D&D General Moar Greyhawk: Anthropocentrism and Humanity in Greyhawk

[Urriak Uruk]

...and this is where we get into the Dragonborn and Tiefling issues. Or, as I have seen it here, the "Kill on Sight" vs. "You don't me what to do" debate, which is incredibly tiresome. As I have repeatedly said, I don't mind the inclusion of additional races into Greyhawk so long as they are done in a way that respects the ethos of the setting. Some should be pretty easy (Tieflings as fiends, related to the whole Iuz issue), some may require more work (Dragonborn), but none are necessarily forbidden. What would be terrible, in my opinion, is (for example) placing large, non-human kingdoms in Greyhawk as that would be antithetical to the nature of the setting- which is focused on humanity. The main demi-humans are rare in most places, the rare demi-humans should be very, very rare.

This is nonsense. There are already several non-human countries within Greyhawk, so although I agree there is no need to add more, you will only be playing a "humano-centric game" if you're playing in a human kingdom.

But what if I play in a game set in the Orcish Pomarj? Or in the mountain of a Fire Giant? Or the Drow Underdark? The game would not be humano-centric, it would be centered on the race of that region.

I'll add, that Gygax himself expanded the number of races allowed within his setting in later iterations, and allowed more gods to reflect these changes.

In the December 1984 (Dragon) issue, Gygax mentioned clerics of non-human races and indicated that the twenty four demihuman and humanoid deities that had been published in the February–June 1982 issues of Dragon were now permitted in Greyhawk; this increased the number of Greyhawk deities from fifty to seventy four.

 

[Shiroiken]

Good post @Snarf Zagyg . I would hasten to mention that even in demi-human regions, humans are still the dominate race. If you check out the populations in Celene, humans outnumber the elves by a factor of about 10, despite being the rules (I made humans and half-elves second class citizens, lorded over by the pure elves).

Something else to take into consideration is the timeline. In the original timeframe (CY 576?) drow were completely unknown, as they didn't surface until the events leading up to Against the Giants and the Vault of the Drow. If done beforehand (or at least away from the Sheldomar Valley), drow would simply be odd looking elves to almost everyone but elves, sages, or those who'd delved into the depths of the earth (the Underoerth).

For my Greyhawk, I broke non-humans down into various categories, and informed players that playing races from these categories may have various social interactions, both hostile and friendly. If a 5E books was to be made, a sidebar showing ways like this to use non-standard races would be good. Players can choose to play an odd race, but by doing so they are accepting the consequences. For NPC purpose, demi-humans are common in the world, half-breeds are uncommon, and planetouched & outsiders rare.

Demi-humans
Your standard dwarves, elves, gnomes, and halflings, not including the underdark sub-races. Also, as there are no tinker gnomes or forest gnomes in Greyhawk, I've modified the forest gnome to be closer to the original AD&D gnome.

Half-Breeds
In addition to half-elves and half-orcs, this includes dragonborn and goliath. Dragonborn and Goliath are the more distant descendants of half-dragons and half-giants. A few half-breeds (including all PCs) appear mostly human, with only a few indicators of their true heritage. With minimal effort a half-breed can pass themselves off as a human except under close scrutiny by those familiar with this type of half-breed. Being revealed as a half-breed is likely to cause some inconveniences with those who've have a bad opinion of their ancestry, but those with a good opinion of the ancestry are likely to be more amenable.

Planetouched
Genasi, aasimar, and teiflings are the more distant descendants of extra-planar beings. Most appear to be human, with only a few indicators of their true heritage. With some effort a planetouched can pass themselves off as a human except under significant scrutiny by those familiar with that type of extra-planar being. Being revealed as planetouched is likely to cause some inconveniences with most people, usually causing fear or awe among the uneducated.

Outsiders
This is everything else that is humanoid in type, mostly those in VGtM and MToF, but also includes the underdark sub-races. The reactions ones are likely to receive are going to be based on the individual, but overall the interactions are going to be complicated and usually negative. Several won't even be considered "people," such as the tabaxi (who are considered jungle beasts, and often enslaved as such). Some might just be considered odd, or possibly confused with another creature (e.g. the triton in my current game is often called a fish-man or sea elf).

 

[Helldritch]

Greyhawk is humanocentric in the sense that they vastly outnumber demi-humans. Never was it written anywhere that it was not possible to play demi-humans. It deos mean, however, that certain races would not be a wise choice to pick depending on the campaign. Playing an orc in the northern Great Kingdom would not be too problematic as they are often hired as mercenaries but playing one in Furyondy is calling for an early death, especially if you play with "From the Ashes".

Adding the dragonborn was easy and so was any other races. Dimensional travel and flukes is possible in Oerth so I would not (and do not) have any problem incorporating any races in the game. As long as the player is willing to face the consequences of his/her choice. This world is filled with humans, so if your race is generally antagonistic to humans or look like one that is, be ready to get a lot of hate and distrust. At the same time, playing an allied race is also a boon. Everyone knows that dwarves are rich and so are elves. Halflings are cute friendly fellows always ready to help.

In 1ed most demi-humans had to have a thief component to advanced beyond certain levels. Now that this has been removed ( and it is a good thing) and people will judge the other races for what they usually stand for. Halflings are very much centered on the family and the community. Two positives traits that are loved and respected by humans and it is a better explanation of the fact that they integrated so well in human society than the fact that they were the best thieves... Same goes with the other races and allied races will be viewed for their positive traits than the negative ones.

So Greyhawk, though humanocentric, is not that hostile to races, far from that. It is just a matter of choosing your race in accordance with the region and the type of campaign your DM will build with you.

