ALL humanoids. OR, you could take the stance that this is an Order-based distinction.

    The naming of individual species is often descriptive in nature. Rasgon's earlier posting offers great examples, but feel free to come up with your own, as it is your campaign world.

    Taking my suggestion that bugbears, hobgoblins, and goblins are closely related, you could name them Ursus goblinus (or Goblinus ursus), Goblinus maximus, and Goblinus goblinus respectively.

    Again, my apologies if this posting rambles on, but I must admit I find your query a fun, and scientifically thought-provoking, one, and an idea that intrigues me.

    -Lanthorn
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 07, 2004
    Posts: 1846
    From: Mt. Smolderac

    Send private message
    Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:22 pm  

    You could also consider using something like the origins of creatures, used in 3rd and 4th editions as part of the classification system; for example, fey, shadow, outer planar, inner planar, prime, etc...

    Like Mick seemed to be suggesting (to me at least) in his original post, why follow a Linnean classification system. Sure, something like it, but something that suits a world like GH.

    Also, for the ongoing discussion about goblins, don't forget that at least some sources list numerous other creatures as "goblinoids." In Legacies of the Suel Imperium we get mites, snyads and gremlines listed as minor goblinoids. I may be misremembering, but in 1e I thought that kobolds and maybe even orcs were considered goblinoids.

    I've also been tracing the names of the various humanoid races as being Flan in origin. This appears to have been a later development, only reaching its current state in the LGG. Before tAB, as far as I've seen, none of the names were said to be Flan in origin, and in that work it was only Olve that was said to be Flan. Moore amended this in the Legacies of the Suel Imperium article, where derro is a corrupted form of the Flan name dwur-rohoi, "twisted dwarves," the name given by a Flan slave of the Suel to the creatures they called Thurgamazar. SK Reynolds remembered and used this in Scarlet Brotherhood, where his Suel glossary lists thurg - little and mazar - miner. So, I've been wondering why everyone would be using the Flan names for these creatures as a standard, and came up with the following; in most cases these names are also, or nearly so, the Suloise names for these creatures. Stick with me on this. In SB the names for goblin and hobgoblin are chebi and hochebi, which are pretty obviously loan words derived from the Flan jebli and hoch jebline. We know the Suel had Flan slaves during the Empire and that their name for Derro became more common than the Flan name, although we don't know for sure this happened during the imperial period. We also know that Suloise is a language of scholarship, so it makes sense that the Flanaess's version of Carl Linneus would have taken the Suloise names for the races when he was doing his thing, except then he figured out that they were actually Flan words and began using them instead of the Suloise loan words. Or, everybody just liked adopting Flan words for things. After all, the Oeridians did adopt the Flan name for the sun god. It's just a theory. Shocked
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:56 pm  

    As Lanthorn said, different scholars will classify creatures differently depending on what criteria they think is most relevant. Carl Sargent included kobolds and orcs as goblinoids in Monster Mythology, though I think it's almost always been clear (since the 1e Monster Manual) that of that class, goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears are the most closely related. That's why Lanthorn suggested that they might share a family with orcs but not a genus. I would tend to agree, though I could also see the argument that, say, goblinkind was corrupted from dwarves while orcs were corrupted elves, or vice versa. Kobolds are so anatomically different from goblins (they have tails, scales or scaly skin, and lay eggs) that they seem to be lumped together culturally rather than physically. I think the first AD&D source to consider kobolds to be explicitly reptiles was 2nd edition's Tales of the Lance. The Orcs of Thar Gazetteer had kobolds and gnolls share the genus Canis.

    Roger Moore had jermlaines as engineered from gnomes by the Suel, though they're considered a kind of gremlin in some sources. Gremlins are sometimes referred to as goblinoids, though other sources have them as fey. Planes of Chaos says that gremlins are minor scavengers of the Abyss. I think gremlins in 4th edition were fey goblins transformed by fomorian sorcerers. In two sources (a Dragon article and WG7) they're migrants from 1940s Earth.

