theme for a fantasy campaign

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by shawnhcorey

Gnomes.

I associate that with earth elementals, though. I thought of it, but it wouldn't be my top choice. Any other ideas?

Bill Stoddard

[Anthony]

You might want to consider whether there actually are multiple species involved. If you have spirit guardians and the like, it's quite possible that you've actually only got one species, and the physical distinctions are a function of interactions with the environment (magical or mundane). If a family from the plains moves into the forest, in a few generations they might be elves.

You could also have cultural multiple races, either deliberately, or through action by the gods of the culture, but that's probably less stable long-term.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I associate that with earth elementals, though. I thought of it, but it wouldn't be my top choice. Any other ideas?

Peewee, pygmy, bantam, manikin.


Hans

[Joe]

This is a fun idea.

Thinking it through, the first thing I wonder is: are the characters going to be a 'party' in more or less the traditional sense, and if so, will they be of multiple races?

Races-in-their-places works really well when you're world-building; but it occurs to me that when you're campaign-building it poses a different set of problems. And opportunities, of course.

[shawnhcorey]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I associate that with earth elementals, though. I thought of it, but it wouldn't be my top choice. Any other ideas?

Vertically-challenged hominids.

[dcarson]

Since Homo floresiensis got nicknamed hobbits call them floresiensis and see who gets it.

[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.

[namada]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anthony

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.

Dwarves are underground in every mythos I know of. Either they produce food by magic, or they trade, or they eat rock. I figure trade. There doesn't have to be a huge population of them, after all, and if they're quite small, their food requirement will be less.

Elves are in fact inspired by Jared Diamond's discussion of silviculture in Collapse.

The ghouls I'm envisioning are omnivores with cast iron stomachs, able to eat all manner of carrion, not just sapient corpses. Though admittedly they are partly inspired by Larry Niven's race in Ringworld.

I don't envison the selkie as having to turn into otters to swim, and in any case, in the accounts I've seen, it would be seals. But they're an aquatic humanoid race, as in Elaine Morgan's speculations. Turning into seals is one of the forms of magic they've acquired, in a world where every humanoid race has some forms of magic.

What's wrong with "troll" as a name? Yes, I could call them yeti or sasquatch or bigfoot, but troll doesn't jump out at me as obviously bad.

Bill Stoddard

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

What's wrong with "troll" as a name? Yes, I could call them yeti or sasquatch or bigfoot, but troll doesn't jump out at me as obviously bad.

Troll isn't bad per se, but it doesn't say "creature of the far north" to me; the most notable traits of trolls are big, turn to stone when touched by sunlight, and (if D&D) regeneration. Jotun, Yeti, and Wendigo are names more associated with northern humanoids.