Another thing that's been bugging me a lot is the presentation the game makes for savage humanoids. They are assumed, it appears, to just exist in an extremely primitive, tribal configuration. You never hear about the gnoll tribes or the orc hordes or the goblin clans, unless they are raiding the surrounding countryside or attacking some poor, helpless village.
Yet these creatures, often seen as having a knowledge similar to or less than stone age peoples, are generally also featured using metal weapons and armor, along with other devices more common to "civilized" people. Where do they get them? It seems a bit of a stretch for me to say they get all of it from raiding. I would much more prefer an explanation that features trade between the various evil humanoids. Of course, that also indicates, to me, a more advanced society than simple nomadic tribes of barbarians.
I suppose my point here is to try and stimulate some discussion about how to handle the option of developing evil humanoids into more of a true culture, rather than just a bunch of monsters and DM tools. What type of cities would they build, if they build cities at all? If not, what would their communities be like? If so, where would they build them? It seems that the "non-evil" humanoids have taken the good places; or should this convention be reduced somewhat, and have hobgolins run a major shipping port or some such? What is their architecture like? Things like this. Direction to "Ecology of..." articles would also be appreciated.
Director of Narrative
|
Because of their wild and disruptive behavior, the 'evil' humanoids were never able to organize a society that reflects what we see in the 'good' humanoids. Often these bands of slathering, bloodthirsty brutes are focused, if only for a short time, by a stronger evil presence. This greater evil could be and has been dragons, mindflayers, liches, ambitious evil humans, demons and the like. Their increased intelligence and access to greater weaponry leads them to train their new, cheap mecenaries in arts of war that the brutes would never have been capable to organize themselves.
Trade does occur among different tribes and clans. Some of these creatures have retained enough of their learning from the powerful overseers and after that intrepid band of adventurers killed their leader enough had the chance to flee taking their new understandings to a neighboring tribe. There in the dark reaches of the forest or a cave-riddled cliff they shared their knowledge and began using the forging techniques taught to them, slowly building a more complex culture, although one that would never develop as quickly as the more civilized races.
And, as a good simple excuse, kobolds are adept at making and trading things.
I don't think it's a question of believability, but rather fitting them into traditional roles in a fantasy world. I can name dozens of unrealistic aspects of any D&D universe; why get worked up about this one?
That said, there's no reason you can't create humanoid cities and other such stuff. In fact, I think some campaigns have done precisely that. I'd say it's a perfectly reasonable (and probably more realistic) option in the case of the lawful humanoids.
Regards,
Jack
I'm not sure what about the humanoids gets to me. I just really enjoy the thought of having well developed races with plenty of history, identity, and background to them. And the question always comes to my mind, "So what are these guys doing when they're not pillaging the nearby villages?" Not to mention, it's hard to believe a species like goblins could survive at all on simple raiding. If that's how they all operate, each tribe would eventually attract enough attention to get wiped out by the local guards or a group of heroes, and the race would vanish. Actually giving them a culture outside of murder and theft helps explain why the continue to exist.
It also helps to "humanize" them more, so that a player who choose to be one of these things (something I'm not opposed to at all) isn't nearly as out of place amongst more "common races". Giving "evil" humanoids more advanced societies increases the chances for a good member to be produced and be able to find his way to human lands (since they are the most tolerant, typically).
Well, Eberron has addressed this issue. The goblinoids founded the Dhakanni (not sure of spelling) Empire that was subsequently shattered by the madness of Xoriat. The goblinoids have only recently begun to recover from it and founded the kingdom of Dargunn. Orcs and gnolls are tribal creatures, but both have fairly advanced cultures and raid and trade extensively for their luxuries and equipment (a lot like some dark age and middle age cultures).
Most of the goblinoids have an Int and Wis equal to that of most humans. Gnolls and orcs have slightly less Int and Wis (just orcs), which is reflected in their society. In my Ice Age campaign it is not a matter of whether you are an elf, dwarf, human, gnoll or hobgoblin, but rather whether you live in a tribal community or one of the few fortified towns and cities dotting the frozen forests and plains.
If you look back @ european history, say about the fall of rome, you'll see that the "barbarians" used and made thier own metal tools, and often settled down to practice agriculture after taking over new areas. The Huns and Mongols were both peoples who, in the west, made thier living off of raiding and pillaging, then took all thier booty back home with them, where they had a more settled existence. The Norse also made extensive use of metal weapons and armor, but supplemented thier agrarian economy with raiding and slaving. Part of the "Orc" stigma comes from Tolkien, whose goblins and orcs made nothing, acting either as bandits (The Hobbit) or militaristic masses (Rings). I think the prime denominator of societal functionality is the chaos/law balance. If you rule only through the strength of your own arm, you can only control so many. Trusting subordinates to carry out your instructions and not usurp your power is a bit more lawful, and I would argue, advanced, than most "savage humanoids" are capable of. YYMV :)
The Norse also made extensive use of metal weapons and armor, but supplemented thier agrarian economy with raiding and slaving.
That's true the Norse(vikings) economy wasn't based at raiding or slaving at all, they were infact primarly traders. At Birka, a swedish viking settlement near Stockholm, excavations revealed items from all over the world, Buddha statues, gemstones from far and exotic weapons.
That said, "savage societies" has as much culture and history as you as a DM wants.
Yes, I am familiar with the fact that "savage" and "barbarian" is a term created and applied by certain civilizations upon those they wished to demonize in order to justify war or enslavement (or just to cope, in the case of the British who were affected by early viking raids).
And that's what I'm looking for. However, it is exceedingly rare to find a goblin lair stashed with anything other than that which was raided from local merchants or farms. They never have any smithies or production of their own. They, along with other humanoids, are almost never shown with any sort of structure beyond warrior brutes, who exist only to die for the heroes.
In the "good" races, each one has an archetypal roll that they fill, such as dwarves and mining, elves and magic, gnomes and engineering, etc. I'm also trying to think of the various archetypes to assign to the common "evil" humanoids.
Obviously, kobolds are good miners and crafters of minor devices and traps. They also have a lot of sorcerers, and thus some arcane tradition. They seem like a good candidate for being one of the fundamental races of "evil people economics."
Orcs are good weapon and armor smiths, similar to the dwarves, but they barter with kobolds and others for the metal ore. Hobgoblins are similar, but live away from the mountains and orcs. They also build more fortified structures, whereas orc communities are more open.
Gnolls and bugbears either sieze control of lesser humanoids and force them into slave labor, or sell themselves out as mercenaries, and live off whatever loot that brings them. They also sometimes raid. Because of this, soldiers and heroes often counterattack, keeping their numbers small and their cultures weak.
Goblins are the serfs and peasants. Numerous like no others, many live without beign bullied by a more powerful creature, but in truth, the majority are pressed into making up the backbone of "evil" fighting forces and labor units. Orcs are actually less likely to use them, as they are a proud lot that feel they don't need weakling goblins to fight or work for them.
I'm envisioning goblins as using wood huts, with their leaders and clergy occupying modified caves. Hobgoblins build wooden and earthen forts, sometimes around caves, but often just atop a strategic hill, and organize their community like a military base. Bugbears often use caverns about as much as they use wooden huts. Gnolls I imagine living in Native American style villages. Orcs craft mountain halls, much like dwarves, and use a lot of massive wooden timbers for support. They also like to embellish their architecture with large wooden or metal spikes.
That's the basis so far. I will appreciate any other ideas!
Greetings.
I think the goblins have a much greater potential than being "weakling serfs and peasents" especially since their favored class is rogue, they could be awesome assassins. A goblinoid guild of thieves and assassins is a pretty cool idea, and could generate a little fear and respect for the little guys. As someone else put it, Eberron has the "savage" humanoids set up or established in societies of their own. Darguun, and Droaam for starters. And as a DM, just about everything is up to you, how the world works, who's in that world, etc. Set up some backstory about the 'savage' humanoids and the societies they either have or perhaps once had until these freeloading humans, dwarves, and elves came along and ruined it all. (That's why they are always attacking "us".)
