H is for Humanoids

I missed the April A-Z Blog Challenge this year, so I'm doing my own...in June. This year, I will be posting one post per day discussing my AD&D campaign, for the curious. Since 2020, this is the ONLY campaign I run. Enjoy!

H is for Humanoids...orcs and such.

"Humanoid," when used as a noun, means "a being resembling a human in shape" (the -oid suffix is the "resembling" bit). So, you know, two arms, two legs and a head. An xorn doesn't really fit the bill, nor does any creature that walks on four legs.

And yet there are many creatures in the Monster Manual that resemble the "human shape" as much as an orc or goblin that are not defined as "humanoids." Sea hags, for instance, or yeti. Why not? Doesn't a minotaur have the same number of limbs as a gnoll? 

But if I look to the definition of the adjective form of the word (i.e. to describe a "humanoid creature"), we see a little something extra: "having an appearance or character resembling that of a human." Ah...now that's something to consider.

There are plenty of D&D creatures that have a vague resemblance to the human shape: faeries of all stripes, giants, various aquatic creatures, even animal hybrids like harpies and centaurs. But they lack the character of a human, character being defined as "the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual."  Personality-wise, humanoids resemble humans. These other monsters? They don't.  Even if they are sentient, even if they are tool-users, their psychology is alien compared to a human. You cannot use the same line of reasoning with a lizard man or mind flayer that you would to resolve a conflict with a human adversary (humans don't haggle over how many brains we're going to devour).

So, yeah...bullywugs and crabmen? Not humanoids. Neither are the giant-folk (who operate on a scale well outside of human experience) nor the faerie-folk (who are fey and whimsical and often...as with dryads and nymphs...quite alien) nor the various extra-planar/dimensional beings (djinn, devils, night hags, etc.). In fact, there are only EIGHT critters that count as "humanoids" in my setting; they are: bugbears, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, and orcs.

These eight species count as humanoid because they resemble humans both in terms of form and character. They are sentient and aware. They possess language and technology. They have social structures, traditions, "laws" they follow (though these are pretty meager with regard to bugbears and ogres). They are mortal and possess lifespans and biological cycles roughly equivalent to humans. They eat the same foods; they want the same things. They share many of the same fears and ambitions. They are reasoning creatures.

Of these eight, orcs are the closest in resemblance to humans; this is why they are available for play as a PC species. As I've written before, I do not have "half-orcs" in my game; the term is us used to describe an orc who has joined (or attempted to join) human society, adventuring with humans and their allies (elves, dwarves, etc.). To normal humans, such individuals are (perhaps mockingly) referred to as "half-orc," acknowledging that while they are definitely not human, they're not quite the same as a member of their own community...and to that orc community, these beings are (often) seen as betrayers of their kin, and the orcish word for such rogues roughly translates as "half-orc," but in terms of being lame or crippled, albeit in spirit.

1st edition orcs. Note: NOT Mexican.

But orcs do not breed with humans...or any other non-orc species. My campaign setting is not the magical hybrid-land of Piers Anthony's Xanth books. Other than the objective data of hit dice and AC and whatnot, I choose to presume the information in the Monster Manual are something akin to field descriptions by an amateur (and somewhat racists/xenophobic) biologist-anthropologist. Similar in nature to the writing of 15th and 16th century European explorers attempting to describe the civilizations they encountered in the Americas and elsewhere. Not factual but, instead, based on subjective impression and misunderstanding due to poor translation and inexperience with different cultures.

[we call such descriptions "racist," because the person doing the writing has a presumption of the superiority of their own race (in this case, I mean the human race, i.e. species). But this racist orientation does not always or necessarily result in poor treatment or relations towards the perceived "lesser" species...but often enough that it's not considered a practical assumption to take; see my previous post on alignment]

Orcs are ubiquitous to my setting; they have small villages and communities on the (Olympic) peninsula, around the Puget Sound, and on the east side of the Cascades, as well as along the Columbia. You will also find them in the region of Okanogan County, near Winthrope

The non-orc humanoids fall into three groups: the ogres, the gnolls, and the goblins. As with the orcs, these all have an antagonistic relationship to humans (hence, the "evil" alignment designation), because they have a long history of competing for the same food supply, resources, and territory of humanity and (especially) the humans' main allies...dwarves and elves...both of whom have a much longer history on the planet of my setting. However, each of these groups (including the orcs) compete with each other as well as the "good races," and should not be seen as any kind of unified "horde" of antagonistic creatures. In fact, it is their lack of unity...in comparison to the human-elf-dwarf alliance...that has led to the humanoids leading a meaner existence, relegated to inhospitable corners of the wilds.

