Well, since Urbis (http://juergen.the-huberts.net/dnd/urbis/) is the campaign showcase for this week, I guess I ought to start some new discussions on it...
One things I love to do with Urbis is taking some classical fantasy and D&D tropes (clichés, even), put them into Urbis, and then twist them just enough to make them interesting again.
My favorite example of this is the elven nation of Narevoreen (http://juergen.the-huberts.net/dnd/urbis/narevoreen.html). It used to be a stereotypical Elven Island Homeland in the West where humans were forbidden to set foot on under pain of death.
But after certain incidents, a human armada laid siege to the place and forced them to open up to the world. Now Narevoreen is in a similar position like Japan during the Meiji Restoration - they are desperate to catch up to the rest of the world in terms of magic and technology and are sending their brightest young elves abroad to learn more from the humans...
So here is my question: What are some of the most frequently encountered clichés of fantasy literature and D&D settings that you can think of? It doesn't matter if you find them annoying or merely "part of the genre" - what matters is that they are easily recognizeable.
And if you have any ideas for including them in Urbis and twisting them in an appropriate manner, please tell me about that, too!
halflings are generally one of two things: hobbits or kender.
gnomes are greedy.
humans would be an incredibly tricky issue, as they generally dont have that much of a stereotype. from my understanding, a lot of players that consistantly use humans do it for the lack of a stigma.
Quote from: http://juergen.the-huberts.net/dnd/urbis/siebenbund.htmlSwiss[/url]. Does that count? ;)
Quote from: http://juergen.the-huberts.net/dnd/urbis/noteworthy_groups_and_societies.htmlworld's largest bank[/url] (scroll down to "Gemeinschaftsbank") is run by gnomes. It seemed appropriate, somehow...
Quotehumans would be an incredibly tricky issue, as they generally dont have that much of a stereotype. from my understanding, a lot of players that consistantly use humans do it for the lack of a stigma.
cultures[/i], then. Or stereotypical groups and organizations.
Elves always end up being important.
You indicated that your elves are behind in technology. Maybe they could still think they are better than everyone else and their reasoning for sending young elves away to learn is to ensure their continued superiority.
Quote from: http://juergen.the-huberts.net/dnd/urbis/verdant_coast.htmlthis region[/url] for an example. There, the elves used to rule a large kingdom with humans as subjects and slaves, but one day the humans rose up in rebellion and killed or banished the elves...
Incidentally, though I don't plan to spell it out explicitly in the setting writeup (since it doesn't matter that much to the way the setting works now and I want to give DMs freedom to come up with their own Ancient History), the reason for the large number of humanoid species in the world can be traced back to an ancient society of powerful wizards who were able to create whole new species.
They created orcs and goblinoids as warriors.
They created dwarves and gnomes as craftsmen.
They created halflings as domestic servants.
And they turned their own children into the first elves to rule over them all.
I mean, consider the facts - elves are extremely long-lived, have good looks, superior senses, less need for sleep and a bunch of other things many humans only wish they had. So this only makes sense.
Of course, their realm didn't last and eventually broke down under a spectacular civil war. The various races scattered to the four winds and today the only people who know about this are some extremely senior elven sages who'd prefer not to be reminded of the fact that their race is descended from something as primitive as humanity...
QuoteYou indicated that your elves are behind in technology. Maybe they could still think they are better than everyone else and their reasoning for sending young elves away to learn is to ensure their continued superiority.
re-establish[/i] their superiority - at least, that's what at least some of the elves of that nation hope for. And we all know what happened with Japan after the Meji Restoration, right?
Yes, we do. I was born in the wrong country.
One cliche you often see in fantasy is that everything seems to fall to dualism. Like entire races are classified as good/evil. Elves are good. Gnolls are evil. Of course, one could say some races are culturally predisposed towards certain behaviors because of the societies in which they are raised. But there's no reason we have to make it that way.
Well, not in my setting. Gnolls are capricious, but no more evil than any nomadic hunting society. They will kill their enemies and kill for food. So do lots of primitive socities.
Quote from: Phoenix KnightWell, not in my setting. Gnolls are capricious, but no more evil than any nomadic hunting society. They will kill their enemies and kill for food. So do lots of primitive socities.