My two coppers.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I've been writing up a mini goblinoid campaign setting lately. The premise is that the campaign occurs on an asteroid in spelljammer space. The goblinoids were once imprisoned on the asteroid, but managed to escape. The PC's would be the 4th or 5th generation since that escape and would be seeking to unravel the mysteries of their homeland.
In addition to using the goblinoids, I also replaced all the base classes with classes from supplements. Paladins became hexblades, sorcerers became warlocks. Rangers became wolf-riders (lose their weapon style for a druid level animal companion).
In undergrad, I wrote up a setting involving the goblinoids being in the role of new world type natives. Again, it was a spelljamer campaign with elves and humans discovering the goblinoids. I based hobgoblin culture off the aztecs (lots of sacrifice, conquering, and blood magic). The goblins were steampunk and the ogres were mammoth riding nobles with a code of honor.
FWIW, I allowed Hobgoblins and Kobolds as common races in my last longish campaign. i ran an NPC Kobold Rogue (Chad!!! Is he hanging?) and one of my best players ran a hobgoblin Ranger. Because both of these races were common in the Empire they were coming from, there was no problem with back story. Hobgoblins formed the back bone of the Queens Army, Kobolds live on the outskirts of society as scavengers and sneaks-for-hire.
Races of the dragon had some good stuff for kobold fans, as far as economics and culture. I agree that each species needs a niche, and with so many "monsters' it can be hard to do. If you allow them to generalize too much, you end up with humans (fuzzy, green humans) with bad attitudes. The rough one is who is the smithing race? Goblin smiths, working under a commission from an Orcish lord, tipping the Masters spear with cold Iron to hunt the dryads that infest the near by woods.... Could be fun!!
I like your idea of the huge goblin polity; they almost have to have agriculture to support the other humanoids and to have trade. As others mentioned, their favored class is rogue. Instead of assassins (which is one interesting idea), their rogues could be folk heroes-- goblin Zorros, resisting their enslavement at the hands of hobgoblins and worse.
With so many peasants to hide amongst, they could hide as long as they remained popular-- or at least until drastic measures were taken by their overlords. It'd be a fun niche to play-- and a good backstory for fitting into a normal human (etc.) centered group. Agitating to "free their brethern" could be a good spur to adventure...
That's a good idea, too. The only goblins who can remain free from their overlords are those capable of fighting back with stealth and guile, since they lack strength.
Incorporating these humanoids into a setting, without having their lands be set far, far off in their own well-fortified empire where all the "evil" humanoids are analogues of the "good" ones, is easiest when one abandons the "they're almost all evil" attitude. Rather, make them inclined towards such alignments, just like the "good" races, but exceptions are dime-a-dozen. That also takes care of some other sticky moral issues, such as "Should the paladin attack the orc village, even though they haven't been hostile yet?"
Under normal assumptions, the answer could be murky, as one the one hand, they haven't done anything wrong, but on the other, orcs are just there to be evil raiders, so the paladin can feel torn.
By adding a little more depth and personality to the race, the answer is clearly, "No, we have no evidence that these orcs are evil or intend to attack us." However, if they do start raiding, it's no big surprise, either.
Now I just have to write up a history for them and slip them into the world as more or less equal members of the racial tapestry.
I think many campaigns' visions of humanoids suffer from the Keep on the Borderlands syndrome--they just live out there in the wilderness and underground, packed together any which way.
Humanoids can be evil and rather brutal without being a bunch of australopithecine skull-bashers (with the possible exception of ogres and trolls). They may not invent lots of new technologies, but they're certainly smart enough to adopt technologies their neighbors have, and if they can't figure it out for themselves, they capture skilled craftsmen and put them to work. I use a few basic political models for humanoid groups--they organize differently depending on context:
1. They can be the main population of a large, tyrannical empire a la Sauron's Mordor. The different species might fill different roles in production and warfare. They are kept in order by a combination of more powerful leaders (devils, giants, or whatever) and certain humanoids who are stronger or more clever and rise to positions of power. This kind of state is fairly stable and orderly, but not prosperous since the emphasis is on organizing society's resources to support the state's conquests. Instead of "superior species" running the show, one could also envision, say, a relatively civilized hobgoblin elite running the show, lording it over a mass of goblin commoners and slaves. The hobgoblins' culture would have its own ideas about warriors' honor that would play a major role in how the state is organized. (The honor code might be honored more in the breach than the observance, just as it was among European knights, Japanese samurai, etc.)
2. They can form their own despotic states. (A la Pomarj in Greyhawk, led by the great Half-Orc Turrosh Mak). These might be one-species states, or include tribes of several humanoid groups. They might be organized as a coalition of tribes, with the biggest baddest leader of the most numerous tribe as leader. The tribes probably own slaves (human captives, goblins and kobolds, or whatever) and rely on them to do the scut work (agriculture and mining, pumping the bellows and turning the mills in the smelters and foundries, etc.) They are probably fairly settled, if the land is good enough to support agriculture, otherwise the slaves herd livestock and they move from place to place. Some of the tribes occasional feud with each other, but they'd better be ready to fight side by side when the big despot calls them up to fight outsiders. The big despot keeps his power in part by regularly raiding or conquering neighboring groups, then divvying up the booty among the tribal chieftains. If he starts losing battles, he's toast, and the entire confederation may fall apart.
3. Feuding clans. In this situation, there is a region that is not well-controlled by civilized states, and the humanoids have moved in. The resources are too thin to support an organized state, nor will the neighboring human kingdoms tolerate the rise of one, but herdsmen or slash-and-burn farmers can get along just fine. The clans feud among themselves, feeling obligated to take an eye for an eye whenever a clan member is wronged, because otherwise no one will respect the clan's strength. The clans may well take captives, both from other clans and from the human lands nearby, enslaving them. The slaves do much of the necessary productive work, but a poorer clansman might not have enough slaves to do all his work for him. The clansmen only steal brides from other clans, but the slaves are allowed to breed among themselves, resulting in a slave population that is mostly made up of half-orcs.
4. Marginalized raiders. In this situation, humans have seized the most important resources upon which humanoid society once depended, and the more efficient production techniques of the human neighbors make a tempting target. Humanoid clans are scattered in small groups among the wilder areas nearby--forests, mountains, dry plains. They raid vulnerable settlements or waylay travelers, then melt into the wilderness. Once in a while, a respected leader who pulls off feats of daring can gather a larger band of raiders together that menaces the entire region, but this usually doesn't last long, because when he becomes a major nuisance the local human lords call up their retainers and hunt him down.
I've neglected underground populations, which will be organized differently due to the nature of the environment--they might tend toward smaller tribes that focus on raiding, but then what if the orc despot conquered the Vault of the Drow? It might be a less exquisitely decadent outpost of civilization afterwards, but it might provide a resource base for an underground orcish kingdom.
In D&D, I think we have tended to take two distinct visions of "savage" life and assign them to different races. There's the "noble savage"--by and large, we like our noble savages to be primitive humans, wild elves, viking types, etc. Then there's the "brutal savage"--we've created the many humanoid races to fit into this niche. In historical reality, the noble and brutal savage were two sides of the same coin--when people who considered themselves civilized wanted to criticize the faults of civilized society, they created an idealized noble savage who compared favorably to the corrupt and decadent people of their own society. When they actually encountered people they saw as being less civilized, and misunderstood them, or wanted their land, they made them out to be barbaric brutes who were beyond redemption.