When totaled, the goblins are the most numerous of all the humanoid groups, but their species is divided into four distinct types that have complicated relationships with each other. The basic "goblin" is the standard of their species, but are diminutive, leading to a disadvantage in inter-humanoid warfare. Their warriors, however, are large, fierce, and well-organized...these are the hobgoblins (so called because of their proclivity for hobnailed jackboots)...unfortunately, they are far fewer in number than than the orcs, and (still) smaller in size than both the gnolls and the ogres. The kobolds are despised "runts" driven out of goblin society and forced to live an even meaner and cruder existence in abject squalor...they hate their own (goblin) kind only slightly less than they hate other species. And then the bugbears, true outsiders of the goblin race, these huge hairy, mutants are prone to violence and insanity, and "do not play nice with others;" driven from goblin communities (much like the kobolds) they sometimes form small bands in the wild where they survive via banditry. Many human communities place a bounty on bugbear scalps.

My kobolds are more pale, 
scrawny goblins than the
mailed dog-men of the MM.

Some enclaves of goblins can be found in the (northern) Cascades, but the bulk of their kind congregate in northern Idaho. However, bugbears tend to live in the forested parts of western Washington, while kobolds can be found farther south (near the active volcano of Mount Saint Helens). Goblins do not build boats and are not found on the water.

The ogres are the strongest and most intimidating of the humanoids, but they are also the fewest in number; they have a "society" in only the most loosest of terms. Once, perhaps, this was different, but ogres have been hunted almost to extinction by the other peoples of the setting, and they are now only found in out-of-the-way places, sometimes selling their services to other humanoids as muscle in exchange for food and coin. The ogre magi are exceedingly rare and bear witness to a civilization that "once was," passing on a tradition that most ogres feel unnecessary to the survival of their race. However, there are some among them who dream of of seeing ogre-kind rise to prominence again...perhaps a looming threat on the horizon?

Once we were kings.

The vast majority of remaining ogres hide among the mountains of northern Idaho. 

Finally the gnolls, the hairy mongrels of the humanoid tribes. Gnoll-ish society is perhaps the least understood of all, as they are a nomadic people who refuse to set down roots. They live by raiding and pillaging, and selling their services as mercenaries...generally other humanoids...but have shown a propensity for turning on masters who show signs of weakness, or when offered a more lucrative deal. 

Gnoll society is matriarchal: they have far fewer females than males, and gnoll warriors are expected to earn glory and gold in order to woo the hands of unattached gnoll maidens. Leading warbands and acquiring followers and pillage is in aid of building family structure and having children...it is less about legacy and more about biological imperative. Gnolls respect strength, because strength leads to survival of the tribe...a chieftain cultivates followers by showing that he can be a provider, but a weak leader will be challenged and (if defeated) devoured. The females, for their part, appear just as fickle in their loyalty, for they are pragmatic...their decision making is based on the good of the community. They are also the spiritual leaders (and spell-casters) of the species. The women command; the men obey, and the gnoll king is the mate of the highest-ranking female of the village.

Gnolls are found throughout the peninsula, and on both sides of the Cascades (though on the eastern side, they stay closer to the mountains), as well as along the length of the Columbia (where they will sometimes engage in piracy, but more often ambush travelers who come ashore in vulnerable spaces). Gnolls are also found in bands in northern Idaho, but not in great numbers...they are more prominent farther east (in Montana).  However, their nomadic lifestyle means they can appear anywhere they find easy prey.

All right...that's enough for the day.

Demi-Human Expansion

 AKA Cocaine Is A Hell Of A Drug

From Dragon Magazine, issue #96:

With expansion of the deities in the WORLD OF GREYHAWK Fantasy Setting, and by Roger Moore's articles herein so as to provide for the races of demi-humankind, there is no logical reason to exclude their clerics from play...

Elves, half-elves, and halflings -- being more nature-oriented than the other demi-human races -- deserve admission to the druid sub-class. Elves are now unlimited in their ability to rise in levels within the druidical ranks, just as half-elves have always been...

Elves are no longer prohibited from entering the ranger sub-class with the same reasoning that now opens the druid sub-class to that race....

E. Gary Gygax, April 1985

In the previous Dragon (issue #95), Gygax had outlined new level maximums for the various demi- and semi-human races for characters that have exceptional ability scores, i.e. prime requisites that exceed the normal maximum for their species. As such an event only occurs through the use of powerful magic (for example dozens or scores of wish spells), I see no problem with extending levels for those rare circumstances. 

