There`s just a little mistake: The ferals have some permanent settlements (Well, they are more like giant tent camps.). Sure, those settlements often get ravaged by something yet they are rebuilt again and again. (While no place on incendium is truly safe, those settlements are built where the least dangers are.) High peaks, for example. Those living in them are called queer by the truly nomadic ferals, yet most of them are just as brave as them.. And most likely more intelligent and creative.
I can understand your logic, and I can adapt it. Before I do, though, I'd like it if you could consider the criteria by which I'm determining whether races actually have permanent settlements or not and see if the ferals fit. Consider the below a proposition on how to classify these things.
No permanent settlements.The race lives a hunter/gatherer lifestyle, sustained by local flora and fauna. They have no particular reason to stay in one place any longer than local food survives.
Roving camps.The race lives a hunter/gatherer lifestyle, sustained by local flora and fauna. They move around their territory in large cycles as other hunter-gatherers do, but for reasons of structure, defense or construction techniques prefer to create temporary shelters for the duration of their stay.
A race that has a governmental tech or a construction tech but not both and lacks agriculture or another stable food source
or a reason to stick around a place for a long time tends towards roving camps.
Semi-permanent settlements.This race might live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, sustained by local flora and fauna. If it does, it is most likely sticking in one place because it has some sort of task to complete; e.g. digging out an ore vein for reasons of industry. It will create semi-permanent settlements long enough to complete its task or for food supplies to run out. A race with mining but not agriculture would satisfy these criteria.
An alternative reason for semi-permanent settlements might be that a particular area has a natural advantage (e.g. defensible terrain), but without sustainable food sources a tribe can only move between these limited sites as it would under normal nomadic lifestyles. A better form of living for such a tribe might be
permanent bases with roving bands, as below.
Alternately, the race might live an agrarian lifestyle but lack either sufficient construction techniques to creating lasting structures or sufficient government to avoid destroying an area through overfarming. Such tribes construct semi-permanent settlements that last either until natural disaster destroys their homes and forces them elsewhere or overfarming ruins the land and forces them to move away from their barren former residence.
A race with agriculture but without a construction technique
or without a more structured system of government than tribalism will tend towards semi-permanent settlements. So will a race without agriculture but with a strong reason to stick in one place as long as it possibly can.
Permanent bases with roving bands.This is the model for the orcs on the Nameless World and the model I use for goblins in DF. Feel free to criticise.
Where there is a single, relatively rare resource or advantage to an area
and the race in question possesses sufficient construction techniques
but not agriculture or structured government, a race may adopt a roving strategy based out of a permanent structure. In these situations, a permanent structure is created at a site (e.g. a dark fortress or important mine), but because of constraints in food and supplies, it is impossible to sustain a large permanent population there. Most of the population consists of roving bands venturing out from the base to hunt or gather and then returns to the base for security or supply.
Agriculture would turn this base into a permanent settlement by virtue of a stable food supply. Structured government could also turn this base into a permanent settlement by arranging sufficient taxes of roving bands to support a small permanent population within the base to cater to the much larger transient population of rovers.
Permanent settlements.The only scenario in which I can reasonably expect a permanent settlement to evolve in a hunter-gatherer society is that listed above in
permanent bases with roving bands: If a race possesses construction techniques and structured government
but not agriculture, it creates permanent settlements at those bases it constructs, supported by taxation of the roving hunter-gatherer bands. Such populations would necessarily be far smaller than agrarian populations could allow.
Otherwise, the base criteria for permanent settlements are Agriculture and either construction techniques
or structured government. Sufficient construction techniques to create lasting structures anchor a tribe to a specific location by virtue of not wanting to leave said structures. This forces them to adapt sustainable agriculture, allowing them to remain sedentary. Sufficient government has a similar effect by imposing restrictions on overfarming and keeping things sustainable enough for the population to become sedentary.
If you don't believe me, take a look at how village greens were managed in the dark to middle ages (and indeed, through most of history). No more than X sheep on the village green, or it gets overeaten. More than that, the steward starts killing sheep
and he won't care whose.
By the above criteria, the ferals would probably fit semi-permanent settlements best, if only because they lack the construction techniques for permanent bases.
On a related note, seeing how quickly the Scholars were able to teach a large number of lesser races (that was like, three different races five different things on three different planets?), what sort of act requirement are you likely to apply to teaching
new knowledge and to spreading
existing knowledge, Caesar?
Author
Topic: Godhood I OOC Thread (Read 130243 times)