If you want to get away from these terrible, but still very real, archetypes, make orcs and goblinoids inherently neutral in alignment, or do away with alignment entirely for non-outsiders. The stereotypes might still be there--orcs look ugly and brutish to the average human--but provide opportunities for the PCs to see their good side.
Anyhow, perceptions of civilization and barbarity figure heavily in my academic research, so I'd better quit now, or I'm liable to subject thread-readers to a veritable dissertation.
Saern, if you're interested in some historical reading that would inform your world-building efforts, I'd be happy to oblige with a few good sources. Really, though, just browse through the ethnography shelves in a good library and start reading--you'll quickly get some more sophisticated ideas about how "primitive" societies work. And if you want them to be "evil," just think about things that were the norm in historical societies that we now see as evil--such as human sacrifice, slavery, arbitrary rights possessed by upper classes to abuse lower classes, etc.
Postscript: at least one current theory on the origins of human political organization posits that "states" existed before "tribes." In brief, the idea is that in its pre-political state, humans weren't organized above the village level. In certain areas, with the development of agriculture, people organized states with priestly and warrior elites that could protect agricultural villages, keep the peace between them, arrange cooperation for things like irrigation and flood control, and collect and store surplus food to feed soldiers and workers and prevent famine. These early states tended to try to expand their power, stimulating neighboring regions where agriculture was marginal to organize: individual clans in these regions could not defend themselves against the newly invented states, nor was it as easy to raid their farming neighbors as it had been, so it made sense to build "tribes." According to this theory, you won't find large "tribes" in the middle of nowhere, only in areas bordering on civilized states.
All in all, an excellent post.
In D&D, I think we have tended to take two distinct visions of "savage" life and assign them to different races. There's the "noble savage"--by and large, we like our noble savages to be primitive humans, wild elves, viking types, etc. Then there's the "brutal savage"--we've created the many humanoid races to fit into this niche. In historical reality, the noble and brutal savage were two sides of the same coin--when people who considered themselves civilized wanted to criticize the faults of civilized society, they created an idealized noble savage who compared favorably to the corrupt and decadent people of their own society. When they actually encountered people they saw as being less civilized, and misunderstood them, or wanted their land, they made them out to be barbaric brutes who were beyond redemption.
Very true. One major caveat is tying it all to a world with alignments. Good and evil aren't really relative or subjective in D&D worlds as written. They even have easy means to detect where things fall. So brutal savages may be just that: brutal, cruel, predatory, EVIL. Conversely, noble savages may be the opposite, specifically they may be, overall, GOOD. That doesn't make either side less interesting to develop as cultures, but general alignment should be kept in mind as much as environment, proximity to other cultures, access to technology, etc. in developing a culture.
There are some "barbarian" societies in the history of human civilization that seem pretty evil to modern sensabilities. The one that leaps to mind is the Kurgans. They liked to throw children into pits with wild dogs for fun. Of course, in a world without absolute good or evil, we can try to find ways to relate to that kind of behavior and see how it was "ok" for the Kurgans to be like that (if you really want to, I don't).
If you are really going to put effort into bringing the evil humanoids into parity with the races typically seen as being civilized, you might want to position actual nations of evil humanoids out there. Equal and opposite to the good ones. Greyhawk sort of did this, but the evil humanoid nations are pretty obviously inferior to the good nations of elves, dwarves, humans, etc. in almost all ways except numbers and the willingness to use violence to solve almost any probem.
I like the idea that the evil humanoids have complex and sophisticated evil cultures. There are plenty of human examples of "evil" cultures. The Phoenicians were the pre-eminent traders of the Mediterraen. They also ritualized sacrifice of infants and children by burning them alive. The antics of the Aztecs are pretty well known and are hard to define as anything other than evil in common D&D terms (in the original Deities and Demigods pretty much all of their gods were considered CE). You can even move forward in time and use fantastic versions of the French Revolutionary Committee or the Third Reich as models for evil humanoid nations.
The thing to remember that's most important about "savage" or "evil" societies is that it's a matter of perspective. The human sacrifices in our own cultural history, along with other facets that our modern cultures find abhorrent, were not viewed as evil, but a fact of everyday life in those cultures. Would Joe McGnoll look upon things kindly if a crusade was led against his tribe because they have a they worship Erythnul? Would Joe McGnoll hold a grudge against those crusaders (and their descendants) because of the devastation that was dealt to his people?
Savage, as well, is perspective. Savage has been too often applied to cultures that are at a lower technology level than our own (we call it "third-world" now, though). It's not any less right or more wrong - just different.
|
in my campaigns (note: have been playing Eberron for some 3-4 years, and homebews prior to that), the following are generally true:
Kobolds: consumate clan-workers, these little critters are paranoid, xenophobic, cowardly, and amazing engineers. think tinker-gnomes from Dragonlance, without the Rube Goldberg-esque mental defects. these are the guys to think up repeating crossbows, knock-down-portable siege engines, self-firing ballista, and all sorts of fun mechanical things.
physically weak, they let their intellects and clan structures guide them. they are also crazy about dragons, and consider themselves as simply Small dragons, for the most part.
Goblins: the city-dwellers and shadow-hiders. they use their natural sneakyness and possessive nature to acquire, trade, and make profit. if they can get it for nothing, even better.
generally the largest population of the monstrous humanoids, they stay in groups and often form gangs/cliques within their clan. (the roofrunners, lockpickers, sneakthieves, fences, and the like would all have their own gangs, similar to human guilds). larceny, assault, and murder are all accorded mercantile value, and those that can pull it off and not get caught are respected/feared all the more.
Orcs: strong, savage, these are the "vikings" of the monstrous humanoids. they generally live in an inhospitable area (typically either arctic, desert, or savannah populated by fierce beasts), and must force nature to their will. they rely on their natural (+4 base) strength to carry them through their lives, and respect power/strength more than anything else.
when they are short of supplies, one of their more charismatic/strongest leaders whips them into a frenzy, and all hell breaks loose as the clan rampages onto the nearby "soft" humans/demi-humans, to take what they can't defend.
orcs GREATLY respect their few druids/clerics, mostly because they are usually the MOST powerful creatures they can think of, and also because of their typically more capable intellects (high wis?).
Gnolls: are tribal hunters, similar to the Inca or Aztec early meso-america. since they are so rarely encountered in THEIR cities/towns, it's unlikely that the few outside will be indicative of their whole civilization.
savage beasts, (as their entry clearly states they prefer to eat live, terrified, prey) they are pretty much inimical to human/demihuman life. much like the Aztecs were seen by the other tribes they conquered.
Lizardfolk: scavengers and swamp-survivors. more primitive than most of the others, simply because they don't NEED to have amazing technology to help them survive.
the combine the best parts of Crocodile (cunning, strength, armor, able to hold breath a LONG time) and a human (adaptability, culture, communication, and hands), thus creating the ultimate swamp predator. if not for green dragons, lizardfolk would be the most dangerous threat of any swampy terrain.
Hobgoblins: the most "human" of the monstrous humanoids, they are regimented, tightly organized, and capable of great works when motivated in the proper direction.
unfortunately, those in power often turn on the most convenient targets, rather than concentrate the power of ALL the hobgoblins (and their slave armies...kobolds, goblins, and bugbears included) on a single target. if they WERE to acquire a single leader of great insight and charisma (the Hobgoblin Alexander the Great or Julius Cesear, perhaps), all those around them are in SERIOUS trouble.
Bugbears: similar to Orcs, in that they usually want to thump things into submission. they are used to more "stealth behind them" attacks, though, owing to their racial bonus to move silently.
they are consumate guerilla soldiers, working behind enemy lines and disrupting life in general, ESPECIALLY when the enemy can't see in the dark. put a few commandos in a hobgoblin led strike force, and the enemy better watch it.
similar to Klingons, they fight over perceived insults and threats to honor, which limits their general effectiveness as a whole, although singly or in small groups, they can be devastating.
i think that about wraps it up...culturally, there is no reason for ANY of the above to NOT live on their own...unless it's easier, more profitable, or external situations force their hand.
