DF World: Do non-humans have their own countries?

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The last DF world i thought up didn't have "countries". The largest polities were still just city states. Some were very populous city states thanks to magical sources of food and water, but ruling large tracts of land was impractical. So the non-humans generally lived in their own autonomous communities or nomadic tribes.

If country necessitates "nation-state" well, it is hard to define many places that would be nation-states in real life until recently; territorial polities are better described as empires.

[khorboth]

When I'm coming up with a DF world (which I've done several times), I take one of 2 approaches to this question:

1) Dwarf-town only has Dwarves. It says so right there in the name. Why? Same reason why the goblins don't open up the poorly-locked chest and use the weapons to defend the village. Because that's how DF works.

2) I create a rich background for the world beginning with the genesis of the various races. Did they evolve? If so, was it from humans or from a common ancestor, or in parallel? If not, then were they created magically? If so, why and by whom?

From there, I can move forward in time and decide how the cultures would interact. In my most detailed world, each major race has at least one country, but most contain minorities of other races. How strong those minorities are varies depending upon the culture in those countries and regions.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

It is surprising and probably unrealistic that they don't have hobbits. It's self-consistent, but a (humanoid!) species that inhabits a single smallish country and essentially never leaves despite there being no barrier is absurd.

Eh, I don't think it's too surprising, really. Hobbits basically live in an idyllic paradise, and those few who want a bit of adventure can find plenty (for a hobbit, at least) near the outskirts of the Shire. The outside world is in far worse shape, meaning there is a barrier - with the exception of the brief period of time between the end of The Hobbit and Frodo's departure in Fellowship of the Rings, there are monsters lurking about if you go too far afield, so what right-minded hobbit is going to leave? For those very few who do, Gondor is pretty far away (by my measurement, the closest border of Gondor is over 600 miles away from Hobbiton, and that's in a straight line).

Now, why hobbits only survived in the Shire* isn't ever addressed to my knowledge, nor why the Rangers apparently thought this small, insignificant community was worth dedicating so much manpower to protecting. Honestly, with how resilient and scrappy they are shown to be - once you get them out of their comfortable homes and give them some incentive, anyway - I would have expected more to have survived.

*Smeagol's folk seemed to live outside of the Shire, and were clearly some sort of hobbit, but I don't think we ever find out just how old Gollum is - his people may well no longer exist, and if so probably haven't existed for a very long time. Or, who knows, maybe they're the ancient ancestors of the Brandybucks.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Eh, I don't think it's too surprising, really. Hobbits basically live in an idyllic paradise, and those few who want a bit of adventure can find plenty (for a hobbit, at least) near the outskirts of the Shire. The outside world is in far worse shape, meaning there is a barrier - with the exception of the brief period of time between the end of The Hobbit and Frodo's departure in Fellowship of the Rings, there are monsters lurking about if you go too far afield, so what right-minded hobbit is going to leave? For those very few who do, Gondor is pretty far away (by my measurement, the closest border of Gondor is over 600 miles away from Hobbiton, and that's in a straight line).

Now, why hobbits only survived in the Shire* isn't ever addressed to my knowledge, nor why the Rangers apparently thought this small, insignificant community was worth dedicating so much manpower to protecting. Honestly, with how resilient and scrappy they are shown to be - once you get them out of their comfortable homes and give them some incentive, anyway - I would have expected more to have survived.

*Smeagol's folk seemed to live outside of the Shire, and were clearly some sort of hobbit, but I don't think we ever find out just how old Gollum is - his people may well no longer exist, and if so probably haven't existed for a very long time. Or, who knows, maybe they're the ancient ancestors of the Brandybucks.

Putting aside the question of whether an idyllic agricultural paradise is actually possible at the relevant tech level, you can't steady-state indefinitely in an idyllic paradise without doing some pretty weird things to preserve same. I'm not inclined to believe that hobbits have strict population controls.

The only way I can rationalize no hobbits venturing forth in search of better opportunities due to crowding is if hobbits are somehow going extinct for lack of offspring...while living in an idyllic paradise. Which would make the difficult question how there are any hobbits at all.

[dcarson]

Countries can get complicated. Look at the UK and related bits. You have a separate legal system in Scotland, you have three Crown Dependencies in the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey, and the Bailiwick of Guernsey,

You used to have cities that had Foo quarters where different legal systems applied and things like church law vs secular law.

All too complicated for the default DF campaign but can make things interesting for PCs.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Putting aside the question of whether an idyllic agricultural paradise is actually possible at the relevant tech level, you can't steady-state indefinitely in an idyllic paradise without doing some pretty weird things to preserve same. I'm not inclined to believe that hobbits have strict population controls.

That's a good point. However, it is possible the hobbits are actually using cultural population controls, in the form of simply opting to have few (or in Bilbo's case, no) offspring. Bilbo, Frodo, and Samwise all seem to be only children, and the fact Frodo, Meriadoc, and Peregrin seem like brothers (but are cousins) implies the latter two might be as well. The Sackville-Baggins couple that are obsessed with Bilbo's home similarly don't appear to have any children.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Less true than previously thought.

Interesting. Sounds like, absent specific pressures to keep others out, the default is likely to be more cosmopolitan.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

The Shire is part of the territory claimed by the Kings of Arnor and has never broken it's treaty of vassalship(it keeps it's own variation of the laws of Arnor, would shelter messengers if any crossed openly, and the last time it was called to arms abroad in defense of the king it responded). It was a point of honor to protect it.