Damn right! In Altvogge,
all player races default to TN. That includes gnolls. Gnolls are a very paranoid race, though, usually only willing to trust dwarves.
Quote from: Phoenix KnightWell, not in my setting. Gnolls are capricious, but no more evil than any nomadic hunting society. They will kill their enemies and kill for food. So do lots of primitive socities.
but do they ever kill more then absolutely needed- even if the kill isnt for sport?
for example, lets say gnolls are racial enemies to hobgoblins, and they eat rats. obviously a gnoll would kill a hobgoblins that threatened its life (or maybe even coming into gnoll territory), and kill a rat for dinner; but would the gnoll go out into hobgoblin territory and kill as many hobgoblins as it could, then go and kill enough rats for a weeks worth of food? obviously the hobgoblin massacre could be justified as a preemptive strike, and the rats could be justified as preparing for potential famine, but at the time of the killing, there was no actual need.
i would judge, in this case, that even with the excuse of a preemptive striek, the hobgoblin massacre would still stand as an evil act, but thats just me....
If the gnolls were at war (even an undeclared war as tribal societies are apt to have), then they would qualify as enemies. Gnolls, like most races, will kill their enemies. While it may be questionable, if it makes them, as a society evil, then virtually every society that has ever existed on Earth, especially before modern times, joins them in it.
In my case, they are in a continual state of aggression with the other race of their doman, the catfolk. They war for game (not sport), as both are nomadic and follow the food source.
You list a reason for their actions, so I'm not sure that that can really qualify as no need. Gaining a weeks worth of food satisfies a need.
As opposed to (from the SRD):
QuoteGnolls are hyena-headed, evil humanoids that wander in loose tribes. Most gnolls have dirty yellow or reddish-brown fur. A gnoll is a nocturnal carnivore, preferring intelligent creatures for food because they scream more.
Fantasy Clichés, as appearing in "Immortal"
Orcs: Kill kill KILL!
I'm clinging to this cliché like mad, because it serves my purposes in creating a foe so utterly remorseless and brutal that even seasoned warriors cringe when hearing of them. They're not evil, really; it's pathologically inherent, like an army of meticulous psychopaths. Or maybe that does make them evil. I dunno, my psychyatrist was a little opaque about that. I think he doesn't want to hurt my feelings, for some reason... Ahem. Anyhoo. It doesn't help that they're immortal, and are reborn when killed, so they can't be removed through genocide.
They just keep COMING!
Elves: Self-important, and, well, important.
The elves ruled the world, and kinda still do, except that they live in the sky and can't stay on the ground for long for fear of mutation (the local ecosystems are no longer kind to the elven constitution). They're very Tolkienesque,in the sense that theirs was a noble world that is now passing. However, it is passing because of their own self-destructiveness: not via arrogance, but the panicked fear of an ancient race nearing the world's end, struggling to repair the damage they have caused, but only making it worse. In the end, they'll survive, eternally, when the other races have been forgotten, but is their immortality a blessing and do they want to see the new world that unfolds before them?
Hobgoblins: War-loving and elitist.
The hobgoblins, or breog, pretty much rule the surface of the world. The elves consider themselves the true masters of the world, but they're all stuck up amidst the clouds and can't wrest control from hobgobbies. So the various breog kingdoms just fight fight fight, as they've been doing for millennia, and enslave humans whenever they can.
Oh yeah, and they're also mutants. 'Cos mutants are cool.
Humans: Versatile, huh? No surprise there...
The interesting thing about humans and fantasy clichés, is that it is the presence of other races that makes them clichéd. Elves? Aloof. Orcs? Violent. Dwarves? Taciturn. Gnomes? Irritating. Halflings? Ammunition/nutrition/firewood. Humans? Well... just humans, really. With all manner of exotic races parading around them, humans remain decidedly unspecialised, kind of like the bards of the playable races. This is well emphasised by their extra feat and skill points: they're more creative, motivated, and full of more potential than the other races, but... boring. Thus, they become the benchmark for normalcy, like the trunk of the tree from which the other races sprout. And in doing so, they become clichés themselves.
gaining a weeks worth of food satisfies a desire, not a need. when a creatue is hungry, they only need enough food to satisfy that hunger; even the hyenas that gnolls resemble only take enough food to satisfy hunger, as do all animals.
as for war...
it would be fair for themselves to defend themselves against an army, certainly. actively starting a war, on the other hand, isnt something that all societies do. most- if not all- "civilized" societies (as you said, especially in modern times) do this, but not all societies.
edit- doulbe post, due to server troubles
Cliches:
1. 9 out of ten adventures begin in a bar.