-the hamster
Hey, Peruhain! Good to see you back on the boards. How was the move?
Great post. Please, list your links. I may not have to time to look at them, but your post is actually what I was most looking for- help developing humanoids cultures based on true examples from our own history.
I think Gruumsh can easily be retooled to be a god that espouses the racial superiority of the orcs and whose doctrine claims they have the true right to the whole of the Earth, without him being completely evil, depending on the methods he preaches to reach that desire. He can even be a war god without being evil (look at Tempus in FR).
And even if Gruumsh remains evil, simply because the deity is evil doesn't mean all the people worshippers are as well, even when they don't venerate out of fear. Gruumsh may be a blood-thirsty, almost demonic being who preaches conquest and slaughter, but Joe Orc doesn't have to actually believe totally in ruthless, brutal war as the One True Way, either.
Another option would be to have the druidic orcs spurn Gruumsh entirely, not venerating a god, but rather their own ancestor or nature spirits. I like both models.
Very true, most people in ancient (and modern) societies don't see their actions as evil. Probably the Nazi's thought what they were doing was fine, normal and necessary..
But that's not how D&D works. It's got GOOD v. EVIL written into it's genetic code.
You can make orcs totally OK with killing and eating their enemies. But in D&D terms does that make it good? Of course you can make it that way. It either involves chucking the whole alignment system or making it so relative that "detect evil" becomes "detect those who disagree with some things I feel strongly about."
Not that chucking the whole alignment system isn't an OK thing to do. They did so for D&D Modern and made "allegiances" instead. It just involves changind some of the fundamental underpinings of the game (which I will do at the drop of a hat if the game I am running seems to need it).
But if you aren't, what is wrong with evil guys being, well, evil? There are always outliers, some good orcs, some chaotic hobgoblins, etc. but MOST of them live in a society that is based on completely different assumptions than ours. Ones that are inextricably tied to creatures of fundamental non-relative depraved EVIL.
I think it's kinda fun to take the evil aspect of evil humanoid societies and running with it. Not overboard, of course, but it's more fun that replicating an emicly correct transposition of a modern anthropological analysis of a quasi-traditional culture. Evil orcs are fun! A good orc is an outlier and will have to deal with all sorts of prejudice from both outside and inside their own culture. Just like an evil dwarf or elf,
in my campaigns (note: have been playing Eberron for some 3-4 years, and homebews prior to that), the following are generally true:
Awesome. Exaclty like that.
I especially love the idea of gnoll raiding parties going for the capture, taking the captives back and sacrifcing them in job lots to their dark gods. A la the Mixtec/Aztec War of Flowers to keep the sun from going out.
Another thing that's been bugging me a lot is the presentation the game makes for savage humanoids. They are assumed, it appears, to just exist in an extremely primitive, tribal configuration. You never hear about the gnoll tribes or the orc hordes or the goblin clans, unless they are raiding the surrounding countryside or attacking some poor, helpless village.
Yet these creatures, often seen as having a knowledge similar to or less than stone age peoples, are generally also featured using metal weapons and armor, along with other devices more common to "civilized" people. Where do they get them? It seems a bit of a stretch for me to say they get all of it from raiding. I would much more prefer an explanation that features trade between the various evil humanoids. Of course, that also indicates, to me, a more advanced society than simple nomadic tribes of barbarians.
I suppose my point here is to try and stimulate some discussion about how to handle the option of developing evil humanoids into more of a true culture, rather than just a bunch of monsters and DM tools. What type of cities would they build, if they build cities at all? If not, what would their communities be like? If so, where would they build them? It seems that the "non-evil" humanoids have taken the good places; or should this convention be reduced somewhat, and have hobgolins run a major shipping port or some such? What is their architecture like? Things like this. Direction to "Ecology of..." articles would also be appreciated.
I know you mentioned you don't have Savage Species on the other thread, but you might consider giving it a look for one good reason...Material Culture.
The equipment section, while suggestive that some of the monster races just trade with daring and possibly evil artisans (but who says these artisans can't be goblins or other "savage" humanoids) and others might actually make the equipment themselves, they do have hands for pete's sake.
Point is, there are interesting Magical armor and weapons and regular weapons and items as well as wondrous items. First, there are some racial specific weapons such as the Elf Breaker- which has an affinity for goblinoids as well as giving enhancements in fighting elves. It's just one of a few examples of weapons designed with racial enemies in mind.
Basically, what do the "Savage" humanoids construct? Clearly if they make any of these magic items, they must have magic enough to cast 6th level spells and such. Evidence of these items in a campaign should be enough to convince a non-monstrous party that they're dealing with something a bit more civilized than the "Savages" they thought they were.
There's also the Feral template, which should be the case for any truly "savage species," once civilized but have sunk into a savage state. (They're example is a Minotaur, a nasty one at that, they get POUNCE. Okay, maybe that is too wicked and out of sorts, a minotaur that pounces...)
Anyway, I think the ECLs are okay, but if reduced by one for the more common races, then the book would suit your purposes.
Postscript: at least one current theory on the origins of human political organization posits that "states" existed before "tribes." In brief, the idea is that in its pre-political state, humans weren't organized above the village level. In certain areas, with the development of agriculture, people organized states with priestly and warrior elites that could protect agricultural villages, keep the peace between them, arrange cooperation for things like irrigation and flood control, and collect and store surplus food to feed soldiers and workers and prevent famine. These early states tended to try to expand their power, stimulating neighboring regions where agriculture was marginal to organize: individual clans in these regions could not defend themselves against the newly invented states, nor was it as easy to raid their farming neighbors as it had been, so it made sense to build "tribes." According to this theory, you won't find large "tribes" in the middle of nowhere, only in areas bordering on civilized states.
I found your post really interesting and will almost certainly keep the social organizations in mind when I make my campaign. (Specifically for Minotaurs since they might have a PC amongst them).
I'll add Savage Species to my long list of books that need to be looked over next time I head out to the bookstore. In the meantime, I hadn't even considered making unique items to help differentiate evil and good cultures. Thanks!
CallawayR, I agree that the subjective definitions of noble and brutal savages doesn't really work in the standard game, and throwing out alignments isn't something I'm ready for yet. However, I'm thinking that the best route is to create the aforementioned parallel societies, kingdoms of tyrannical hobgoblins and despotic orcs.
I was a little concerned at first that developing their own nations, almost as advanced as any others, would take them away from the dungeon, so to speak. Much like dwarves and elves tend to stay in their nations and only rarely venture into human lands, I got to thinking that the evil races would then not be around to interact with the adventurers so much.
However, the answer was in their own outlook. Orcs believe in conquest and war. Like the vikings, they are suited for raiding, and with an actual country to fall back to, all that means is that you aren't likely to wipe out the entire tribe when you track down the raiders- just that warband. Similarly, the hobgoblins will live in a martial, ordered society filled with slaves, which of course means that there have to be slavers. All in all, giving the evil humanoids a culture of their own may actually increase the amount of their face time in the campaign.
Also, though the common races are typically "good", the game producers have no problem throwing around examples of evil members of those races whenever it fits the story, which I like, and so the inverse will also be true for savage humanoids- most are evil, but good exceptions are actually quite common.
Anyway, as to the druidic orcs, I've decided these are the ones who have shunned Gruumsh. Not all are good (there are evil gnoll druids, too), but a good number are a fair sight more peaceful than their more "orthodox" brethren, if that word can be used with orcs. However, they wouldn't be welcome in normal orc lands, forcing them to wander and live in the wilderness, and thus serve as a good point for PC orcs to come from.
