I'd seriously reconsider the broken English. You'll grow tired of it real quick, and the players probably won't use it.
Besides, I'm sure they had grammar, even back then.
As a matter of fact older languages tend to be more elaborate and complex than modern ones except maybe for VERY early basic verbalizations. For example Modern English than Middle English is simpler than German or Old English is simpler than old Germanic is simpler than the Indo-Germanic languages. (this rundown may not be entirely accurate but the point is, the tendency overall went toward the simplest grammar as time went on)
If anything if you want to simulate ancient speech, you should make it as complicated and elevated as possible. Use lots of big words and old timey "thouest"-type grammar.
They ARE great shelter. Probably the malibu beach condos of the time. They still could not all have lived in caves.
Or more like hunting cabins.
A place that you could stop and rest along the way chasing those freakin' DIRE caribou.
The point is, we survived outside before we ever got it into our heads to live in caves. And no, caves are not lots and lots, nor are they necessarily more than a tiny concavity where they do exist. At some point, we found caves. And we considered them cool. But to imagine that any significant portion of humanity ever lived in caves, which the term caveman suggests, that is ridiculous.
No language spoken by humans, sure. But what about American Sign Language as spoken by chimpanzees, you know Pan troglodyte?
It's debatable whether chimps are actually USING ASL as language as opposed to simply following their training very well. If they truly grokked the concept of language, they'd be able to teach each other, and so far as I know, this has not happened.
The point is, we survived outside before we ever got it into our heads to live in caves. And no, caves are not lots and lots, nor are they necessarily more than a tiny concavity where they do exist. At some point, we found caves. And we considered them cool. But to imagine that any significant portion of humanity ever lived in caves, which the term caveman suggests, that is ridiculous.
Especially since the area where Humanity is considered to have arisn, simply isn't known for having easily accessible caves. Cave use is a latter development when the early hominoids started wandering out of ?Africa, into colder, more mountainous places like Europe.
If it fascinating to me that our common origins as described by the scientific community are a better reflection of current views on sociology than what little is known of the times in question. I suppose Orwell was right in some way.
If it fascinating to me that our common origins as described by the scientific community are a better reflection of current views on sociology than what little is known of the times in question. I suppose Orwell was right in some way.
Can you elaborate?
As a small kid, the exhibitions I saw were ancient. Clay work on skull replicas were in its infancy. We were homo sapiens, fighting the evil homo neanderthalensis. We were apparently still white. We wore uncured animal skins. Mighty hunters brought herds into ravines. Fire was something saved in firecages. The introduction to 2001 made sense. People documented the victory of the inexplicably white homo sapiens over the neanderthal danger, sabre tooth tigers and dire elk on cave walls. The parts where cliff etchings showed people having sex with animals were ignored. Everyone lived in core families in cozy caves.
Now, our past has changed. Our ancestors were black, neanderthals were white and had red hair. There was interbreeding. Everyone was apparently skilled because they had to be, making all their tools themselves. Women gathering were the major providers. Families have been replaced with family groups. Cozy caves are not a big thing anymore. Cave paintings are diverse. The toll of our ancesrors on the environment is in focus.
And so on...
You're saying than that we are changing our interpretations of the past because of our modern values, thus blinding ourselves to conventional observation, as opposed to my belief that because we actually are doing a better job of understanding ourselves, we're noticing things about our ancestors we did not have the knowledge or wisdom to notice before?
That's what I gathered from that.
But I'd say the modern understanding othe past (history and prehistory) simply changes based on advancing scientific discovery.
it merely mirrors modern values by coincidence. Or perhaps our knowledge of the past influences our modern values, because we now have the perspective to understand where we come from and why we are where we are.
I think it's very likely that our interpretations of what we perceive are tainted by our perceptions of how we think things should be. So yes, scientists probably initially tried to make cavemen fit into the whole 1950s atomic family dynamic. But they also had less evidence to the contrary at the time; they had almost no evidence to anything, so they filled in the gaps with their "modern day" perceptions.
