The Implications of Biology in D&D

[Celebrim]

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.

I find it odd that you would complain about Hippogriffs being used as steeds by anyone that could capture one, since the Hippogriff of myth was bred from a Griffin and Mare precisely for that purpose. Hippogriffs almost exclusively appear in myth as steeds for mighty heroes of valor. That's there role in myth regardless of what you think of their biology.

So why don't you have orders of knights using hippogriffs for steeds? Every kingdom worth its name does have hippogriff stables. Alcegraff, the Griffon paragon, wouldn't have it any other way. The whole point in him stooping and humbling himself by mating with a mare was so that mortals might have a steed suitable for battle with fell beasts. Hippogriffs are for war. That's their purpose. That's the thing they live for. Wild and untamed hippogriffs are something of an abberation, and usually the result of some sort of folly.

I believe that monsters should suit their myth. The central question is sort of, "If these myths were real, what would it be like?" Hense, I despise when dragons are used in some role other than as hoarders and destroyers. The great problem I find with how monsters are used, isn't that they are treated as biological, but that they are anthropomorphized. What I really despise seeing in a story or setting is the monster treated as basically a human in an unusual shape or with unusual powers, but with human desires, human motives, human methods, and human modes of behavior. That I think is the real creeping problem in D&D and modern fantasy in general. It's not merely that the monster is treated as mundane because myth assumes that monsters are mundane, albiet just over the hill there along with other fantastic beasts like giraffes, hippopotomi, and panthers. The problem is that monsters are assumed to be merely human. This is a degree of familiarity and normality that far exceeds them being merely mundane. This is the real failure of imagination.

 

[Garthanos]

nyeah, hyppogriffs arent biologically designed to fly.... those wings are too small for their mass they fly because they have light airy energy of freedom flowing through there spirit... subsequent generations do breed fine in captivity they just no longer fly.

 

[Celebrim]

nyeah, hyppogriffs arent biologically designed to fly.... those wings are too small for their mass they fly...

In context, Myth always trumps Physics.

 

[Mournblade94]

I believe that monsters should suit their myth. The central question is sort of, "If these myths were real, what would it be like?" Hense, I despise when dragons are used in some role other than as hoarders and destroyers. The great problem I find with how monsters are used, isn't that they are treated as biological, but that they are anthropomorphized. What I really despise seeing in a story or setting is the monster treated as basically a human in an unusual shape or with unusual powers, but with human desires, human motives, human methods, and human modes of behavior. That I think is the real creeping problem in D&D and modern fantasy in general. It's not merely that the monster is treated as mundane because myth assumes that monsters are mundane, albiet just over the hill there along with other fantastic beasts like giraffes, hippopotomi, and panthers. The problem is that monsters are assumed to be merely human. This is a degree of familiarity and normality that far exceeds them being merely mundane. This is the real failure of imagination.

Perfect! My sentiments exactly! Sadly I gave out too much XP today... I will try to remember you in the future.

 

[Umbran]

In context, Myth always trumps Physics.

Or, perhaps more accurately, in context myth defines physics.

 

[Celebrim]

Or, perhaps more accurately, in context myth defines physics.

Yeah, I think that is fair.

When the D&D cosmology asserts that fire, earth, water, and air are elements, I take that as to literally mean that the fundamental chemistry of the world is based on 4 elements: fire, earth, water, and air. Everything is therefore made of 'molecules' of those things. When the D&D cosmology asserts the reality of nature spirits like nymphs and dryads, I take that to mean that the world is animated not by the familiar fundamental forces of gravity, electromagnetics, and so forth, but that literally things fall because earth spirits drag them down, a fire flickers because it is in some sense a living thing, the wind moves because the wind spirits will it, stones are hard mostly because earth spirits resist change, water flows down to the sea mostly because water spirits desire it to happen, and trees grow because some life giving spirit empowers them to do so.

I therefore get a big kick out of a player trying to do physics in my games. One that has come up on several occassions is some player trying to create gunpowder. It should be clear from the above that 'potasium nitrate' doesn't even exist in my universe. Neither potasium nor nitrogen exist where known to the ancients, and as such they have no mythic value. As things with no mythic value, they aren't found in my myth driven universe. And while sulpher and carbon exist, the aren't in their substance anything like sulpher and carbon from this universe (neither is an element!). So there is no reason to suppose that if you tried to make gunpowder, that the resulting mess of salt, sulfpher, and ash would be explosive. An alchemist would look at your concotion and laugh much as a chemist might laugh at the random work of a 6 year old.