Now, I'm either going to make a subrace for these druidic orcs, or I'm going to get rid of all the common subraces (no more wood/high elves, just elves, no more hill/mountain dwarves, just dwarves, etc., except for the LA Underdark classics) and have the different forms of the various races completely defined by roleplaying and background, not stats. I'm not sure which route I'll go... I need to discuss it with my players first and give it some heavy thought.
|
I'll add Savage Species to my long list of books that need to be looked over next time I head out to the bookstore. In the meantime, I hadn't even considered making unique items to help differentiate evil and good cultures. Thanks!
You could also make unique items based on the physiology of the race. Not just unique weapons, but basic tools, clothing, and even artwork.
Let's take gnolls for an example. Since they are (in essence)part canine, maybe they have a really good sense of smell, but are colorblind. How would this affect any art their culture produces? Would it be based more on smell then sight? Also, they probably wouldn't use eating utensils, since they are primarily carnivorous and their teeth are more than sufficient for tearing meat. And since they are mainly carnivores, you would likely never see them in an agricultural setting (unless they were raiding). Maybe they would keep a herd of cattle or some other livestock though, something that the females and young could look after when the males are out hunting.
The point is, with some of these races (kenku are another example) we tend to think of the "human-" part of humanoid, and develop the race from there. I think we should also consider, for lack of a better term, the "-oid" part.
One of the Spelljammer novels dealt with this - Estriss was describing to the main character all the patterns and geometric shapes that he could see in a tapestry, but to the main character, it was just a big red tapestry. Quite interesting, really.
I make an effort when I'm DMing to describe the differences in culture whenever applicable.
CallawayR, I agree that the subjective definitions of noble and brutal savages doesn't really work in the standard game, and throwing out alignments isn't something I'm ready for yet. However, I'm thinking that the best route is to create the aforementioned parallel societies, kingdoms of tyrannical hobgoblins and despotic orcs.
I was a little concerned at first that developing their own nations, almost as advanced as any others, would take them away from the dungeon, so to speak. Much like dwarves and elves tend to stay in their nations and only rarely venture into human lands, I got to thinking that the evil races would then not be around to interact with the adventurers so much.
However, the answer was in their own outlook. Orcs believe in conquest and war. Like the vikings, they are suited for raiding, and with an actual country to fall back to, all that means is that you aren't likely to wipe out the entire tribe when you track down the raiders- just that warband. Similarly, the hobgoblins will live in a martial, ordered society filled with slaves, which of course means that there have to be slavers. All in all, giving the evil humanoids a culture of their own may actually increase the amount of their face time in the campaign.
I think that is the way to go. I think it will increase the face time. In my planned homebrew, the hobgoblins are the army of the only world power, an evil empire dominated by humans. Goblins are pretty much relegated to some servile roles (especially the logistical support for the hobgoblin armies, but also for a lot of menial positions for humans too). If it weren't for the "partnership" between the humans and hobgoblins (and the subjegation of the goblins by both), the goblinoids would probably never appear in the game. The campaign setting is across the sea from the continent on which the aforementioned empire is located. Since it's a pretty autocratic state, the trade between the empire and the campaign area is conducted under the Imperial aegis. Which means the ships have hobgoblin marines, the human Imperial envoy leading the mission has a hobgoblin "honor guard", etc. I would not put it past the Empire to send a band of goblins ashore one dark night to start setting up a logisitical base to set up a beachhead for a future hobgoblin incursion. After all these islands were once a part of the previous Empire, and the current Empire wants to reclaim all of its "rightful" possessions.
One thing I am still working on is the role of bugbears in the whole Human/Goblinoid cooperative society. I am ambivalent of giving them the individual heavy/champion - barbarian role they have assumed in Eberron (though I think that is a great idea). I am trying to figure out if there is some way the fact that their favored class is rogue can spur some idea....
The orcs are essentially vikings of the nastier sort. They aren't traders and farmers who indulge in a little extreme violence from time to time. They are extremely violent raiders who are forced to herd and gather when they can't take resources from someone else or get some slaves to do the nonviolent work for them.
The one problem I have is that orcs make HORRIBLE sailors. It's not that they can't get the boats. Just seize them from others or get some slaves to build them some. They just can't really function well onboard. Light sensitivity means they can't sail very well during the day. And darkvision has such a short range that it isn't all that great for sailing at night. Considering they don't have low light vision, they are in the same situation as humans sailing at night. If you are out at sea everything is copacetic, but if you are near shore, cast anchor and wait for daylight or risk running aground or breaking the ship up on the rocks. Except then they are trying to sail in the day with light sensitivity. And all those juicy villages are not far out at sea...
I have also been toying with the idea of making orcs sort of "land-sahuagin." Having a female-priestly, male-warrior orientation. This would mean a shift in orcish religion. Some Kali-like "Cave Mother" bloody handed goddess of birth and death. Then Gruumsh (or his analoge) is her son-husband making offerings of conquest, pillaging and slaughter to his mother-wife.
|
|
that's an interesting point with the Orc's darkvision/light sensitivity.
i hadn't thought of it before, but it DEFINITELY makes a lot of sense.
not to mention, their natural hits to int, wis, and cha make the profession skills unlikely to be high among the low-level members of the tribe. (like most of them)
i could see them as night-raiders, though, on land. massive hordes smashing through the human camps at night? sounds like a huge advantage to the race with darkvision (or lowlight).
the hamster
Let's take gnolls for an example. Since they are (in essence)part canine, maybe they have a really good sense of smell, but are colorblind. How would this affect any art their culture produces? Would it be based more on smell then sight? Also, they probably wouldn't use eating utensils, since they are primarily carnivorous and their teeth are more than sufficient for tearing meat. And since they are mainly carnivores, you would likely never see them in an agricultural setting (unless they were raiding). Maybe they would keep a herd of cattle or some other livestock though, something that the females and young could look after when the males are out hunting.
Aberzombie--good point about physiology for races like gnolls and kenku. I thought gnolls were supposed to be "part-hyena" rather than part-canine. (Hyenas are superficially similar in form but quite different in many particulars, for example, IIRC, females are dominant--which might leave the males at home with baby gnolls slung over their backs tending the goats. Are hyenas color-blind? They are nocturnal, so maybe so).
Hey, Peruhain! Good to see you back on the boards. How was the move?
Great post. Please, list your links. I may not have to time to look at them, but your post is actually what I was most looking for- help developing humanoids cultures based on true examples from our own history.
I think Gruumsh can easily be retooled to be a god that espouses the racial superiority of the orcs and whose doctrine claims they have the true right to the whole of the Earth, without him being completely evil, depending on the methods he preaches to reach that desire. He can even be a war god without being evil (look at Tempus in FR).
Saern--
Glad to be of help. Move went smoothly. D&D books are unpacked already, but not my research stuff, which tells you that I'm not feeling very diligent about my real job right now.
If you have access to a college or university library, I can suggest a couple of classic ethnographies of feuding clan type cultures--I'll need to dig up the citations, and you might want to skim rather than read the whole thing in some cases.
I don't have good online links yet either--I'll try a google search and see what I come up with.
Meanwhile, you could try wikipedia, which is spotty but often has troves of good stuff. The following might help you start your search.
Some examples of historical societies based on systems of feuding clans:
Montenegro (in pre-Tito times)
The Yi people of the Liangshan region of southwestern China (the classic ethnography is by Lin Yueh-hwa, but I can't remember the English language title). They had a well developed system of castes and slavery which might work well as a template for one of your humanoid societies.
Historical examples of marginalized raiders
Various native American groups of the western U.S. during the last years before they were overrun. Comanches in Texas, the Apaches in Arizona, and the Yokuts (led by the infamous Estanislao) in California were all infamous for raiding the cattle herds of Spanish ranchers in the 18th to 19th centuries.
