Has nobody discussed the relationship between Kabolds and Dragons yet? Kabolds are essentially (according to most fantasy lore anyway) lizard people that resemble anthropomorphic Dragons. D&D has them worship Dragons as not just their Gods, but also the leaders of their civilizations. Kabolds essentially live in "clans", and any Clan that has a Dragon leader can instantly unite other clans without one to their cause. It's a sign of power and often a "holy calling" to join a differing clan if they have a Dragon Overlord. They typically steal, raid, and kill, just to get the materials in order to please their Dragon ruler. Or, they do it to ATTRACT a Dragon to them in order to have a ruler.
Without a Dragon, they "default" to their resident Shaman (if they have one) or the strongest among them (if they don't have a Shaman). They rarely practice magic, and spend most of their time either stealing or goofing off. They are intelligent, just most of them never get past the mentality of a child. The ones that do eventually become a Shaman and a leader in their own right.
So... Why has nobody demanded that Kabolds be more fleshed out than what we currently have? Yeah, they steal in DF, and it's hard to "Make war" with them unless you deliberately let them steal a crapload of stuff... But shouldn't they have their own rules and parameters beyond "steal from you and we have nothing we didn't steal"?
Perhaps if you make war with them, their Dragon leader shows up to help lay siege to your fortress?
Kabolds are rarely a threat except in overwhelming numbers, and most societies see them as a nuisance (even in D&D). But many a Quest was born in which a Clan of Kabolds finally attracts a Dragon of its own and starts uniting all the other Clans in a region to a single purpose. A Kabold Clan with a Dragon instantly elevates it from "minor annoyance" to "potentially kingdom ending".
I think all the other races tend to be fine as it is.
Humans are the "all arounders". They're most typically "the jack of all trades" and "easiest to adapt" among the other races. They can be whatever they choose to be. Good. Evil. Smart. Stupid. Brave. Cowardly. Loyal. Selfish. They are horribly average, but it's their greatest strength. It should remain that way.
Elves... Well, I'd rather they not be HIPPIES and never build structures... But, whatever. They do commune with nature and all that. They tend to be Erudites in "the ways of nature", but absolutely idiotic in terms of advancement and technology. It should be a serious thing if an Elf picks up a METAL blade to go to war. I see no reason they wouldn't adopt this strategy either. They wouldn't necessarily have to even make it themselves. They do barter so they could buy them from other civilizations. And they go to war as well, so they could take them as "war spoils".
Goblins. Well. I don't know. They pretty much work as they are. No clue how they get TROLLS to work for them, but hey, I guess it makes them more deadly. Other animals I could see them getting to work for them, but Trolls are a major hangup for me... In any case, they are also fine the way they are. They spread destruction and chaos simply because their leaders (demons) tell them to. It works for me. A race that was dominated by demons to do its bidding works well. Especially since other kingdoms can also have demonic rulers (even humans!).
Honestly, I'd only like to see improvements over the Elves and the Kabolds. Everything else tends to serve its purpose.
And not getting into the crazy philosophical debates on "the nature of man" and blah blah blah, where pseudo-intellectuals throw away their common sense in lieu of more grandiose ideals and observations of humanity (either painting the species as unbearably evil or nauseatingly good)... I'd just like to say that humans most enduring trait is not their stamina or any other of that nonsense. Our "advantage" in the world as a species is our INTELLIGENCE. Somewhere along the line we developed brains that far outstrip those of any species before us or since. We've used this intelligence to bend the world and the universe to our will. It has dulled our senses and made our bodies more frail. But, it doesn't matter because we don't need strong bodies when we can simply alter nature to our needs. This isn't even a bad thing as some species ALSO alter nature to their needs (Beavers anyone? They're just as destructive as we can be, but the environmentalists frequently leave this bit of information out of their tirades). They, however, lack the intelligence to do this everywhere they go. We don't just build dams either. We build all manner of structure and invent all manner of tool in order to accomplish tasks more easily. This has lead to our prodigious birthrate and lifespan in recent decades. As a species we adapt well. Not because we're hardy, but because we're smart enough to figure out how. Also, because we're incredibly persistant. We have our people die, it doesn't stop us. We just go in a bit smarter and try again.
Oh, and the nature of "war" isn't "to pillage" as some have suggested in the thread. Wars are fought for various reasons, and SELDOM over resources (indeed, more wars have been fought in the name of God than for any other reason. And not just a Christian God either, others go to war for their Gods as well). DF does "war" well. It is most often started over a difference in opinion (as with the elves and cutting down trees) between species/races/civilizations. War has seldom EVER been over resources. It mostly resides with personal ambitions (like more power) or over political and religious ideals (like "slavery is bad" and "we must cleanse the heathens for our God demands it!"). I have to roll my eyes at any media (including the critically acclaimed movie "Watchmen") that tries to say "war is a product of too few resources". If you don't have enough resources, you're not going to go to war against a society that has MORE than you, because it would be absolute suicide. That portrayal of war is about as stupid as you can get while trying to pose as "intellectual". The point of war is also often portrayed in the wrong light. It isn't about "killing people and breaking things". War is about getting the enemy to do what you want the enemy to do. If you have to kill people to do it, then you kill them. If you have to destroy things to do it, then you do. But there are times when it can be absolutely FOOLISH to drop bombs on a civilization during a war. Sometimes this can rally the populace of that society to the goal of destroying you in the war. Some wars can even be won diplomatically. War is for the sake of getting the enemy to do what you want, not for the sake of simply wiping you out.
Author
Topic: Considering Races' Roles (Read 17019 times)