Likewise, I have even less problem with the new rule that allows single-classed non-humans to boost their maximum level by +2 in a class that they could normally multi-class with (for example, an elven magic-user or dwarven fighter). This is sensible and a nice bennie for non-humans that seek to "focus" in a particular profession. An excellent addition to the game, while still allowing humans to maintain their place in the PC hierarchy by dint of their "unlimited potential."

SO...see those last two paragraphs? One thing: non-obtrusive. Second thing: good and welcome.

Now, let's talk about everything else. Because Gary seems to have been all coked up when he tweaked out the rest of this mess.

Players and DMs alike should take note of an impotant new rule change which is alluded to herein: player characters can be members of certain demi-human sub-races that are not permitted to PCs by the rules in the Players Handbook -- namely, the valley elf, grugach, drow, duergar, and svirfneblin. More will be said about this new development in subsequent articles. For now, however, players who choose to have drow, duergar, or svirfneblin characters should heed this general stricture: The alignment of such a player character may be of any sort, but daylight adventuring must be severely curtailed due to the nature of these creatures. Without special eye protection and clothing, these three demi-human types will suffer slight problems and sickness due to exposure to sunlight. 

No, Gary. No. No. No.

No, you cannot give players to play powerful demi-humans...creatures originally designed to provide additional challenge to high level PCs with their extra special abilities. Creatures with built-in magic resistance or natural spell powers or the capability of summoning elemental monsters regardless of class. No, Gary. You are high, man. You are NOT thinking straight.

Unfortunately, however, the drugs would continue to flow all the way through the publication of the Unearthed Arcana, when the final blow would be struck to the balance of non-human class relations:

The cavalier class is not listed on the tables for elves and half-elves, and the bard class is not listed on the table for half-elves, because level advancement in either of those classes is unlimited to any character with the requisite ability scores to qualify for the class.

Fucking cocaine, man. 

Anyone unfamiliar with the cavalier class as it appears in the UA will have to wait for the next post in this series to understand just how crap-tastic it is to give elves unlimited class advancement in a class that's...basically...a better fighter. That such a character could also be, say, a drow with a bunch of bonus bennies is a friggin' travesty. Oh Noes! So sad I have a -2 penalty to hit in daylight...we're exploring dungeons, jackass! If I'm getting into fights in town, there's already something wrong!

*sigh*

But let's talk about some of the more subtle problems here. Letting non-humans into the ranger and druid class is a thumbing of the nose at the (unstated) wold-building inherent in the original work. Rangers are not "woodsy heroes of good" (and even if they were, why the hell would a DROW get to be one?)...rather they are AVENGING KILLER HUMANS that hunt and murder the humanoids that threaten humankind. That rangers operate in the wilderness is because THAT'S WHERE THEY FIND THEIR PREY.  It's not the "civilized" ork or goblin that they're protecting (human) people from...it's the roaming bands of cannibalistic hostiles that would otherwise overwhelm fragile humanity. Regardless of your take on alignment, forcing rangers to be "good" places them in direct opposition to the listed (evil) alignment of their quarry.

And druids? Do we not remember what these are and where they came from?

DRUIDS:  These men are priests of a neutral-type religion, and as such they differ in armor class and hit dice, as well as in movement capability, and are a combination of clerics/magic-users...they will generally (70%) be accompanied by a number of barbaric followers....

From Supplement I, Greyhawk

...They are more closely attuned to Nature, serving as its priests rather than serving some other deity... Druids have an obligation to protect woodland animals and plants, especially trees. Unlike the obligation of lawful and good types towards others of this sort, the tendencu of druids will be to punish those who destroy their charges, rather than risk their own lives to actually save the threatened animal or plant. Druids will not slay an animal if it can be avoided, and they can never willingly or deliberately destroy a copse, woods or forest -- no matter how enchanted or evil it may be -- although they may attempt to modify such a place with their own magicks.

From Supplement III, Eldritch Wizardry

As explained in the PHB: "Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest."  These are very HUMAN  characters, aligned with neutrality/nature, not the frolicking Chaotic Good elves feasting on freshly hunted deer. If anything, druids and elves would probably live in a state of polite distance (if not Cold War style hostility), each in their own section of the forest...if not different forests altogether. That half-elves can beliong to the druid class (and the druidic-based bard class) speaks more to their human nature than any elvish part of their blood.  The same reason, really, that they can become rangers (although lacking the unlimited leveling potential of a fully human ranger). 

It's part of the neat thing about half-elves: they get more OPTIONS than an elf. Now you're giving me no reason to play a half-elf at all...except as a bard (and interestingly enough, all the half-elves in the campaign of my youth were bards, including my own PC). 