Mongol groups in Inner Mongolia during the Ming period, when Chinese imperial policy cut them off from trade, they took what they wanted instead.
Three additional historical/ethnographic models that might be useful spring to mind:
Gypsies/Romany--have your goblins be wandering outcasts who live within (and occasionally prey upon) civilized society, but don't fit in. (I use halflings in this role in my campaign world--they are more N and not at all LG--but given typical European views of gypsies peoples like this would be similiar to fantasy humans' views of goblins. You could modify them a bit if you wanted to change the flavor, make them waterborne, like the Dan boat people in southeastern China, or like the Rhennee in Greyhawk.
Cossacks--they live in the borderlands, between civilized and savage worlds, and their culture is influenced by both. Usually, their leaders owe fealty to the civilized king and help him fight the barbarous tribes farther out on the steppe (in the mountains, etc.) Sometimes, though, relations between king and chieftain sour, and they join the barbarians in plundering civilized lands. This model might work well for a society made up of a mix of human, orc, and half-orc.
Mamelukes--these are slaves captured in barbaric lands who are trained as the perfect warriors to fight the sultan's wars. Of course, when they become numerous enough, and the sultan lapses into decadence, they might seize power for themselves. (Historically, civilized Muslim rulers in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East employed Mamelukes, slaves from Central Asia, as elite soldiers. They actually took over Egypt for several centuries, until they lost to the Ottomans in 1517). This model might work if you want an elite hobgoblin force working for a human ruler--or a human nation recently conquered by its hobgoblin slave army.
You can probably get the basics on these societies from Wikipedia or Brittanica. Last I checked, the wiki entries on the Yi (above) were not very good (an update project for me, when I get around to it), but the Lin book isn't bad, written by one of China's greatest anthropologists.
I'll get back to you tomorrow or the next day with more links and references. Hope this helps.
Aberzombie--good point about physiology for races like gnolls and kenku. I thought gnolls were supposed to be "part-hyena" rather than part-canine. (Hyenas are superficially similar in form but quite different in many particulars, for example, IIRC, females are dominant--which might leave the males at home with baby gnolls slung over their backs tending the goats. Are hyenas color-blind? They are nocturnal, so maybe so).
Let's take gnolls for an example. Since they are (in essence)part canine, maybe they have a really good sense of smell, but are colorblind. How would this affect any art their culture produces? Would it be based more on smell then sight? Also, they probably wouldn't use eating utensils, since they are primarily carnivorous and their teeth are more than sufficient for tearing meat. And since they are mainly carnivores, you would likely never see them in an agricultural setting (unless they were raiding). Maybe they would keep a herd of cattle or some other livestock though, something that the females and young could look after when the males are out hunting.
After wading my way through fun papers about ganglia and cone density, I have discovered that hyenas (and by extension, gnolls as hyenine humanoids) are color blind (or, officially, dichromates).
that's an interesting point with the Orc's darkvision/light sensitivity.
i hadn't thought of it before, but it DEFINITELY makes a lot of sense.
not to mention, their natural hits to int, wis, and cha make the profession skills unlikely to be high among the low-level members of the tribe. (like most of them)
i could see them as night-raiders, though, on land. massive hordes smashing through the human camps at night? sounds like a huge advantage to the race with darkvision (or lowlight).
the hamster
Orcs as written make GREAT lurkers in dark hole who steal out and kill, kill, kill. But, like Saern, I was looking to try to wring something more out of the race. I was envisioning orcs almost as evil Lapplanders. Their homeland is disappearing under the advance of an ice sheet (which links this thread back to the wandering ice age discussion back on the orc thread). Their traditional lifeways of reluctant herders and enthusiastic hunters and bad all around neighbors is shifting to sea raiders and slave takers as the amount of land diminishes.
Neither situation seems like a good match for the standard orc abilities, namely darkvision.
One of the problems I find with 3rd edition D&D is that there is something of a disconnect with all the material from 1st and 2nd edition. Or at least that it is how it seems to me.
When working on my humanoids I went with the classic versions for my homebrew, I sort of had to - homebrew was updated to 3rd edition but the fluff was still 1st and 2nd edition. To do this I found myself harkening back to 1st and 2nd edition material for the Homebrews Players Book.
So far as I can tell there is no reprint of the basic Orc Creation Myth that I have seen in 3rd edition source material and yet I feel that the Orc Creation Myth as well material such as the Tale of Gerdug add a great deal to the idea of Orcs as savage humanoids without making them basically humans with bad complexions.
I certianly feel that some anthropological reading can be used to make humanoid races seem more alive but would avoid going so far as to have hobgoblins 'be' Japanese. They should be Hobgoblins and not humans. I would think it is important to try and pinpoint aspects of Hobgoblins, Orcs, etc. that are different from humans and work on those aspects to help shape their culture.
If you can get your hands on a copy of 2nd editions [/i]Monster Mythology[/i] for cheap I recomend it as a great place to look for ideas behind the various evil creatures that populate the game. I found it was probably the text I was perusing the most as I created my Players Book for the 3rd edition version of my homebrew. Catacombs was the other book from the days of yonder I found myself rereading in order to improve my worlds look and feel.
|
|
Aberzombie--good point about physiology for races like gnolls and kenku. I thought gnolls were supposed to be "part-hyena" rather than part-canine. (Hyenas are superficially similar in form but quite different in many particulars, for example, IIRC, females are dominant--which might leave the males at home with baby gnolls slung over their backs tending the goats. Are hyenas color-blind? They are nocturnal, so maybe so).
You're right, of course, they are part-Hyena. I just always thought they were canine. My bad.
|
|
After wading my way through fun papers about ganglia and cone density, I have discovered that hyenas (and by extension, gnolls as hyenine humanoids) are color blind (or, officially, dichromates).
Hoorah! They are color blind. At least I was right about something. So does this mean they also sniff each other's butts? Think of how that would affect your game if you applied it to gnolls.
After wading my way through fun papers about ganglia and cone density, I have discovered that hyenas (and by extension, gnolls as hyenine humanoids) are color blind (or, officially, dichromates).Hoorah! They are color blind. At least I was right about something. So does this mean they also sniff each other's butts? Think of how that would affect your game if you applied it to gnolls.
Man, I don't know if I can find any papers or articles on the butt-smelling tendencies of hyenas. I'm not sure I want to. Hyenas are more closely related to cats than dogs. So if both genera are into that, you can extrapolate.
Or maybem hyenine beings like to disguise their scent by rolling in offal or droppings of their prey. How do blood-encrusted, goo-dripping gnolls sound?
Maybe "interesting" smells serve the same function to the gnolls as dressing in fancy clothes do to less "gifted" species.
One of the problems I find with 3rd edition D&D is that there is something of a disconnect with all the material from 1st and 2nd edition. Or at least that it is how it seems to me.
When working on my humanoids I went with the classic versions for my homebrew, I sort of had to - homebrew was updated to 3rd edition but the fluff was still 1st and 2nd edition. To do this I found myself harkening back to 1st and 2nd edition material for the Homebrews Players Book.
So far as I can tell there is no reprint of the basic Orc Creation Myth that I have seen in 3rd edition source material and yet I feel that the Orc Creation Myth as well material such as the Tale of Gerdug add a great deal to the idea of Orcs as savage humanoids without making them basically humans with bad complexions.
I certianly feel that some anthropological reading can be used to make humanoid races seem more alive but would avoid going so far as to have hobgoblins 'be' Japanese. They should be Hobgoblins and not humans. I would think it is important to try and pinpoint aspects of Hobgoblins, Orcs, etc. that are different from humans and work on those aspects to help shape their culture.