Now, we know better, we have more evidence of how it was, and less gaps to fill in, so it's a more accurate depiction.
There's also less pressure to make everything fit into some perfect representation of how it should have been. Hundreds of years ago, someone would likely have been burnt at the stake or crucified for trying to say that humans used to be cavemen, and even farther back, monkeys. Now, scientists can pretty much state truth without too much fear of social backlash, so they don't HAVE to make scientific discoveries more palatable.
:smurfatar:
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that Larry Summers, Charles Murray, Bjorn Lomborg, and a host of others might disagree about being able to state truth "without fear of social backlash." In the field of ancient archeology, scientists who wanted to study Kennewick man and the site the skeleton was discovered might also have something to say about how well society tolerates politically disapproved research. Heck, scientists can't even wear bowling shirts to press conferences without fear of backlash.
Supposedly(*), different people are lashing back now, but the academy--most especially sociology, anthropology, psychology, and other so-called soft sciences--is more politically (and even more culturally) monolithic than ever before and is less tolerant.
As to the claim that scientific discovery is on the uptick, you might want to check out the increasing percentage of unverifiable results in published (and supposedly peer reviewed) studies in the hard sciences (where the subject matter allows more exacting scientific rigor).
*Supposedly. The reality of the past is rather different than you are making it out to be. Remember that the 1950s were the era that Margaret Mead's fraudulent work was being touted as groundbreaking science and the equally flawed Kinsey report was cited as gospel.
I recommend you start a thread in "General Discussion" this thread is really more me asking for help on my campaign. Alternatively, if you have long spiels about historical or anthropological information (while fascinating) maybe you could spoiler it, to make it easier to find posts about the thread. Thank you all for your interest however.
Precisely. When you are in a certain paradigm, you can't see it. You can, however, see the old ones better.
What kind of ecology will your PCs be originating in? Jungles? Glacial meadows and forests? Swamps?
What do they hunt? What hunts them?
Do the troglodytes have competing civilizations? Are they the first civilization ever? Or are they building upon even more ancient ruins?
All right, Necro' Time
So I think I was trying a bit too hard to flesh out a full campaign. I"m just going to make it as I go along with players. I"m starting to get back to work on it, so I just wanted your guys' input on some stuff. I'm deciding the continent and fleshing out the story. So below I just have some ideas for races and to get a feel for the major players. From here on out I'm concerned about story, but the money and currency is something to work on. I'm thinking Cacao beans for GP, maybe dolls for SP, and not sure for CP. While maybe not realistic, at least having a currency system makes things easier.
Also, I am aware that this thread has had a slight derail. I am interested in the whole language bit myself so here is my verdict. I'm going to drop the broken English. At the very least it would be exhausting to keep up. Unless my players really want to do it; but I think they'll be fine. Now I know that probably will not suffice, so I've started another thread here talking about the whole broken English thing. Could help with other campaigns.
So, here are the major players:
Starting with Core Races, Troglodytes, and Lizardfolk.
Okay, Dwarves. Dwarves probably just emerged from the darkness. They're good stoneworkers, although slightly isolated and Xenophobic. Maybe they just prefer to live by themselves and set up their own traditions. The Xulgaths worship qlippoths however, so the destructive chaos of them may just piss the Dwarves off enough to pitch in. They mostly can provide arms for any tribal armies.
Alright, the Elves will be Spaniards. Bear with me here. Instead of technology and advanced firearms, they'll have Arcane Magic. The Wizardry Kind. There may still be Wizards among the tribes, but certainly much less. The Elves will also be greedy and manipulative, to the point of trying to start wars. They're mostly foreigners here. Trying to decide if they come in before or after the Xulgaths die off.
Okay I have trouble with this one. Gnomes probably have a close relationship with the fey, and live in their communities. They probably just like to enjoy interacting with all sorts of tribes. I never really got gnomes as the kind to just settle in one place or one kind of people anyways.