And thus a new trope was born...of elven archer-y rangers and leafy-pantsed druids. Man, it always bugged me the way 3.0 portrayed rangers and druids as elves, and now I know why (though I guess that's not as bad as dragonborn paladins...). Still, if you're going to allow elves to become rangers "by the same reasoning" that gives them unlimited druid access, why not go all the way and let halflings play giant-killer, too? What? They can't shoot a bow?

Idiocy.

Of course NOW ("officially") halflings can become CLERICS...something that wasn't allowed in the PHB (even for NPCs). And, why? Because Roger Moore came up with some demi-human deities for a specific campaign setting, that Gary wanted to throw his editor a bone (and some royalties) by using them as filler in the new UA book. AND he (Gary) extended the maximum clerical level obtainable by non-humans (PC and NPC alike) to the point that a dwarf or elf with 18 wisdom (not even a number requiring wish magic!) can obtain double-digit (!!) levels of experience...while the poor half-elf can't get higher than 8!

That's right: a dwarf cleric can reach a higher level of cleric than they can fighter. Cocaine.

Okay, again, understand the original world-building of the game. Originally, ONLY HUMANS COULD BE CLERICS...of the adventuring sort. Yes, you could find dwarf and elf clerics (see their monster description in Supplement I: Greyhawk), because it makes sense that a demihuman population worships their own gods and have their own priests. But those clerics were of limited ability: 

On the other hand half-elves, since their inception, have always been allowed to earn levels as an adventuring cleric: presumably because of their human nature. That they could not advance very high showed how their elven half limited their ability to advance within the (human/adventuring) church...even though they could make up for it through multi-classing (half-elves with OPTIONS had the largest number of multi-class possibilities of any race in the PHB). It is this same elven nature (presumably) that prevented the character from being a paladin (originally) even though they wee human enough to take up the mantle of ranger. 

[yet another reason why the UA's allowance of half-elf paladins is such a slap in the face]

Similarly, half-orcs were also given the ability to become clerics and cleric multi-classes...the only other non-human (besides the half-elf) with the capability. Again, the assumption is this is possible because of the character's semi-human nature...they have the blood of humanity in their veins and so can learn the ways of the human (adventuring) church. That these teachings could be perverted to evil and combined with the skills of an assassin speaks to their orcish side, I imagine.

But with the UA rules, no half-orc with max wisdom (14) nor half-elf (18) will ever equal a dwarf with even a 16 wisdom (not an elf with 17) because...reasons? Their racial deities are cooler, I guess?

*sigh* (again)

Hey! How 'bout this? Have you ever noticed that...with the advent of the new super-official Unearthed Arcana...even while demi-human class and level potentials were "expanded," a LOT of the original (i.e. PHB race-class combos) were actually reduced? Huh? What? That's right...here's the comparison:

   Dwarf fighter, STR 16 (or less) in PHB: maximum 7th level

   "Hill Dwarf" fighter, STR 16 (or less) in UA: maximum 6th level

   (High) elf fighter, STR 17 in PHB: maximum 6th level (7th with STR 18)

   High/Grey elf fighter, STR 17 in UA: maximum 5th level (6th with STR 18)

   Gnome fighter, STR 18 in PHB: maximum 6th level

   Gnome fighter, STR 18 in UA: maximum 5th level

   Half-elf fighter, STR 18 in PHB: maximum 8th level

   Half-elf fighter, STR 18 in UA: maximum 7th level

   (High) elf magic-user, INT 18 in PHB: maximum 11th level

   High elf magic-user, INT 18 in UA: maximum 10th level

So, yeah: adopt the new UA rules and all your "standard" races are going to suck a bit more. Hey, but at least they raised the maximum thief level a half-orc can achieve (still not "U" however, so why would a half-orc be anything bother being anything but an assassin?).

It's crap...it's all just a big pile of crap. I'm sure there are folks that LOVE the Unearthed Arcana rules and the newly expanded demi-human roles. Sorry...I'm not one of them. Here, I'll share another fun, personal anecdote with everyone: when I decided I wanted to start playing AD&D again (four-ish years ago), I decided to look at each D&D race, and their allowable classes, and figure exactly how high of level I wanted their potential to be based on A) how I viewed the species, and B) how it fit with my world/setting. This included looking at what I wanted their best fighting ability to be, the highest level of skill I wanted them to get to, the best spells they would have access to, and all the various "class abilities" (like the gaining of henchmen or "baron status" or whatever) they might achieve. I decided that I was not going to be a "slave to the rules," but would "make my own choices" as to what level/class restrictions would be allowed in my game. 

And what I found was that I liked ALL the classes and level restrictions AS WRITTEN. The PHB limits are perfectly appropriate, based on how I see my campaign world. Well, except I'd like a dedicated, "focused" non-human to be able to achieve a slightly higher level (and the UA '+2 to max' rule gets that job done). 

