theme for a fantasy campaign

[Astromancer]

In several Old AD&D supplements (dealing with the Gods of the Demi-Humans and the Orcs) the idea of Humans as the lucky sepcies that can live anywhere is mentioned or used as an origin element.

Try this idea. It's not a blessing, humanity, traditionally depicted as less magical than the other Races, has no special home, no place that is properly and rightfully theirs. They aren't cursed, but they primal parents of humanity failed to show up for the blessings, so they don't have them.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Try this idea. It's not a blessing, humanity, traditionally depicted as less magical than the other Races, has no special home, no place that is properly and rightfully theirs. They aren't cursed, but they primal parents of humanity failed to show up for the blessings, so they don't have them.

No, I specifically do not want that. If you make Men special in that way, you have a world whose logic is to end up with the Dominion of Men. That was Tolkien's theme; Middle-Earth was a world whose destiny was to turn into our disenchanted world. But we don't love it because it's disenchanted, but because of the enchantment that lingers in it. I'm looking to explore that enchantment.

Bill Stoddard

[Bengt]

The standard multirace settings always bugs me. If they are seriously restricted to certain terrain types it gets more plausible. I don't think it's a good idea for one race to be forced to trade for their very survival, it makes them too weak in the long run. Dwarves could grow stuff underground in geothermal heat or something. It's better if everyone trades for something that is very convenient but not absolutely essential.

How hard are you planning to lock them to their land? Personally I think it should be pretty harsh, e.g. a race is only fertile if they eat food grown in their natural habitat. That would still allow Adventurers to travel about.

How possible will terraforming be?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Bengt

The standard multirace settings always bugs me. If they are seriously restricted to certain terrain types it gets more plausible. I don't think it's a good idea for one race to be forced to trade for their very survival, it makes them too weak in the long run. Dwarves could grow stuff underground in geothermal heat or something. It's better if everyone trades for something that is very convenient but not absolutely essential.

How hard are you planning to lock them to their land? Personally I think it should be pretty harsh, e.g. a race is only fertile if they eat food grown in their natural habitat. That would still allow Adventurers to travel about.

Not that hard. It will be more that each race is better able to survive in its natural terrain with less technology. For example, trolls, with huge bodies, can endure an arctic environment where a man would freeze.

How possible will terraforming be?

If you mean reshaping one terrain to be like another, it will not be too easily doable with technology. But the threat of its being done with magic will be one of the themes. Men might burn down the great forests, or trolls might cover all the land with snow and ice.

Bill Stoddard

[Bengt]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Not that hard. It will be more that each race is better able to survive in its natural terrain with less technology. For example, trolls, with huge bodies, can endure an arctic environment where a man would freeze.

One thought about Arctic/Polar regions is to put an amphibian race there since beyond a certain latitude all the solar converting organisms are water based.

If you mean reshaping one terrain to be like another, it will not be too easily doable with technology. But the threat of its being done with magic will be one of the themes. Men might burn down the great forests, or trolls might cover all the land with snow and ice.

Bill Stoddard

What stopping them from burning down forests with regular technology? I mean if there is a war and humans make inroads into the forest, they can cut down trees with regular axes before the inevitable counter attack. It will take much longer for trees to grow back mundanely than it took to cut them down mundanely. The elves would have to spend supernatural resources to keep up. This asymmetry could be significant over longer times.

It could be more balanced if there is a spiritual inertia that only lets land grow what is "right" on it until a long time has passed. To speed up the spiritual change could require 37 übermages in a complicated ceremony while singing elf-children is enough to make trees grow a bit faster on forestland.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Bengt

One thought about Arctic/Polar regions is to put an amphibian race there since beyond a certain latitude all the solar converting organisms are water based.

Having an amphibian race would feel more like science fiction than fantasy to me, if you mean that they breathe both air and water. I expect that arctic trolls can go into the water, just as polar bears can. There will also be selkies as an island/beach race.

What stopping them from burning down forests with regular technology? I mean if there is a war and humans make inroads into the forest, they can cut down trees with regular axes before the inevitable counter attack. It will take much longer for trees to grow back mundanely than it took to cut them down mundanely. The elves would have to spend supernatural resources to keep up. This asymmetry could be significant over longer times.

It could be more balanced if there is a spiritual inertia that only lets land grow what is "right" on it until a long time has passed. To speed up the spiritual change could require 37 übermages in a complicated ceremony while singing elf-children is enough to make trees grow a bit faster on forestland.

Certainly that's possible, and in fact is one of the specifically human threats, along the lines of a Mongol invasion. But the trees will be more able to fight back, partly because they support comparatively dense elven populations that can fight to preserve their forests, and partly because each terrain has its spirit guardians and each race has its magical powers. But I'll need to work out the details.

At this point my notion of races is dwarves underground, elves in forest and jungle, ghouls in the desert, halflings on rivers and lakes and in swamps, men on grasslands, selkies on islands and beaches and in lagoons, and trolls in the arctic and in the mountains. Though I need a better name than "halflings." I kind of like the sound of "hulder" but it get the impression it means something not much like hobbits.

Bill Stoddard

[Bengt]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Having an amphibian race would feel more like science fiction than fantasy to me, if you mean that they breathe both air and water. I expect that arctic trolls can go into the water, just as polar bears can. There will also be selkies as an island/beach race.

I was thinking more like an otter or seal. Closable nostrils, able to hold their breath for fairly long, nictitating membranes, webbed fingers.

Remove their skin selkies?

I kind of like the sound of "hulder" but it get the impression it means something not much like hobbits.

Bill Stoddard

Hulder (Norwegian), Huldra (Swedish) is a kind of mountainous fairy/troll/goblin. They are mostly antagonistic towards humans.

[shawnhcorey]

Originally Posted by whswhs

But the trees will be more able to fight back...

Like the trees have a tendency to fall on the lumberjacks when cutted?

Originally Posted by whswhs

Though I need a better name than "halflings."

Gnomes.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

At this point my notion of races is dwarves underground, elves in forest and jungle, ghouls in the desert, halflings on rivers and lakes and in swamps, men on grasslands, selkies on islands and beaches and in lagoons, and trolls in the arctic and in the mountains.

Hm. Some of those seem problematic:

• Dwarves: there is no natural way of growing crops underground, so either they live on magic, or they are dependent on trade, neither of which seems optimal.
• Elves: if elves have an efficient means of harvesting forests (possibly via magic; say, elves, or at least 'farmer' elves, are bound to groves of trees and draw sustenance from them), it might well be possible to maintain population densities similar to humans. This probably means that elven forests are cultivated, not natural.
• Ghouls: ghouls are traditionally man-eaters, which isn't a viable food source, so you might pick another name. Whatever they are, deserts can't support a large population unless we're tossing in magic, though not all races need large populations.
• Halflings: I might use Hobs or Brownies instead, but I'm not sure why you're associating them with rivers and swamps, I'd be tempted by something like Kappa or Nixie.
• Selkie: I'd want to make sure an aquatic race is well suited to sinking ships of other races, which means turning into an otter to swim is not ideal.
• Trolls: you might go with something like Yeti instead.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by whswhs

At this point my notion of races is dwarves underground, elves in forest and jungle, ghouls in the desert, halflings on rivers and lakes and in swamps, men on grasslands, selkies on islands and beaches and in lagoons, and trolls in the arctic and in the mountains. Though I need a better name than "halflings." I kind of like the sound of "hulder" but it get the impression it means something not much like hobbits.

Bill Stoddard

I know you've several the Tolkein encyclopedias, why not look at both his alternate names for the hobbits and the names of the kind of creatures that inspired Hobbits, like the Snergs or the Faylin.