D&D General Need wheat. Too dangerous. (worldbuilding)

[Ixal]

Or modern day moose, those things are massive

You know that D&D used to have dire moose?

I wonder if D&D humanoids have domesticated and bred dire wolves into canine variants. Nothing combines "chic" with "effective home defense" quite like a properly-groomed dire poodle.

There are more factors to domestication. Is it practical to domesticate an animal? Can you keep and feed it? Is it useful?
Feeding a dire wolf can become a problem for many people.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

You know that D&D used to have dire moose?

There are more factors to domestication. Is it practical to domesticate an animal? Can you keep and feed it? Is it useful?
Feeding a dire wolf can become a problem for many people.

To quote the (controversial) Guns, Germs & Steel, here are some ingredients for domesticating large animals for food purposes.

Diet. (Most large domesticated animals are herbivores, because you want to feed them cheaply. Obviously large dogs are an exception to this, but I've never heard of a culture that eats large dogs. The chihuahua was a kind of portable snack.)

Growth rate. (Cattle grow quickly. Lions... not so much.)

Captive breeding. (Many animals will refuse to breed in captivity. Apparently Japanese bears would not breed in captivity, so they were never actually domesticated. More on this in a bit.)

Disposition. (Animals that get aggressive, such as bears, are very hard to domesticate. Even if you can, it's not worth it. Japanese bears were captured as cubs, rather than raise in captivity, then killed and eaten before they could grow too large and aggressive. African buffalo and zebras are also very nasty. I suspect the Wakandan rhino cavalry required some special technology to keep them under control.)

Panic. (Many animals will panic in captivity, battering themselves against cages and walls or simply suffering from heart problems.)

Social structure. (Horses, cattle, and dogs are particularly social, making them easy to control. If you want horses or cattle to go somewhere, just take control of the dominant horse or cow/bull and the rest will follow. You can get horses to cross streams this way. Non-social animals might simply spend too much time fighting.)

I imagine dire moose cannot be domesticated as I've never heard of anyone domesticating real moose. But I don't know enough about moose behavior to determine if they are docile enough, social enough, and calm enough to domesticate.

 

[Faolyn]

I wonder if D&D humanoids have domesticated and bred dire wolves into canine variants. Nothing combines "chic" with "effective home defense" quite like a properly-groomed dire poodle.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Humans originally domesticated canines because it was handy having some predators working for you instead of against you. What might the humanoids of a fantasy world domesticate for similar purposes?

Well, we know that there are reports of Elves domesticating Owlbears and Blink Dogs work with people. Could probably get some Displacer Beats because they are also smart.

Giant Spiders would totally be domesticated. Or at least farmed. Spider Silk is too valuable. Giant Bees.

I'm not super familiar with a lot of the other fauna in DnD, would have to re-reference older editions which had a wider variety of monsters. Cave Fishers are one I've had Dwarves domesticate, because alcoholic blood.

 

[Hussar]

Can we judge how certain and obvious that is based on interactions between countries/tribes/nationalities/religions/ethnic groups in the real world?

Absolutely. Considering that the overwhelming majority of countries/tribes/nationalities/religions/ethnic groups in the real world get along fine, or at least tolerably well. As in they trade, cooperate, build cities and countries and by and large don't have any major conflicts most of the time.

It's pretty rare for there to be areas of constant conflict in the world. I know it happens, and there are obvious examples. But, there are far, far more examples where it doesn't.

 

[Laurefindel]

I tend to resolve the food/land vs monsters issue with feudalism, and typically make my version of FR or other settings a bit more medieval than suggested. @cbwjm , @Steampunkette and @Ancalagon have touched the subject already.

The majority of people don't live in walled cities; they live in the countryside under the protection of their local lord or lady. The king does not invest in erecting watchtower all over his realm, he appoints nobles, gives them a fief for them to own and protect, and expects them to keep the rampaging monsters at bay. In turn, the nobles owe tithes and obligations to their liege. The king does not pay for watchtowers, he gets paid for those watchtowers!

Now this may be over-simplistic but that's the basic assumption. This can range from a rustic clan-like structure to a fanciful and arrogant aristocracy, from proud and free peasants to oppressed serfs, from caring knights to aristocratic naughty words.

And then comes a threat that the local baron alone cannot counter. That's when adventurers come in...

 

[Fenris-77]

Fenris-77 looks at the quicksand in front of him with a frown and decides, perhaps wisely, not to jump in.

 

[Hussar]

Not to mention those Neanderthal, Australopithecus, Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis relatives that used to be wandering around. Apparently there were at least 21 human species that have been recognized.

One of the issues I have with this topic though is that it always comes back to someone throwing down the "racism" card as if that ends all discussion in a "I'm right you're wrong" sort of way.

So I'm just going to reiterate: the mods don't allow this topic. Can we go back to discussing whether or not anyone other than a first level apprentice can use magic to alter reality for the benefit of the society at large?

Sorry folks. Stepped away for a while, so I'm going to be pulling stuff from pretty far back in the thread. Feel free to skip to the end of these posts for the latest thought.

Again, I'd point out that there were, as you say, 21 human species that coexisted (and quite possibly had children together) for tens of thousands of years. It's not like Homo Sapiens committed mass genocide on these other species to seize the planet. There's very little evidence that these different hominids conflicted at all. So, why are we presuming that humans and humanoids must never cooperate?

 

[Hussar]

Most of human history is an exercise in constant warfare, tribe against tribe shifted into country against country (aka the tribes got bigger) but that has been a constant thing through much of our history.

And that's just dealing with our own people. Imagine how hard it would be to maintain relations with a truly "alien" species. Elves as an example, how do you work on deals measured in years against a race that normally thinks of things in terms of centuries?

Not saying it is impossible, but I think conflict is more likely than long term cooperation in many examples. At least if nothing else, both ideas (cooperation or conflict) could easily be explained and justified.

Not really. I live in a country that had the better part of 500 years with no major conflicts - Japan. The Edo period is pretty marked by the fact that while it started pretty bloody and ended horrifically, the centuries in between were largely peaceful. The Korean penninsula is largely the same. Centuries of peace.

There are lots and lots of examples throughout history of peace. The notion of "constant warfare" is not a reasonable reading of history. And, let's not forget, that prior to the 20th century, and certainly prior to the Renaissance, wars were very, very small things by and large and largely left the non-combatants out of it.

 

[Hussar]

Humans originally domesticated canines because it was handy having some predators working for you instead of against you. What might the humanoids of a fantasy world domesticate for similar purposes?

Bingo.

Now, add to that the fact that a LOT of those really handy beings are actually intelligent, can talk and be reasoned with and think about how useful they would be and how useful we could be to them.

Rolling back to Treants. Sure, we need a lot of wood. Fair enough. But, we can cut a deal. We'll PLANT more than we take and then take care of the forests. In return, you animate your trees and get your forest organized exactly how you like. If a tree is dying, animate it, walk it out to the edge of the forest, have it stand up really straight and we'll take care of it, humanely and with dignity. Everyone wins here.

I do remember a really cool Dragon article from years ago about the Ecology of the Wyvern where the locals would mix wyvern scat into big vats and paint the roofs of their homes with it during Wyvern season to keep them away. I have to admit, the old Ecology articles did paint a very different picture of a D&D world than what gets presented by setting books.