But I definitely don't want elven cavaliers and (adventuring) dwarven clerics and half-elf paladins in my game. Nor do I have any interest in making duergar and drow and svirfneblin available as PC race types...my players have yet to discover and explore the Underdark! Why should that content be available to players from the get-go? 

(Spoiler: it shouldn't)

There have, of course, been worse travesties in D&D since the UA was published. Allowing PC githzerai (hello, 2E Players Options!). And WotC's devolving the druid class into its current shape-shifting/no semblance of origin/bullshit is a clear sign that the designers live in Seattle and smoke way too much weed ("Dude, like, why don't we, like, lean heavy into the shape-changing thing? Like isn't that better than making them use a scimitar all the time?" "Yeah, dude. Like what if it were a dragon-born druid, and it could become, like, a REAL dragon." "Dude, cool.").  Yeah, far worse travesties. But adopting the UA rules wholesale into your 1E game is...pretty bad. You're going to end up with a lot of elven cavaliers.

(I mean, why wouldn't you? No level cap, right?)

No. The PHB works JUST FINE. Add the +2 bonus to max level for single-class demi- and semi-humans. Leave out the non-standard "sub-races" (terrible term, BTW, Gary). Leave out the cavaliers. If PCs end up taking their prime requisites into the 20s some point down the road then, sure...take a gander at the UA tables to get an idea at how many bonus levels to grant (here's an idea: +1 to max level for each point over 18). But, otherwise, just stick with the classics; stick with what works.

And remember folks: drugs are bad for your brain.

Must. Stop. Doing. Cocaine.

Orcs: Neither Noble, Nor Savage

Back at the Village of Hommlet...actually, the village of Twisp in the Grand County of Okanogan, Bork the "half-orc" met his end rather quickly, never setting foot in a dungeon proper. He was stabbed in the back by an invisible Fernok of Ferd (4th level thief) while attempting to burgle rooms on the upper floor of the Inn of the Welcome Wench. So ends his tale.

However, Diego was fairly shaken by the death...to the verge that he claimed he hated the game and wanted to quit. He really liked Bork, you see; he had already formed an attachment to the character even before the character had done anything in the game, even though I'd had him roll up multiple characters before the start (in the eventuality that one or more might die). 

Such is the price of investing in a backstory for one's player character. It's but a small step for a DM to allow a "do over," a "take back" to allow the player to retain a cherished character...a character that was only just created and should contain ZERO emotional attachment. And from there it's the slippery slope of fudging dice rolls and changing encounters and turning the game from a game into a farce. THIS is how it starts.

Nope. Not doing that. "Do you really want to quit playing?" No. "All right, then grab another character so you can show up at the Inn." Diego's new character (Langston the elven thief) is doing much better.

We want players to be invested in the game, not their characters...though I readily agree that investment in character is both inevitable AND desirable over the long term. This is why parties will spend copious amounts of treasure to raise a fellow PC (or cherished NPC) that has died in the course of play...especially one with a few levels under his/her belt. But a newly minted 1st level character? No. Roll up a new fighter/assassin, call him Cork the Orc, and away you go.

*****

Since my last post I've been thinking hard about my "indigenous orcs." A lot of great comments on that last post (appreciate the feedback) leading me directly to define how and what the species is in my world. And I started by reading the "orc" entry in the Monster Manual and comparing it with the half-orc player race as described in the PHB and DMG.

The first thing one notices upon reading the MM with a clinical eye is just how slanted the description of the orcs are, pitting the reader against the creature. Gygax sounds like a propagandist in writing, painting a picture of "disgusting" and "unattractive" people; "bullies" who need "strong leaders" to "control the orcs" as they are otherwise likely (75%) to fight each other. They are "cruel," and "hate living things in general." They also "hate the light" despite noting that a quarter of orc villages are found above ground (though these are noted as being "rude" and primitive affairs).

To me, it reads like the biased account intended to drum up hatred for a society as a pretext for aggression, conquest, and subjugation. We've seen similar accounts written up over the years in our Real World, and not just with regard to indigenous peoples...part of going to war with countries post-Enlightenment has often (always?) included similar essays dehumanizing our opponents. Makes it easier for a soldier to see themselves as a "hero," and makes it far easier to put a bullet into a fellow human being.

So, let's chalk this up to someone working for the (human) nobility and not an actual sociologist studying this strange people. Hell, we can even write off the illustrations as exaggerated cartoons...still inhuman, but not quite so much "pig-man." Time for a closer look at this orc species!

