The Implications of Biology in D&D

[Coldwyn]

@ Umbran: One wouldn't have to feed hippgriffs dwarves in a D&D world. Create Food type spells could be used to feed the hippogriffs, if the GM desires a hippogriff cavalry in the world. In this case, the cost of housing the necessary clerics is less than that of the feed stock previously mentioned.

However, even in the real world, not all creatures reproduce well in captivity. If the GM should choose to disallow a hippogriff cavalry, there is a logical basis for his as well. Indeed, the high price of hippogriff eggs is a logical extention of their inability to reproduce well in captivity -- if you could farm them like chickens, they'd be "cheep"er.


RC

You could expand on the ideas and solve (and later on raise) most of the included problems. Create a magical feeding system for the hippogriffs that´ll remove the need of clerics. Use pregnancy charms. Use a hippogriff rutting spell, and so on. In a magical world, all of that would be possible. And quite cheap, too.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You could expand on the ideas and solve (and later on raise) most of the included problems. Create a magical feeding system for the hippogriffs that´ll remove the need of clerics. Use pregnancy charms. Use a hippogriff rutting spell, and so on. In a magical world, all of that would be possible. And quite cheap, too.

Or it might not be possible.

In effect, the deities of the world (controlled by the GM) determine what is possible. The OP idea that X or Y is possible, and therefore should happen in fantasy worlds, is wrong.

If the GM (and players) want a world with hippogriff cavalry, it is as easy to do so logically as a world without. Neither is more inherently logical than the other.


RC

 

[Coldwyn]

Or it might not be possible.

In effect, the deities of the world (controlled by the GM) determine what is possible. The OP idea that X or Y is possible, and therefore should happen in fantasy worlds, is wrong.

If the GM (and players) want a world with hippogriff cavalry, it is as easy to do so logically as a world without. Neither is more inherently logical than the other.


RC

I agree with you there. Such "problems" as discussed in threads like this boil down to fantasy and creativity of the individual dm (and lack thereof).
It´s still fun to participate in the discussions, tho.

 

[Umbran]

@ Umbran: One wouldn't have to feed hippgriffs dwarves in a D&D world. Create Food type spells could be used to feed the hippogriffs, if the GM desires a hippogriff cavalry in the world. In this case, the cost of housing the necessary clerics is less than that of the feed stock previously mentioned.

Ah, but here's a nice bit showing what I was talking about before, about having to think things through.

If the intent is to have hippogriff cavalry, then yes, one can always construct a system in which they are possible. Spells are usually not required - just stipulate that the country has sufficient land and husbandry skills to supply sheep or horses for feed, and you are set.

But what if you don't really want hippogriff cavalry? The GM can put you in a mountainous region, not enough land to support a large population of apex predators - so a few can exist as monsters, or as a mount for the occasional hero, but not as a real strategic force... until someone notices the Stone Dwarf Loophole.

Players are masters at finding the Unintended Consequences.

 

[Hussar]

@ Umbran: One wouldn't have to feed hippgriffs dwarves in a D&D world. Create Food type spells could be used to feed the hippogriffs, if the GM desires a hippogriff cavalry in the world. In this case, the cost of housing the necessary clerics is less than that of the feed stock previously mentioned.

However, even in the real world, not all creatures reproduce well in captivity. If the GM should choose to disallow a hippogriff cavalry, there is a logical basis for his as well. Indeed, the high price of hippogriff eggs is a logical extention of their inability to reproduce well in captivity -- if you could farm them like chickens, they'd be "cheep"er.


RC

There is a danger, of course, of getting too tied into a single example. I used hippogriff as but one example. I'm sure that you could come up with others.

True, you could hand wave it with DMium, but, that's precisely my initial point. If you're going to handwave it with Dmium, why not do it in such a way that the creatures are no longer mundane? Make them fantastic. Hippogriffs are servants of the Air Titan and he doesn't take well to domesticating them. Fine.

But, stock D&D doesn't do that. Stock D&D tells us that you can sell hippogriff eggs for x gold and train them for y gold.

I just wish the trend of making fantastic creatures mundane was one that would go away in D&D.

BTW, on a side note, I applaud all the humour in the last couple of pages. Well done all of you. A real feather in all your caps, I'd say.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There is a danger, of course, of getting too tied into a single example. I used hippogriff as but one example. I'm sure that you could come up with others.

True, you could hand wave it with DMium, but, that's precisely my initial point. If you're going to handwave it with Dmium, why not do it in such a way that the creatures are no longer mundane? Make them fantastic.

You are "handwaving it with DMium" no matter what you decide, as there is no objective measure of what rational system is pure "DMium" and what is not. So long as you have a system you like, it is all good.

If you want "Hippogriffs are servants of the Air Titan and he doesn't take well to domesticating them" that is fine. If you do not, that is fine, too. Different strokes for different folks. Stock D&D takes one tact that is neither better nor worse. If you don't like it, change it.

I just wish the trend of making fantastic creatures mundane was one that would go away in D&D.

Sure, because you want a game that better suits you without having to houserule it. Others might feel that the status quo better suits them. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

BTW, on a side note, I applaud all the humour in the last couple of pages. Well done all of you. A real feather in all your caps, I'd say.

Are you actually asking for more puns?


RC

 

[Aeolius]

One wouldn't have to feed hippgriffs dwarves in a D&D world.

Given the nature of this thread, I first read that as "breed hippogriffs with dwarves"

I just wish the trend of making fantastic creatures mundane was one that would go away in D&D.

But then the hippogriffs and dwarves would never know true love...

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Gimby]

A Bearded Dwarf Hippogriff...

Instead of an eagle's call, would it instead go "Oiy!, Oiy!".

Hmmm...could make an interesting D&D creature.

Lammasu image chaos dwarf image by BilboBaggins on Photobucket

 

[Ariosto]

I think the original, prime reason for making "goblin", "kobold", "hobgoblin", etc., distinct species was so that players could gain and use information identifying different threat levels. Dave Sutherland depicted kobolds as scaly, gnolls (originally a reference to Dunsany's mysteriously malevolent Gnoles) as hyena-like, orcs as porcine and so on. They came to have their own, D&D-specific details (overturned a bit in 4e, with green goblins and whatnot).

There was a time when I played with Holmes Basic's 3rd-level limit -- and its pretty comprehensive monster list. It didn't take a whole tribe of giants or flock of dragons to pose a huge threat; The Giant or The Dragon was quite enough! Also, Pegasus and Medusa could remain individuals in a scheme not focused on sheer quantity of standard-issue "stuff" but on unique careers of adventure. There were only something like 70 listed magic items, and of course the spell lists were not very copious, so it was pretty natural to introduce things players could not just look up in a handbook.