If you can get your hands on a copy of 2nd editions [/i]Monster Mythology[/i] for cheap I recomend it as a great place to look for ideas behind the various evil creatures that populate the game. I found it was probably the text I was perusing the most as I created my Players Book for the 3rd edition version of my homebrew. Catacombs was the other book from the days of yonder I found myself rereading in order to improve my worlds look and feel.
In 2nd ed, orcs were LE, if I remember correctly. They were also the only humanoids (in the old sense of the world) with an entry for city (w/population) in their organization.
That seems to be a big overlap with hobgoblins. In fact the afterlives of both species consisted of an eternal mutual war. Probably because they were trying to displace each other, since there was very little difference between them except coloring.
I LIKE the CE 3rd orcs. It alows some juxtaposition between the goblinoids (with their species/sub-species built in caste system) and the "wilder" orcs.
The simple solution for the sailor-orc problem (which I like the thought of- didn't Weis and Hickman do a series with orcs in a pirate role?) is to negate Light Sensitiviy entirely. The
(dis)ability is annoying and arbitrary. Again, I sight mind flayers, who are far more tied with the underground than orcs, and yet suffer no light sensitivity, though they hate the light and seek to extinquish the sun. There are many other creatures that live almost exclusively in deep, dark places, but don't take any penalties for being in the light. To me, it's just a blatant attempt to make them even more Tolkien-esque.
Good input on the gnolls! That is interesting. That's the type of stuff that lets players really feel they are in another world, and the people around them aren't just like a lot of Sci Fi aliens- humans in wierd makeup or rubber suits.
And re the 2e stuff- so THAT'S why Gruumsh is listed as living on Acheron, a LE plane. I always thought that was stupid and contradicted the entire image of orcs. Would it have been too much effort/too "blasphemous" to cannon to move him to the Abyss or Pandemonium? I wish they carried over more detail information to 3e, rather than all the supplemental rules that seem to be the order of the day. Monster Mythologies will go on the list, too, if I can ever find that book.
Excellent post again, Peruhain.
The simple solution for the sailor-orc problem (which I like the thought of- didn't Weis and Hickman do a series with orcs in a pirate role?) is to negate Light Sensitiviy entirely. The
(dis)ability is annoying and arbitrary. Again, I sight mind flayers, who are far more tied with the underground than orcs, and yet suffer no light sensitivity, though they hate the light and seek to extinquish the sun. There are many other creatures that live almost exclusively in deep, dark places, but don't take any penalties for being in the light. To me, it's just a blatant attempt to make them even more Tolkien-esque.I was thinking of keeping the Light Sensitivity and just changing the darkvision to low light vision.
"Them orc raiders came on us by moonlight. Couldn't barely see a godsbedamned thing. That is, 'til they started in lighting things on fire..."
I am thinking of some other crunch to add to the orcs to bring them into parity with other PC races, either in and of themselves or through half-orcs. Maybe a +2 bonus to Survival and Initmidation..... <Ponders>
Wait, maybe this should have gone on the orc thread....
Good input on the gnolls! That is interesting. That's the type of stuff that lets players really feel they are in another world, and the people around them aren't just like a lot of Sci Fi aliens- humans in wierd makeup or rubber suits.Thanks. Here to make your beast headed humanoid monstrosities just that more inhuman. Let's get to work on minotaurs, kenku, etc. next
And re the 2e stuff- so THAT'S why Gruumsh is listed as living on Acheron, a LE plane. I always thought that was stupid and contradicted the entire image of orcs. Would it have been too much effort/too "blasphemous" to cannon to move him to the Abyss or Pandemonium? I wish they carried over more detail information to 3e, rather than all the supplemental rules that seem to be the order of the day. Monster Mythologies will go on the list, too, if I can ever find that book.I guess they just didn't want to end the proto or analogue Blood War type thing that Gruumsh and Maglubiyet had going. Though they haven't ever really indicated that still-living orcs and goblinoids have some huge interspecies hate thing going.
I have also been toying with the idea of making orcs sort of "land-sahuagin." Having a female-priestly, male-warrior orientation. This would mean a shift in orcish religion. Some Kali-like "Cave Mother" bloody handed goddess of birth and death. Then Gruumsh (or his analoge) is her son-husband making offerings of conquest, pillaging and slaughter to his mother-wife.
Luthic had that role in AD&D 2e: "She is the goddess of female orcs, and of fertility (mostly for female orcs; many male orcs take Gruumsh as the male fertility god). She is also a goddess of caves and dark places, and of female servitude (as she serves Gruumsh). Lastly, she is goddess of primitive medicine and healing, and she also helps to restore orcish morale..." (Monster Mythology, p. 47).
Luthic and Gruumsh have an "awesomely stupid son", Bahgtru, whose portfolio is strength and combat (in 2e, Gruumsh's portfolio was war and territory).
As another poster indicated, the Monster Mythology book is well worth having (definitely worth $5 for a PDF download)... it's one of the 2e sources I most frequently consult for my 3.5 game. And, if this means anything to you, it was written by Carl Sargeant.
I'll add Savage Species to my long list of books that need to be looked over next time I head out to the bookstore.
Have you looked at the Slayer's Guides by Mongoose Publishing? While they don't answer all of your questions, they do provide a reasonable overview of humanoid psychology, society, etc. The Slayer's Compendium includes the guides to orcs, gnolls, trolls, hobgoblins, bugbears, and troglodytes (among others); you'd need to buy the guides to kobolds, goblins, and ogres separately. One weakness of the books is that they don't really address cooperative relations with other races, but the remainder of the fluff is interesting (I really like the low emphasis on crunch in the Slayer's Guide series).
As for humanoid cities... the Pomarj and the empire of Iuz notwithstanding, Greyhawk also has Garek Enkdal, an orcish city of 25,000 located in the northwestern Griff Mountains, south of Stonehold (see WGS1 "Five Shall Be One"). Just in case you were interested...
Great thread, by the way...
I have also been toying with the idea of making orcs sort of "land-sahuagin." Having a female-priestly, male-warrior orientation. This would mean a shift in orcish religion. Some Kali-like "Cave Mother" bloody handed goddess of birth and death. Then Gruumsh (or his analoge) is her son-husband making offerings of conquest, pillaging and slaughter to his mother-wife.
Luthic had that role in AD&D 2e: "She is the goddess of female orcs, and of fertility (mostly for female orcs; many male orcs take Gruumsh as the male fertility god). She is also a goddess of caves and dark places, and of female servitude (as she serves Gruumsh). Lastly, she is goddess of primitive medicine and healing, and she also helps to restore orcish morale..." (Monster Mythology, p. 47).
Luthic and Gruumsh have an "awesomely stupid son", Bahgtru, whose portfolio is strength and combat (in 2e, Gruumsh's portfolio was war and territory).
As another poster indicated, the Monster Mythology book is well worth having (definitely worth $5 for a PDF download)... it's one of the 2e sources I most frequently consult for my 3.5 game. And, if this means anything to you, it was written by Carl Sargeant.
Yup, I remember Luthic. I was thinking of just inverting the power structure. Get rid of the female servility thing. Give female and male orcs different, but somewhat equal, roles. Like the Iroquois, where females ruled the clans but didn't make any decisions regarding warfare, while the men did all the warfare and represented the clan to the confederacy. The female clan leaders decided who the war-leader/representatives were though...)
I think there were also Ilneval (Gruumsh's right hand man, god of serjeants, I guess), Shargas (orcish god of ninjas) and Yurtus (god of disease). A respectable pantheon all in all. I think most of it has been ported over into FR. I remember they also tied into the names for the orc tribes listed in the first ed MM: Pale Hands for Yurtus, Black Moon for Shargas, Vile Rune for Luthic, etc.
Of course I would probably make up all my own names for whatever I pick. Like Luthic would become something like Tsez Khatar or the like.