    A wrinkle in using creature types as a basis is that these change, sometimes dramatically, between 3.0, 3.5, and fourth edition. But it's sensible to remember that many creatures originated on other planes of existence. Creatures from other planes might belong to separate taxonomical kingdoms. Again, not every source agrees on a creature's plane of origin. Are rakshasas from Acheron or the Prime? Are beholders from the Far Realm or the Abyss? Are achaierai from the Abyss or Acheron? Are grells from a parallel dimension or another planet? Scholars may disagree.

    When Gygax used words like olve, jebli, and so on, it seems like he had every character use them regardless of educational background, so I'm skeptical about them being the language of scholarship. He's on record as saying they were just intended to be archaic Common. That said, they're confusing and annoying enough that I'm fine with banishing them to the realm of scientific nomenclature.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 07, 2004
    Posts: 1846
    From: Mt. Smolderac

    Send private message
    Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:46 am  

    All interesting info and thoughts, especially that Gygax had actually spoken about the usage.

    A source I did forget to check was the Gord books. Looking there we have more inconsistency. I see hobgoblins as ho-jebli there.
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:53 am  

    While this discussion is going on, it occurred to me that there's a great adventure idea lying right there in front of us...

    A group of adventurers, perhaps hired out (or led by) a scholarly character (a wizard or priest makes most sense, but any character class is possible), whose purpose is to study, capture, kill/dissect, whatever...various species for classification and naming. I know that spell-casters, especially wizards, have a great interest in various animal/creature body parts (just check out the rather comprehensive list and the values listed in Spells and Magic). Any Guild of Wizards would be interested in such things.

    Just thought I'd share this idea, as I don't have enough time or players on hand to make use of it. Tis a shame, cuz it sounds fun, with plenty of adventure hooks, possibilities, and a great way to get characters out into the field (outdoors adventures have become my favorite as of late) throughout the Flanaess.

    -Lanthorn
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:31 am  

    smillan_31 wrote:
    All interesting info and thoughts, especially that Gygax had actually spoken about the usage.


    I think the only place he opined on the subject was this Dragonsfoot thread, where after a lengthy and heated debate over whether the names are more likely Flan or Gnome, one of the moderators quoted him (apparently from personal correspondence). The quote doesn't actually say "archaic Common," but states that the words were supposed to reflect how names change over time.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 07, 2004
    Posts: 1846
    From: Mt. Smolderac

    Send private message
    Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:09 pm  

    A really interesting thread. Thanks!

    If you take the view that the English words for the races are Common, then it's reasonable to assume that at some point the Flan (or Gnomish) words were archaic Common, if just as loan words, since obviously they are ancestors of the the current Common words.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 14, 2008
    Posts: 222
    From: Modena, Italy

    Send private message
    Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:38 am  

    I like that adventure idea, indeed. I can relate it to the Black Cult of Ahm in some ways. Or maybe some deranged Suel wizard that wants to reverse engineering some creations of his Imperial ancestors?

    Besides I'll throw in two more chunks of food (for thought) on the plate: 1e rangers had a bonus in fighting giants, including "bugbears". I can consider the AC bonus of dwarves related to their height and ancestry, but a ranger probably owes his bonus to a more tactical knowledge of the subject?

    Also the 1e "charm person" spell used to work not only on humans but on some "non human as we consider them today" species as well. That might mean something about their commong origin?
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:54 am  

    Personally, I never liked the ranger bonus against giant-classed foes, but your reasoning seems sound.

    As for your second statement, it likewise seems logical, but I imagine the author of the spell used the fact that targets of the spell are, roughly, manlike in shape and size, and thus should be viable subjects. Note, though, that an ogre (Large size, yet still a humanoid) is NOT subject to a Charm Person spell.

    -Lanthorn
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    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

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.34 Seconds