OK, yeah, that does make sense.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Now in fact Tolkien would have been annoyed at the idea of whether the Shire was "worth" protecting and considered that rather Denethorean thinking. They were worth protecting because they were Children of Eru.

It wasn't so much an issue of if they were worth protecting as why the Rangers chose to dedicate so much manpower there while the rest of the world was falling apart. The whole "last remnant of Arnor" bit clarifies things markedly.

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by Varyon

That's a good point. However, it is possible the hobbits are actually using cultural population controls, in the form of simply opting to have few (or in Bilbo's case, no) offspring. Bilbo, Frodo, and Samwise all seem to be only children, and the fact Frodo, Meriadoc, and Peregrin seem like brothers (but are cousins) implies the latter two might be as well. The Sackville-Baggins couple that are obsessed with Bilbo's home similarly don't appear to have any children.

Well, the Tooks and Brandybucks are large clans with up to four generations living in the same household. The Sackville-Bagginses did have a son, Lotho, but he died childless and unmarried (also murdered by Wormtongue on Saruman's orders).

Just eyeballing the geneologies in the Appendices, Pippin had a few siblings, and Merry looks to have had a few as well (both became heads of their families in later years, so I suspect there was the "heir and a spare" thought going on there). Sam and Rosie, though, had almost a dozen children (most of whom were born after Sam inherited Bag-End). Frodo was an infant or toddler when he was orphaned, so it's debatable whether his being an only child was by choice.

Farmer Maggot and Farmer Cotton both had several children, half of which still lived and worked on the farms, and we don't know how many siblings Sam had as he was the only one still living at home in his father the Gaffer's semi-retirement years.


Getting back on track, though... it's easy enough to have Elves, Dwarves, and other races having their own nations on account of them liking other environments. Elves like woodlands; Dwarves like the mountains; Humans love grasslands most; Orcs and Goblins tend to find places generally inhospitable to others, either by choice or because they were pushed out of other locales (lending to a "life is cheap" mentality when combined with a population explosion).

[b-dog]

My concept is Mythic Earth where humanity rules but there are fairy races like elves, dwarves, trolls etc that live hidden away from humanity most of the time. True elves, dwarves and trolls are unaging and extradimemsiomal creatures of a solidified spiritual material. They can live without ever eating even though they enjoy doing so for pleasure. If players want to play an elf they will play an elf- blooded instead. They are mortal, need to eat and are susceptible to poison and other things that affect mortals. The elf blooded will be much the same as the elf template in Dungeon Fantasy. They will live in areas of wilderness and possibly live in small bands or among other humans. The societies of the true elves will not allow elf blooded into them although some of the true elves may look out for an elf-blooded as kindered. But in general the true fairies live apart from humanity.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Eh, I don't think it's too surprising, really. Hobbits basically live in an idyllic paradise, and those few who want a bit of adventure can find plenty (for a hobbit, at least) near the outskirts of the Shire. The outside world is in far worse shape, meaning there is a barrier - with the exception of the brief period of time between the end of The Hobbit and Frodo's departure in Fellowship of the Rings, there are monsters lurking about if you go too far afield, so what right-minded hobbit is going to leave? For those very few who do, Gondor is pretty far away (by my measurement, the closest border of Gondor is over 600 miles away from Hobbiton, and that's in a straight line).

Now, why hobbits only survived in the Shire* isn't ever addressed to my knowledge, nor why the Rangers apparently thought this small, insignificant community was worth dedicating so much manpower to protecting. Honestly, with how resilient and scrappy they are shown to be - once you get them out of their comfortable homes and give them some incentive, anyway - I would have expected more to have survived.

*Smeagol's folk seemed to live outside of the Shire, and were clearly some sort of hobbit, but I don't think we ever find out just how old Gollum is - his people may well no longer exist, and if so probably haven't existed for a very long time. Or, who knows, maybe they're the ancient ancestors of the Brandybucks.

States routinely protect helpless ethnicities they care nothing about(nor vice-versa) because they are protecting their territory. If a Roma who is murdered by a Gorgio in England there will be angry glances from the law because the laws of England for some reason forbid murder. Even in the middle ages the King of Hungary slaughtered Crusaders who stopped to have a nice pleasant pogram not because he did or did not care for Jews(he probably didn't in fact) but because he did not care for rioters.

The Shire is part of the territory claimed by the Kings of Arnor and has never broken it's treaty of vassalship(it keeps it's own variation of the laws of Arnor, would shelter messengers if any crossed openly, and the last time it was called to arms abroad in defense of the king it responded). It was a point of honor to protect it. In fact it was somewhat idealized and the real world is of course full of the moral short cuts of politics. But there are still precedents. The British detached troops to Greece in 1940 giving up a promising advance for the political purpose of making it clear that they had not abandoned the continent. Whether they did it rightly or wrongly they did it. Likewise America fought for the Philipines rather then abandoning it to gain time to bring forces online. In retrospect that threw a wrench in the Japanese schedule but the point was it was a conscious adjustment to Plan Orange and not at the time considered a strategic improvement. In both of these cases Britain and America respectively let strategy take a backseat to honor.

Now in fact Tolkien would have been annoyed at the idea of whether the Shire was "worth" protecting and considered that rather Denethorean thinking. They were worth protecting because they were Children of Eru.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

If country necessitates "nation-state" well, it is hard to define many places that would be nation-states in real life until recently; territorial polities are better described as empires.

I said nothing about nation-states. My base assumption was that a DF world is so dangerous and monster infested that it is impossible to maintain communication and control over realms that it takes many days to travel across.