Yup, I remember Luthic. I was thinking of just inverting the power structure. Get rid of the female servility thing. Give female and male orcs different, but somewhat equal, roles. Like the Iroquois, where females ruled the clans but didn't make any decisions regarding warfare, while the men did all the warfare and represented the clan to the confederacy. The female clan leaders decided who the war-leader/representatives were though...)I think there were also Ilneval (Gruumsh's right hand man, god of serjeants, I guess), Shargas (orcish god of ninjas) and Yurtus (god of disease). A respectable pantheon all in all. I think most of it has been ported over into FR. I remember they also tied into the names for the orc tribes listed in the first ed MM: Pale Hands for Yurtus, Black...
Dang, you're right, I forgot that most of the MM pantheons ended up being ported into the FR Faiths and Pantheons (as a GH/Ravenloft DM abd Dragonlance player, I rarely look at the few FR books in my collection). You're parallel between orc and Iroquois culture definitely sounds interesting...
An interesting story more or less about Baghtru:
First of all, it's been a tradition amongst many of the players in my recently disbanded first group to name their characters after some other character in a video game, movie, or book, who was fairly obscure, but they liked. I've partaken of the practice myself a time or two.
A few months back, close to half a year now, I got a chance to make a new character in the game I played in. I almost always choose spellcasters, but I got a wild hair to try a barbarian. I decided to go half-orc (I wanted to be a full orc, but the DM wouldn't allow it at the time), and when I found rolled the stats and discovered that my Intelligence was going to be a whopping 5 (and the other mental stats were no gems, either), I knew just the name for the character from the back of the FR. :)
Baghtru was an "awesomely stupid" soul, CN in alignment because, much like an animal, he was just a little two dumb to really think through his actions much. He had a tendancy to try to talk to squirrels and rabbits and other woodland creatures when the party traveled, and when they ran away, he would do his best to follow and assure them that he only wanted to be friends. Within the next few minutes to hours, the rest of the party would realize what had happened (again) and head off after their wayward companion. This resulted in Baghtru nearly being eaten by giant spiders and a tendriculous, as well as displacer beasts almost making a meal of the party mage. He was also completely unable of holding even normal conversation with anyone, but Baghtru was oblivious to this and went right ahead, trying to talk up a storm with everyone. Much confusion (and fun) abounded.
However, when he got into combat, Baghtru was a monstrosity. The end of Baghtru came when (it's a long story) his arm got ripped off by a gray render. He picked up his greataxe in one hand, and despite the horrendous penalties for doing so, proceeded to down the beast. When Abyssal gargoyles descended upon the party, however, he was not fully recovered, and they slew poor Baghtru.
That actually reminds me of a near identical character I had in a very, very short one-shot campaign. I got a lot of flack from my fellow players for abandoning my beloved role of party wizard, so this half-orc barbarian, this time with a 4 Intelligence, decided that he was, in fact, a wizard. He even had a spell component pouch, and called hitting things with his sword "magic." If anyone debated him, he threatened to show them his "magic", too. He also thought he was the brother of the party cleric, as the spellcaster was also a half-orc, but had not, in fact, ever seen my character before in his life.
Another bit of fun. :)
Back on topic a bit more- If I go with the option of splitting the classic orc into subraces, I will probably do the following:
Orc A: +4 Str, -2 Dex, +2 Con, -2 Int, -2 Cha
Orc B: +2 Str, +2 Con, -2 Int, -2 Cha
Orc A (either "Mountain" or "Blood" orcs) will comprise the evil, despotic component of the species, while Orc B (perhaps called "Spirit" orcs) will comprise the more passive, druidic, nomadic element of the race.
An interesting story more or less about Baghtru:
First of all, it's been a tradition amongst many of the players in my recently disbanded first group to name their characters after some other character in a video game, movie, or book, who was fairly obscure, but they liked. I've partaken of the practice myself a time or two.
A few months back, close to half a year now, I got a chance to make a new character in the game I played in. I almost always choose spellcasters, but I got a wild hair to try a barbarian. I decided to go half-orc (I wanted to be a full orc, but the DM wouldn't allow it at the time), and when I found rolled the stats and discovered that my Intelligence was going to be a
whopping 5 (and the other mental stats were no gems, either), I knew just the name for the character from the back of the FR. :)
Baghtru was an "awesomely stupid" soul, CN in alignment because, much like an animal, he was just a little two dumb to really think through his actions much. He had a tendancy to try to talk to squirrels and rabbits and other woodland creatures when the party traveled, and when they ran away, he would do his best to follow and assure them that he only wanted to be friends. Within the next few minutes to hours, the rest of the party would realize what had happened (again) and head off after their wayward companion. This resulted in Baghtru nearly being eaten by giant spiders and a tendriculous, as well as displacer beasts almost making a meal of the party mage. He was also completely unable of holding even normal conversation with anyone, but Baghtru was oblivious to this and went right ahead, trying to talk up a storm with everyone. Much confusion (and fun) abounded.
However, when he got into combat, Baghtru was a monstrosity. The end of Baghtru came when (it's a long story) his arm got ripped off by a gray render. He picked up his greataxe in one hand, and despite the horrendous penalties for doing so, proceeded to down the beast. When Abyssal gargoyles descended upon the party, however,...
You're story reminds me of my first 3.0 character, a half-orc barbarian named...Mud.
Now Mud didn't know how to read or write, but had ink and paper nonetheless, determined to learn. (I think his intelligence was low as well, hardly a 5, but still below average or less than the best). He was strong though, and charged into battle well and good, as a barbarian should. I think his strength might have been 19. Mud might have been a bit of an annoyance with the party, but he fought hard to protect his fellow adventurers.
however, mud's campaign was short lived, but he didn't go out in a magnificent blaze of glory like yours did...I don't remember how we left off our campaign, I think it just ended as most of our campaigns did back then, the guy dming just couldn't keep up with us or didn't want to stick to one campaign that long. (then again 3.0 came out like right after we started a 2e campaign with my favorite character of all time, Gregal the Sylvan Elf Berserker with natural 19 strength, he knocked out a hill giant in a friendly boxing match. We also had a Dragonlance style Minotaur in the party, 20 str I believe. so they butted heads)
Anyway, I guess the point of the story is that an orc, or a half-orc or a barbarian, need not be too bright or charismatic (though Mud's favorite skill was Intimidate), he simply has to mean well to be a productive, or at least interesting, member of the party. And I think you settled on the ability adjustments to give them the feel they should have...for your campaign anyway.
The simple solution for the sailor-orc problem (which I like the thought of- didn't Weis and Hickman do a series with orcs in a pirate role?) is to negate Light Sensitiviy entirely. ... To me, it's just a blatant attempt to make them even more Tolkien-esque.
Even Tolkien's orcs weren't universally light-sensitive. The small breeds from the Misty Mountains (something closer to D&D goblins) were very uncomfortable in sunlight, while the larger Uruks had no trouble with it at all. And the orcs that ravaged Beleriand in Silmarillion didn't have any trouble with light either, as I recall.
I'd say the light-sensitivity really ought to go with environment--underdark versions of a lot of creatures ought to have it, while surface races or subraces should not. If you want to balance, take away their darkvision and give them low-light vision instead.
As for gnolls, hyenas and posterior sniffing, well, I don't have any knowledge. We humans only do that sort of thing metaphorically. But somewhere I read that female hyenas have enlarged genitalia that mimic a male's, for what evolutionary purpose I can't remember clearly--it had something to do with their dominance over the males (and establishing which female was at the top of the pecking order), perhaps. A little more research on hyenas might liven up everyone's gnoll cultures. Maybe it's penis-envy that animate's Yeenoghu's demonic behavior!
(Apologies in advance to those who may take offense).