Let's start with the basics. Physically, they are roughly human size. Orcs are stated as being 6' + tall, but again, this seems to be an exaggeration as the "half-orc" (per the DMG) is generally smaller and lighter than a human (5'6" and 150# being male average; 5'2" and 120# being female average)...which makes sense considering their maximum strength is LOWER than that of a human. Even if I was using half-orcs as a HYBRID species (I'm not) it makes little sense for the pairing of a large human and a larger orc to result in a smaller, weaker species...that's not how biology works. Instead, you should have something IN BETWEEN (at least) indicating such offspring should be larger and stronger than their human parents.

I am inclined to see the 6'+ description as more propaganda. "They're giants!" No.

Orcs do tend to have more hit points and better fighting ability than your average (non-classed) human: 1 hit die (1-8 hit points) compared to 0-level and 1-6 hit points. However, we know they are a robust species (+1 CON, maximum 19) and since the likely opposition PCs will face are the warriors of the village (rather than non-combatants), this makes sense. The 1-8 points of damage an unarmed orc inflicts is, perhaps, a reflection of their greater average strength (+1 STR, though humans have a greater range). This should not be considered an unarmed attack, but damage done from picking up whatever's at hand: furniture, tools/implements, etc. 

[furthermore, if one considers an orc's "penalty" for fighting in daylight, they are little different from a 0-level human with a high CON. Better to think of them as a species with an ADVANTAGE in darkness, than a truly nocturnal race]

Orcs mature quickly (reaching full adulthood by the age of 16), and can reach an age of 80 or more. Skin color ranges from brown to green with a "bluish sheen" changing to pink at the ears and snout. Hair color ranges from dark brown to black, perhaps fading with age (accounts of some with "tan patches"); warriors cut their hair short (described as "bristly"). 

Their intelligence is listed as "average (low)." Intelligence in D&D is a measure of two things: ability to learn languages and ability to learn sorcery. We know from the MM that the majority of orcs speak at least three languages (goblin and hobgoblin being different dialects of the same tongue), that they are "accomplished tunnelers and miners," and that they engage in construction, build fortifications, manufacture their own armor, and use a variety of weapons and siege equipment. From the DMG, we know that they have their own spell-casters: shamans (clerics) of up to 5th level ability, and the derisively called "witch-doctors" (cleric/magic-users) of up to 4th level ability. The range of 3 to 17 for intelligence given in the PHB seems fine and appropriate.

All the orc images on the internet are crap. Here's a
typical coastal native village from the 19th century
(this is a S'Klallam tribal village near Port Gamble).

Socially, they are little different from humans. I choose to see alignment as proclivity, and being lawful orcs engage in the building of communities, have laws and traditions, hierarchies ("chiefs," "sub-chiefs," etc.) and engage in trade with other humanoid communities (as described in the MM by their caravans, and as evidenced by their speaking the tongue of subterranean goblins). The 1-to-1 ratio of male orc to child orc and 2-to-1 ratio of male orc to female orc suggests a high rate of maternal mortality in childbirth, though this is perhaps due to the present conditions (competing with humans for living space). 

"Evil" alignment can be read as "hostile to humans (and their allies)." They have religion, their own form of worship. They obviously value strength (as do many humans); no wonder they are "fiercely competitive" as this is a way of showing strength and thus proving their worth/value to their community. The practice of slavery enforces this value (again: a show of strength in subjugating their foes). However, slavery generally comes about when there is a need for individuals to provide "work," and a lack of willing individuals to do the work.

[an abundance of land and scarce labor supply...once the indigenous locals had died off...contributed to the first slaves being imported into the Americas. Enslaved child soldiers fill the need of "armies" that don't have enough willing combatants; sexual slavery serves a demand that cannot be met under the values and norms of our polite society. And one can see the decline of serfdom and slavery in Europe and Asia as populations grew and cheap, unsupervised labor became abundant]

The D&D world is an immensely perilous one. Able-bodied orcs are needed to protect communities from large monsters and competitive humanoids (like the rival elves and...later...humans). Someone is still needed to grow food for the community, farming and raising animals. Slaves help fill that role for the orcs, especially given the need to preserve females for childbearing. It should probably go without saying that not all Orc communities engage in the practice of slavery.

The disproportion of adult female to male orcs does not necessarily suggest a matriarchal organization, nor even polyandrous relationships. Instead, the value of strength is again exhibited as males unwilling or unable to "prove" themselves are left without mates. Females, especially those proven to be good mothers, will have higher value/status in the tribe, but "environmental considerations" (the hostile D&D setting) contribute to an emphasis on war leaders and battle captains. 