2. 1 out of 3 hirelings you encounter living about said bar want to rob you in the wilderness.
3. Humanoids all have poor hygiene. They are reputed to be good miners but are apparently lazy.
4. Elves are the original green party except for the sellouts who live in small towns disguised as merchants.
5. While dwarf women and children exist, you will only ever meet fully mature heavily bearded male dwarves.
6. Somehow, all ruins end up swarming with gigantic vermin that could carry away a potbellied pig.
7. A ruin can be practically falling apart, flooded, half burned, crumbling...but the traps still work.
8. Character maintenance never seems to require personal hygiene.
9. Evil cults somehow manage to fluorish hundreds of miles from civilization, beyond roads or even ports.
10. Lizard folk are always savages while snake folk are always the degenerate survivors of a lost ancient civilization.
Barbarians are always pictured as Norse.
Why not Mongolian horsemen or Zulu impis or Formosan head-hunters? Mongols would make great barbarian tribe, as would Zulus. Of course rage should be played down or replaced with different advantage, depending on culture.
Speaking of barb cliches: Only "barbarians" can go berserk and fight with passion over precision.
In my game there are Celtic tribesmen that are barbarians.
Quote from: Phoenix KnightSpeaking of barb cliches: Only "barbarians" can go berserk and fight with passion over precision.
It is the Norse ideology again. Norses had berserkers, propably going off with
Amanita muscaria, ie. fly agaric. One of the symptoms of poisoning by this mushroom is uncontrolable rage, so it isn't so much passion, but psychotic episode.
But this just proves the my point: Barbarian is just Viking cliché, not any primitive warrior.
Quote from: WormwoodQuote from: Phoenix KnightSpeaking of barb cliches: Only "barbarians" can go berserk and fight with passion over precision.
It is the Norse ideology again. Norses had berserkers, propably going off with Amanita muscaria, ie. fly agaric. One of the symptoms of poisoning by this mushroom is uncontrolable rage, so it isn't so much passion, but psychotic episode.
But this just proves the my point: Barbarian is just Viking cliché, not any primitive warrior.
Actually Berserkers were members of the mythic Vidar cult, who could transform into bears, as opposed to the Uller cult, the Ulfhednir that could transform into wolves.
The Barbarian is more a Howard//Haggard stereotype than anything else. Reason enough why I dropped the class from my setting. I made the rage thing a feat chain.
Quote5. While dwarf women and children exist, you will only ever meet fully mature heavily bearded male dwarves.
Or you could revert to the 1st edition standard, and Pratchett standard, of heavily bearded dwarf females.
"There was no such thing as a dwarfish female pronoun or, once the children were on solids, any such thing as women's work."
-- Terry Pratchett,
The Fifth Elephant
Quote from: Cuirassier CYMROQuote from: WormwoodIt is the Norse ideology again. Norses had berserkers, propably going off with Amanita muscaria, ie. fly agaric. One of the symptoms of poisoning by this mushroom is uncontrolable rage, so it isn't so much passion, but psychotic episode.
But this just proves the my point: Barbarian is just Viking cliché, not any primitive warrior.
Actually Berserkers were members of the mythic Vidar cult, who could transform into bears, as opposed to the Uller cult, the Ulfhednir that could transform into wolves.
The Barbarian is more a Howard//Haggard stereotype than anything else. Reason enough why I dropped the class from my setting. I made the rage thing a feat chain.
I was talking about closest historical culture. I hope you weren't.
But I like barbarians in my settings. There is room for the 'noble savage' in the class structure and while fighter could fill in, problem is there is no limitations to the fighter and thus he will end up as too weapon-optimised for the role.
I have been toying with a idea of creating three barbarian sub-classes (not prestige, but seperate classes), where one would be good with horses (Mongols), one would have the rage (Norse) and third would be leaning towards ranger as nature based warrior, like plains-tribes in North America (Sioux or Apache warriors).