The Implications of Biology in D&D

[Hussar]

The discussion on Revisionist Gaming got me to thinking.

Many people claim that various abilities are tied to the race in some sort of biological way and removing that ability breaks suspension of disbelief. Now, I think that this has been a fairly common approach to D&D monsters in the past. After all, umpteen bajillion Ecology Of articles in Dragon, never minding the Ecology/Habitat sections in the 2e Monster Manuals certainly gave the sense that many of the monsters in D&D were naturally occurring and subject to biology.

But, does anyone actually take this to its logical conclusion in their settings? After all, if hippogriffs, for example, were naturally occurring animals that could be bred, why wouldn't every kingdom worth the name have hippogriff stables? After all, you're not talking huge investments compared to the rewards of having flying mounts.

There are numerous fantasy authors who've taken this approach as well. Naomi Novak of the Tremaire series posits a real world Earth with dragons. National power is derived through the exploitation of dragons. Stephen Erikson also takes a very naturistic approach to his races, with humans evolving from an earlier hominid that become the T'lan Imass (undead warriors locked in an eternal war with an earlier hominid the Jaghut). Many of the species in his world are naturally (or perhaps unnaturally) occurring.

But, I think this is not the only way to approach things. One of my favorite 3e books was AEG's Secrets. It was a source book which contained, well, lots of secrets for the PC's to discover - like, for example, Dwarves aren't actually born, but rather emerge fully formed from stone statues carved by other dwarves. Things like that.

In my view, taking a very naturalistic approach to monsters makes them less fantastic. They are predictable, in the way that natural animals aren't really fantastic, but a part of the natural processes of the world. Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily, but, I think it becomes very limiting. Kobolds, to use the original example from the other thread, are just short scaley humanoids. They aren't really all that different than a smart kind of ape. They lack ... magic.

Monsters, IMO, should be fantastic. They shouldn't be consistent, since consistency breeds predictability.

 

[Mircoles]

I'm all for adding fantastical elements to fantasy worlds. Why have the world revolve around a sun, why not go all mythical with it and have a god carry it through the sky.

There has been a tendency to apply scientific theories to fantasy worlds and it just never feels right. Fantasy worlds should be very fantastical in their make up.

I mean a little science doesn't hurt, especially if you want to mix genres but having elements that defy the laws of physics can add just the fantasy spin to a world that makes it work.

I think that we should think more along the lines of myth and magic than science and logic when building a fantasy world.

 

[Starfox]

I like my monsters to be unique, formed out of myth. If enough people believe there is a dragon living on the smoking mountain, then there is. Biology and evolution are to me borish RL subjects that should not get too much in a fantasy game.

 

[jasonbostwick]

I'm an evolutionary biologist, but it doesn't cross over to my fantasy gaming at all, except maybe as inspiration.

I like mythology to play a heavy hand in my settings - the different races really were created by their gods in the not-too distant past (10,000 years or less).

In one campaign we joked that the world really was flat and in a geocentric system, but that eventually became canon.

That said, applications of biology to D&D cansometimes it can be a bit fun to think about.

Do increased levels of atmospheric oxygen allow the evolution of ankhegs and giant ants, and do they have any effect on the strength of pyromancy?

What sort of selection produced the incredible sexual dimorphism in Medusae? Do female medusae have snakes for hair due to Batesian mimicry, or is it a strange symbiotic relationship between the two?

Is the sword-destroying nature of Rust Monsters also the result of a symbiotic relationship, possibly with ferrophagic archaebacteria? The Ecology of the Rust Monsters in Dragon 374 suggested that Rust Monsters are attracted to mammalian blood due to vestigial vampirism, with a wink and a nod that they were really after the iron in hemoglobin.

Need human physiology even work the same way in a fantasy setting? I know I've read elsewhere of homebrew campaign settings imbalances in the four humours were the actual mechanism of disease, which would be interesting to consider though I'm not sure how it would come up in a game.

 

[The Shaman]

I was a park ranger for thirteen years and a biology teacher for two.

If you think mundane animals are boring, I respectfully suggest u r doing it wrng.

 

[chitzk0i]

There was once a gigantic debate about a wizard who wanted to teleport to the moon. Some said this was beyond the power of a teleport spell; other said he should arrive, only to die of hypoxia. I thought he ought to have found himself clinging to a bright patch on the inside of a gigantic black sphere studded with shiny objects.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

To the OP in general IMO the implication of biology or ecology is not rigorously thought through. Occasionally some aspects are because it can provide a fun hook or a plot theme.

I think that designers don't do it because, they want to leave stuff like that to the DM's and you can get involved in all kinds of hot-button and controversial issues if you start applying in game biology too rigoursly, particularly with regard to pc races.

For instance all fantasy art that I've seen males are heavier and taller than females but in most rpg systems there is no distinction based on gender for attribute generation. Now I know why this is so but it does not follow from the biology. Of course, I can also come up with reasons for the opposite but they just do not fit with the know facts of real world biology.

On the hippogrifs, it depends on wheither hippogriffs can be domesticated easily. If it can be done with mundane techniques then everone would have some but if it requires some rare or obscure ritual then hippogrif cavalry would be rare.

Also a lot depends on weither you see the fantasy world as the real world with magical expections or as a completely different thing with the exceptions built in from the ground up.

 

[JustKim]

I'm a biologist and really enjoying the different perspectives in this thread.

 

[avin]

I'm not a biologist and I like my female dragonborn reptilian, without boobs.

Friends around here like games with a good amount of disbelief suspension so we add pseudo scientific explanations for most things.

"Magic explains" is banned.

"Myth explains", on the other hand, is always welcome. As Starfox says, if enough people believe that trolls live in the woods, soon or later there will be trolls there (with a reasonable explanation, tho).

 

[Garthanos]

I was a park ranger for thirteen years and a biology teacher for two.

If you think mundane animals are boring, I respectfully suggest u r doing it wrng.

hehe I think real world has its own form of awesome sauce with plenty of mystery and will agree... also that people chunked into to our cities are indeed sometimes "missing it".

However we have more lore and education in this era about natural animals and they can be extremely familiar feeling... familiarity breeds .... both comfort and well a sense of intrigue with regards to the unfamiliar, humans seem innately curious so things outside our sense of normal take on a grand feel.