 

[Aldarc]

Adding the dragonborn was easy and so was any other races. Dimensional travel and flukes is possible in Oerth so I would not (and do not) have any problem incorporating any races in the game. As long as the player is willing to face the consequences of his/her choice.

It seems fairly easy to incorporate tielflings and dragonborn into the game. Just tie tieflings to the high sorcery of the Suel Empire and the dragonborn to a subgroup of the Baklunish Empire that migrated west (instead of east) and mingled with dragons.

 

[Pauln6]

Non humans are just tied to specific regions rather than integrated so PCs are likely to be outliers but there is no need to ban races outright. Warforged can be from Blackmoor, Dragonborn from Zahind or the Celestial Imperium, Goliath are from the Barriers etc.

 

[Stormonu]

shrug

I've been playing games set in Greyhawk since the '80s. My current campaign, set in Saltmarsh has had the following: a shifter (playable doppleganger) bard, kenku wizard/monk, aasimar cleric and a tiefling warlock (formerly a cleric, until he made a bargain with Tharizdun). The human player is an artificer, whose salvaged a defender (robotic dog) from the Barrier Mountains. They recently had a dragonborn ranger join the group for a short time.

A Greyhawk campaign I ran back in 3E had a warforged NPC in the party.

Not allowing "the wierd races" is a DM/player choice, not an absolute wall. You can work it in if you want to without destroying the setting. Pretty much all of the above are one-off heroes (except the kenku, whose family flock lives at the Tower of Xenopus) without whole communities of the uncommon races running amok. Have a little imagination and let the players have some fun.

 

[Coroc]

....

For my Greyhawk, I broke non-humans down into various categories, and informed players that playing races from these categories may have various social interactions, both hostile and friendly. If a 5E books was to be made, a sidebar showing ways like this to use non-standard races would be good. Players can choose to play an odd race, but by doing so they are accepting the consequences. For NPC purpose, demi-humans are common in the world, half-breeds are uncommon, and planetouched & outsiders rare.
...

In my campaign I allowed humans, gnomes, half elves, half orcs , tieflings (devil originated). Since I used the GH as a background of a quasi 30 years war scenario (Iuz and his orcs, evil humans and demons on one side and the neutral and good human nations on the other) , the last three races are products of war atrocities mainly. No one chose to play a half orc or tiefling though.
I ruled elves and dwarves are few and remote only and halflings just are not the adventuring types, so these three exist, but only as NPCs.

It worked out fine since many of my players prefer to play humans anyway.

 

[Umbran]

To use the dragonborn example that always comes up. Dragonborn, in my opinion, are not native to the Flanaess.

There's an interesting point here, though. What constitutes "native"?

"Gygax decided that a thousand years before his campaign began, the northeast corner of the continent had been occupied by a peaceful but primitive people called the Flannae, whose name was the root for the name of that part of Oerik, the Flanaess. At that time, far to the west of the Flanaess, two peoples were at war, the Bakluni and the Suloise. The war reached its climax when both sides used powerful magic to obliterate each other, in an event called the Twin Cataclysms. Refugees of these disasters were forced out of their lands, and the Suloise invaded the Flanaess, forcing the Flannae to flee to the outer edges of the continent. Several centuries later, a new invader appeared, the Oeridians, and they in turn forced the Suloise southward. One tribe of the Oeridians, the Aerdi, began to set up an empire. "
--(Greyhawk - Wikipedia)

Ergo, most humans are not actually native to the Flanaess, either.

B. Enough about me- so, what do YOU think about my hair?

I am often curious when people think that early D&D was not anthropocentric.

They are probably not so concerned with the setting documents claims as to population. Their estimates are going to be based on what was seen in play - how many demi-human PCs were int heir parties, and how many demi-human NPCs were seen in adventures.

I suspect, if you go through the old modules and count, the proportion of demi-humans present is a lot higher than the setting documents would suggest. Even if you say the setting was anthropocentric, I expect the experience of play wasn't.

Which opens the question of which is actually important?

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, there are a few things bouncing around my head, and I'm not sure how to phrase them all.

First off, DnD as a default in every setting is "Human Centric". Humans always seem to be the most important race for figuring out where the world is going. They always worship the most important gods. Ect.

But next... I'm reminded of one of the few times I cracked open my Gazeteer/Atlas for Greyhawk, I was looking for mountain names, and I came across a good one and it said that there were dwarves in those mountains, and they were very rich.

Flipping around the book I found... nothing else about them. They don't even have a city or country listed, just this entry about the mountains. Which made them more like a geological feature than people. Which, I suppose some people like that interpretation, dwarves just sitting in their mountains, doing nothing, with no goals, desires or ambitions beyond sitting in their mountains, but then what am I supposed to do with a group that wants to explore dwarves?


And I think this is where "human centric" falls apart for me in a setting where other races exist. Because those other races exist in name only, and nothing else. They are window dressings, halflings don't like going beyond their communities, dwarves don't like going beyond their communities, elves don't like going beyond their communities... only humans care to explore the world? To do anything at all? Really?

It just ends up feeling fake to me. You don't get a nation of people renowned for making armor and weapons who have no goals or desires beyond sitting at home making armor and weapons. If they need weapons, then they have conflicts, and if they have conflict, then they have goals and if they have goals then they are working towards something and that can be interesting.

 

[Orius]

You guys are overthinking this I think. Greyhawk has a humanocentric approach because Gary wrote D&D with a humanocentric approach. And he did that because his favorite influences tended to be all or mostly human. We get the Tolkienesque races because Gary wanted to capitalize on LotR's popularity, even though he didn't like it. Note how in 1e halfings, the most quintessential Tolkien race, has the worst class and level restrictions. I think it's just this simple.