zompist bboard

Zompist, how did you? When I look at them, they're obviously D&D beings, changed a lot. But were those the original beings that were used when you played originally in Collage?

Heh, no-- back in college they were compatible with the D&D races, though the names do date back that far. Later on I started to differentiate them.

Ok... The thing is, I've been trying to figure out races to use, and it's harder than staying awake over The Dawn of the Dead. However, I don't wan't many races and if I look over the Monstrous Compendium or something I want so many races...

vegfarandi wrote:Ok... The thing is, I've been trying to figure out races to use, and it's harder than staying awake over The Dawn of the Dead. However, I don't wan't many races and if I look over the Monstrous Compendium or something I want so many races...

Ooo! A pop culture reference!

Man, Marky-Mark Rosenfelder, those ktuvoki are as ugly as William Hung's singing.

This entire forum is basically "Ask Mark".

I'd say that its best to use the fewest number of intelligent races you canallow yourself to get away with. Non-human races cause all sorts of problems, and its difficult to answer them without stereotyping yourself - how do they react with humans, how does their biology effect their society? All too often they end up effectively the same as humans - species effectively become races. And its difficult not to end up having elves and dwarves.
If you do have other races, its probably best to have them be out of the way of the main story.

As for deciding which to have, I'd advise throwing out the D&D manual from the start. Firstly, work out what biological characteristics you want them to have. Then work out what sort of animal this makes them. Then work out how their society is likely to differ from human ones.
If you don't have any biological characteristics in mind, but only social ones, think seriously about whether you need them to be alien at all - humans can probably create most societies by themselves.

*goes away and tries desperately to take own advise*

Thanks Psalm!

I hear you Sal, i'm struggling there myself, but its something that i want to do. i've got about 8 or 9 non human sentient races, three are utterly different from humans though so thats not a problem, but the other five are still "too human" for my liking. Still, its a fun challange to make them unique, if a very difficult one

Salmoneus wrote:I'd say that its best to use the fewest number of intelligent races you canallow yourself to get away with. Non-human races cause all sorts of problems, and its difficult to answer them without stereotyping yourself - how do they react with humans, how does their biology effect their society? All too often they end up effectively the same as humans - species effectively become races. And its difficult not to end up having elves and dwarves.
If you do have other races, its probably best to have them be out of the way of the main story.

For me, exploring evolutionary pathways, evoltuionary psychology, and sociobiology are some of the most interesting things, so I disagree that less is always more here. (I've got 21 sentient species.)

Salmoneus wrote:As for deciding which to have, I'd advise throwing out the D&D manual from the start. Firstly, work out what biological characteristics you want them to have. Then work out what sort of animal this makes them. Then work out how their society is likely to differ from human ones.
If you don't have any biological characteristics in mind, but only social ones, think seriously about whether you need them to be alien at all - humans can probably create most societies by themselves.

On the other hand, I agree entirely with all of this.

It depends on the kind of world and stories you're building, but my personal prejudices say, strive to make humans unexceptionable among your other species. It's very rarely done. Almost all multi-species set ups give humans a special place.

Usually, all the other species are more specialized, but humans retain their flexibility. Which usually comes down to meaning all the others are caricatures.

Make humans unique among your species, certainly, otherwise it means your other species are human-clones that don't need to be species, but make everyone else unique in the same ways.

That reminds me, I've been meaning to write a review of Treasure Planet on my LiveJournal.

So, you're saying if I had dwarves, they should be greedy miners in the mountains and the humans should be powerstriving and curious merchants? Or am I getting this all wrong ...

vegfarandi wrote:So, you're saying if I had dwarves, they should be greedy miners in the mountains and the humans should be powerstriving and curious merchants? Or am I getting this all wrong ...

Backwards. We know that us-humans are not all powerstriving and curious merchants. So if any other species is a such a caricature, it's unreasonable. Other species should be have a more or less equivalent range of personality and behavior as the one sentient species we've actually observed.

An equal range, but not the same range.

I have one question related to this topic. What exactly were the DnD species you used? And also, are the ilii still ... ehm ... not extinct? Are they still up and running?

vegfarandi wrote:I have one question related to this topic. What exactly were the DnD species you used? And also, are the ilii still ... ehm ... not extinct? Are they still up and running?

humans/humans
elves/ilii
dwarves/elcari
halflings/ic?lani
goblins/murtani.

Other D&D beasties, such as trolls, vampires and giants, also make appearances in various different forms.

I suppose Mark should be chuffed that someone wasn't able to make the links.

The ilii are still very much a going concern - but they tend to stay out of contact with humans. This is made easier by the fact that their habitats are mostly acquatic. See a map of their distribution here, as well as other information about the various races.

I thought it was completly different. That's a good sign. But where do the ktuvok? come from? Are they a later invention?

vegfarandi wrote:But where do the ktuvok? come from? Are they a later invention?

The ktuvoks don't correspond to any D&D species.

SHG's surmises about the original identifications are correct, though I never thought of the ic?lani as halflingish. They and the ilii have been modified quite a bit.

I was assumed the Icelani had been Wild Elves.

But then, I also always assumed that the ktuvoks were Sahuagin - nasty ugly underwater things, closely related to the sea elves, but also their hated archenemies. Which shows how bad my assumptions are.

vegfarandi wrote:And also, are the ilii still ... ehm ... not extinct? Are they still up and running?

Extraodrinarily confusingly, the technical term for the opposite of "extinct" is "extant".

Aidan wrote:

vegfarandi wrote:And also, are the ilii still ... ehm ... not extinct? Are they still up and running?

Extraodrinarily confusingly, the technical term for the opposite of "extinct" is "extant".

Which of course no one who is something a layperson might actually read uses it, substituting the much more preactical 'living'.

I've used "extant". It's probably the only word in the language that rhymes with "sextant", which makes it indispensible.

I certainly use "extant", though I don't think I've actually used it to mean the opposite of extinct. I just use it for "existing", but without the connotations of pre-existence that "existing" has.

Ahribar wrote:I've used "extant". It's probably the only word in the language that rhymes with "sextant", which makes it indispensible.

They don't rime for me. [Ekst?nt] vs [sEkstn=t]. But I'm weird.

Drydic_guy wrote:

Ahribar wrote:I've used "extant". It's probably the only word in the language that rhymes with "sextant", which makes it indispensible.

They don't rime for me. [Ekst?nt] vs [sEkstn=t]. But I'm weird.

What he said.

Especailly that last part.

Lol.

But, same here.

[Ek_hs."t_h{~Int_h] versus ["sEks.t_hn=t_}].

Whimemsz wrote:Lol.

But, same here.

[Ek_hs."t_h{~Int_h] versus ["sEks.t_hn=t_}].

I have /EkstE~nt/ and /sEkstn=t/

So you pronounce extant the same as extent?

Just checked the OED; it gives both pronunciations ["Ekst@nt] and [Eks"t{nt], but the first (which matches mine) is given as more usual.