"Cruelty" is in the eye of the beholder. Slavery is cruel to the enslaved (and to those who find slavery abhorrent). "Bullying" is practiced in all walks of human life. Deities & Demigods states the orcs' worship of Gruumsh (in my mind, the orcish word for "God") requires monthly sacrifices of blood...but that doesn't necessarily mean human sacrifice (nor the sacrifice of slaves or fellow orcs!). A goat, ram, or other ritually raised animal works fine and would be little different from historical human practices.

[another DDG note: "raiment" from Gruumsh includes a war helm and black plate mail; this is clearly a bit better than the usual orc armor described in the MM, and more evidence that the orcs' manufacturing ability is on par with humans, at least when it comes to personal armaments]

While the MM's author objects to the specific colors orcs enjoy, the fact remains that the orcs use colors (dyes and whatnot) and have their own sense of style and fashion. They are not primitive cavefolk eking out a subsistence existence. They also use standards and livery, and exhibit a great sense of martial pride (see their bonus when it comes to defending their battle standard). The DMG (page 16) describes:

Half-Orcs are boors. They are rude, crude, crass, and generally obnoxious. 

To me, this says they are straightforward and plain-talking, unconcerned with subtleties of speech and the niceties of (human) etiquette. They speak their mind. They are practical and pragmatic. That doesn't mean they aren't polite or honorable (in their own way), but asserting oneself loudly is (again) a means of showing strength...something they value. Because the weak have a hard time surviving the wilds and the depredations of elves. 

Ah, the elves. Long before the humans arrived, the orcs have been warring with elves. And why? Because they want the same things: Land. Resources. Access to timber, water ways, food supply. The elves (who I will discuss in a later post) have gotten the upper hand over the years (most likely by dint of superior magic), resulting in the orcs seeking shelter and homes in subterranean lairs (the majority of orc villages). Regrettably, this has pushed them into conflict with the subterranean dwarves and gnomes in recent years (the PHB p.18 notes a hatred for dwarves and gnomes, rather than simple antipathy with elves...the more recent conflict burns hotter). 

The newly arrived humans have been more curse than blessing for the beleaguered orcs. The humans have much in common with the orcs, and lack the history of ancestral feuding, but they also have the need for the same land. The physical features of the orc race make humans less amenable to them than to other demihumans, and the orcs have little to offer compared to the other species on the planet (elves: magic, dwarves: crafting, gnomes: gemstones, etc.). Orcs are a competitive species with the humans, a rival with little to offer in trade. Their practices of slavery and blood sacrifice make them seem "primitive" in the eyes of humans; their inhuman features and working relationship with goblinoids and ogres make them feared and "dangerous" in comparison to the more human-appearing species. 

[it also doesn't help that humans making friends with the fairer-appearing elves and dwarves has automatically put orcs in the "enemy-of-my-ally" category]

And, yet, some humans and orcs have found the ability to inter-relate with each other. Some humans have taken it upon themselves to "pound the orc out" of (usually) orc children, teaching them the ways of "sophistication;" other less-scrupulous humans see the orcs as easily manipulated muscle for their own agendas...expendable mercenaries, easily bought with promises of land and revenge on hated elves, dwarves, etc. For their part, some orcs have decided it's better to live among the humans, learning their ways, then continue to fight a losing war of cultural competition. 

RULES

While orcs have their own forms of worship and magic, shamans and "witch-doctors" are not available as player character classes. Only the classes listed in the PHB (as for half-orc) are available, along with the multi-class and level restrictions listed. Single-class orcs may add +2 to the maximum level in any particular class, subject to normal restrictions (for example, no assassin may progress beyond 15th level).

Orcish player characters have lived and trained extensively with humans. As such, they receive neither the bonuses, nor penalties of other orcs (with regard to fighting in daylight or near an orcish battle standard, etc.). Player character clerics have been initiated into the humans religious practices and advance as a standard cleric, not a shaman, including normal wisdom adjustments; no such character may achieve a level in cleric beyond 4th (6th level if single-classed). All orc player characters speak the common tongue of humans as well as the language of their orc tribe; additional languages can be learned subject to their intelligence.

Player character orcs have both a charisma score and an adjusted charisma score. The adjusted score is two less than the original roll, and never higher than 12, unless magically increased. The adjusted charisma is ONLY used when interacting with humans, elves (and half-elves), dwarves, and gnomes. The adjusted charisma score does not preclude the orc character from entering non-assassin professions.

An orc may be raised from the dead as any other PC race.

A Different "Half-Orc"

SO...last night (Thursday) my players were creating new PCs for the campaign (because their others are all dead...natch) and my son rolled up a half-orc fighter/assassin; his FIRST half-orc character as far as I can recall.