Orcs will be a major player. There are many orcs so if organized they could create a sizable army. The Xulgaths might enjoy using them as entertainment. They are aggressive however and kept in check. They could be instrumental to winning the war. I believe someone had an earlier idea on fostering an early hatred for everything. I love it. Maybe they decide there's no need to work with others anymore. Half-Orcs are pretty much the same. Maybe a little less prejudiced against. Orcs are really good soldiers.
Xulgath slaves? They're pretty small and probably just used for that purpose. I'm sure the Halflings hate it. They just want to settle down in their own peaceful communities. I don't know why I have trouble with the small races so if there's anything you guys have to pitch in; it's much appreciated.
Pretty much everywhere. Breed like crazy and are therefore the majority of Xulgath sacrifices. Can't really define them all as they're so varied. The heart of the rebellion.
I'm sorry, Xulgaths. These are pretty much the main villain. Modeled after the Aztecs and possessing writing, architecture, and agriculture. Pretty serious stuff. I'm picturing them living in harsh lands, sustaining themselves off farming blessed/cursed by the Qlippoths they worship. It's why they need the sacrifices so much. Probably their weakness, plus they can't breed as fast as mammals. They currently rule by fear, but will be overthrown over the campaign. Maybe the Elves have some way to profit off that.
Think of them as the Xulgath's cousins. Those not willing to worship Qlippoths. They don't really like the Xulgaths and are tremendously passionate. They are quite joyous and I think even Chaotic Good. They are skilled warriors and assist the effort. Plus, they are a little bit more advanced. Not as much as the Xulgaths. Why are they Neutral later? Well I'm thinking after fighting off the Xulgaths, the Elves turn them against humans, which causes their population to become irreparably damaged, and make them a lot more depressed and paranoid.
So that hopefully can break down the major players. I may come back later and add more races. I'll definitely have Monsters in here probably sprawling all around. Using advanced Automatic Bonus Progression, and everyone is kind've separated for the most part into the regions, except for the specific wanderers.
Anything else to pitch in? Remember, I started a new thread for the Languages bit. For all the racist races, this is where the prejudice can all start.
All right, I'm sorry I just have to do Goblins now.
Ah, who doesn't love these little guys? Honestly, their lifestyle is exactly the same. Maybe they just discovered their love for fire in a hilarious twist. They just go around in Orc Country (like on the outside) messing around. They survive for their adaptability, but can't really organize and don't care enough to be valuable allies. Oddly enough they do seem to listen to Hobgoblins.
This seems very interesting. By design Hobgoblins are very ordered and organized. In a setting like this I doubt they'll be that powerful. They probably all hunt together and terrorize smaller tribes. I'm thinking they predict the downfall of the Xulgaths, and try to instill themselves into power. Then they just raise a huge Goblin army to try and raid and conquer large amounts of land.
Hmm... Bugbears. I guess they're pretty happy. They can just wander around killing stuff at their pleasure. Not much to it, and they might be less beholden to the influence of Hobgoblins, as they aren't really strong enough to dominate others yet.
What kind of ecology will your PCs be originating in? Jungles? Glacial meadows and forests? Swamps?
What do they hunt? What hunts them?
Do the troglodytes have competing civilizations? Are they the first civilization ever? Or are they building upon even more ancient ruins?
I'm thinking a vast continent. The Xulgaths live in harsh desert land; relying on religion to survive. They probably aren't the first civilization, but the first land ones to gain meaningful power. Nudge-nudge, Aboleths.
PC's hunt whatever. Mostly large animals I suppose but all sorts of magical monsters can thrive as well.
Where should I put Dragons?
Red in the mountains.
Blue in the deserts.
Green in the forests and jungles.
Black in the swamps.
White in the north and other cold areas.
Maybe have the lizard folk worship, or at least venerate, the good dragons?
Maybe blue dragons are allied with the elves. The elves want to conquer the Xulgath empire, but the blue dragons want to win their desert back. Dragons vs. Demons (sorry, Qloppith (sp?)).