There is no reason to assume any of the laws of aerodynamics or really any part of physics, biology, or chemistry in an animistic world of four elements and where under the right conditions virtually any living thing can interbreed with virtually anything else. There is relatively good reason to assume that on casual observation, the universe works much like our own, but the ancients theories about how the universe worked were also based on casual observation. One could reasonably presume that if you preformed some of the classic experiments of physics in such a different universe, you'd get very different results than this one.

 

[Jack7]

Well, I don't know nothing about Quenta or the scientific biology of flying show-ponies and that kinda stuff, but this whole thing reminds me a lot of a song I wrote for a coupla buddies of mine who wanted something to sing at their Ren-Faire.

It worked out pretty good a-capella.
Not so good when accompanied on lyre, harp, and the pan-flute.
I think the hard-rock riff I wrote for the solo was really better suited to the electric oboe.



I once to the Wild World to discover the truth
And into that wild world I stumbled forsooth,
It rumbled, and roared, and it scratched, and it clawed
It tore, and it bled red, and with mouth it did maul,

And vicious in nature it soon wore me down
It was bloody and 'mazing, and shaped to astound,
But the miracles I saw there were all part of me
For whatever is Real there is by Law guaranteed;

But then to the Myth, and to Magic I went
Where the night fills with spirits, and the law all is spent,
Where the blood may be silver, and the claw may be bronze
Where the eye shines like sapphire, and chimeras do spawn,

For the wonder of What-Not is never quite known
And the trek of your frontier is wherever you roam,
For men know their nature, and Nature knows Man
But deep beyond Riddle there's an untested span,

For when you creep through the jungle, then the jungle roars back
But when the person imagines then enigmas look back,
And the woods under moon are like primitive times
But the Demons that haunt us are all in the Mind,

So I've no long dispute with the cult of this world
For within her confines the Serpents lay curled,
But Dragons best wander and Giants best stand
Not in the Mundane, but the Soul of the Man.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, I think that is fair.

When the D&D cosmology asserts that fire, earth, water, and air are elements, I take that as to literally mean that the fundamental chemistry of the world is based on 4 elements: fire, earth, water, and air. Everything is therefore made of 'molecules' of those things. When the D&D cosmology asserts the reality of nature spirits like nymphs and dryads, I take that to mean that the world is animated not by the familiar fundamental forces of gravity, electromagnetics, and so forth, but that literally things fall because earth spirits drag them down, a fire flickers because it is in some sense a living thing, the wind moves because the wind spirits will it, stones are hard mostly because earth spirits resist change, water flows down to the sea mostly because water spirits desire it to happen, and trees grow because some life giving spirit empowers them to do so.

I therefore get a big kick out of a player trying to do physics in my games. One that has come up on several occassions is some player trying to create gunpowder. It should be clear from the above that 'potasium nitrate' doesn't even exist in my universe. Neither potasium nor nitrogen exist where known to the ancients, and as such they have no mythic value. As things with no mythic value, they aren't found in my myth driven universe. And while sulpher and carbon exist, the aren't in their substance anything like sulpher and carbon from this universe (neither is an element!). So there is no reason to suppose that if you tried to make gunpowder, that the resulting mess of salt, sulfpher, and ash would be explosive. An alchemist would look at your concotion and laugh much as a chemist might laugh at the random work of a 6 year old.

There is no reason to assume any of the laws of aerodynamics or really any part of physics, biology, or chemistry in an animistic world of four elements and where under the right conditions virtually any living thing can interbreed with virtually anything else. There is relatively good reason to assume that on casual observation, the universe works much like our own, but the ancients theories about how the universe worked were also based on casual observation. One could reasonably presume that if you preformed some of the classic experiments of physics in such a different universe, you'd get very different results than this one.

Celebrim,

May I use this (albeit slightly modified) as part of the Research rules for RCFG? You have put very well why modern knowledge doesn't necessarily translate to fantasy games. I will happily give credit where credit is due, but as I am not charging for the game, I cannot pay for the priviledge.


RC

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim,

May I use this (albeit slightly modified) as part of the Research rules for RCFG? You have put very well why modern knowledge doesn't necessarily translate to fantasy games. I will happily give credit where credit is due, but as I am not charging for the game, I cannot pay for the priviledge.


RC

The whole issue of copyright in a public bbs is too weighty for me.

I have no plans to sell any of my stuff at present. The game stuff I do is entirely vainity projects. If I ever publish anything, it would likely be the novel first then sell the IP rights to a gaming company if anyone is interested route, and so really you are free to use anything I write here as inspiration and for any transformative and creative purpose until such time as I have an agent, and I don't really care. Better that my memes should be out there than wait on me to get off my butt and finish one of my novels.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Celebrim,

You are a scholar and a gentleman.

I wouldn't use something not noted as OGC without asking permission first. Thank you. Your contribution will be noted & acknowledged & "Thank You"ed in the book.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

RC