[we don't use alignment in our games and this is far from the first assassin we'e seen, but it is (perhaps) interesting that it's taken this long to get a multi-classed one]

Right on, I said. A half-orc, huh? To which he replied something along the lines of: "Yeah, I'm thinking he was kidnapped from his orc-mother's village by humans when he was a child and forced into a reeducation program similar to what was done to Native Americans. How's that for a backstory?" Well, we really don't do backstories (he laughs), but that's not a bad one. How does he feel about orcs? "Well, he sees orcs as his people, really, and hates humans for what they did to him and other village children."

I pointed out to him that his sister's character is a human (and a cleric to boot...a lot of those Indian Residential Schools were run by Catholics or Christian missionaries). At which point he started bending over backwards to create more backstory justifying their relationship and reasons for adventuring and...'No, never mind. Not important.' Because, of course, THAT's not. The game is not about exploring complicated social dynamics based on race and trauma, the bonds of camaraderie and friendship, and the acrimony of historic abuse and cultural genocide.

Thank goodness. That wouldn't be nearly as fun.

However, as I sat in church today (my kids attend Catholic school and since the pandemic, they alternate which classes get to attend Mass on Fridays...today was my daughter's class)...I reflected on this. On this sordid piece of my religious/cultural history. It is/was a really f'ing sad piece of work all around...one that the Catholic Church has yet to apologize for (the Pope is scheduled to meet with delegates from some 30 indigenous American tribes this March...we'll see what happens).

Because...all awfulness aside...my kid's idea for using "half-orcs" is kind of brilliant.

I've done a lot of things with orcs in my games over the years. First, of course, they were just another evil minion monster looking to follow a strong evil leader (the classic trope). Later, they were "beastmen," the common sword & sorcery trope, some sort of not-quite-evolved, more bestial human (see the Moldvay description). At times, I've wanted to use them in the Tolkien sense...an evil "fey" (fairy) race, either evil by nature or corrupted by some dark power (Tolkiens' orcs are "broken" elves)...however, this always steps on the toes of the various goblinoids.

More recently, I've postulated orcs as either some sort of "created" servitor race (most likely by the sorcerous elves, for whom they hold enmity) that have thrown off their shackles and established their own brutal civilization OR ELSE "orcishness" is a type of magical mutation that occurs in the post-apocalyptic wilderness, while "half-orcs" are simply first generation mutants; the PA spin on the S&S beastman trope.

What I haven't considered...like, at all...is using the orcs as analogous to any real world people. I don't see them as Mongols or Huns or "noble savages" of ANY sort. I haven't had the desire to replace real world cultures, I definitely don't see humans in D&D as "white Europeans only" and I always wanted solid reasons for PCs to have adversarial relationships with these subterranean, cannibalistic, tool-using sentients. They ain't humans...at all.

And yet, in AD&D we have half-orcs. And, heck, they're one of only three races that can (as a matter or the PHB rules) be clerics. Wha-wha-what?

One of the things I liked about the B/X rules were their complete lack of semi-humans (half-orcs and half-elves). Leaving aside the old school racism of the "half-breed" trope (ugh!) can we say these are different species and NOT reproductively compatible with each other? Just what kind of fantasy are we playing here? If this is Greek myth...well, okay, anyone can breed with anything (that's how you get minotaurs, for example). But given the kitchen sink nature of the setting, you go too far down that road and you end up with something resembling Piers Anthony's Xanth novels. And that's NOT really the kind of game I want to run...not even close.

Now, if orcs (and elves) are just variant humans...like neanderthals and cro-magnons and whatnot...with genetic compatibility...well, okay, sure. But then orcs should be able to breed with elves...and the rules are pretty explicit in THAT prohibition (one assumes this is, again, because of Tolkien...but Tolkien himself had the orcs as corrupted elves. And drawing on northern European myth, why not have marriages between light and dark fairies? Um...pretty sure that was a thing, once upon a time).

Do I want orc-elves? No. I do not.

So, I'm considering riffing off my kid's backstory in my world's concept of "half-orcs." In my campaign humans are a transplanted species...they've only been on the planet for two or three centuries (long enough that their history...where they came from, how they got there...is mostly mysterious and lost knowledge). They are the "new kids on the block;" the other sentients were there long before with long established relationships and histories. 

Despite that...and despite the hostility they face from MANY of the sentient species on the planet...humanity is an ascendant species and have quickly adapted and, in many parts, taken over the local. There is still hostile "wilderness" to be explored (and conquered) but humanity has already managed to carve out multiple kingdoms in the region...kingdoms connected by tenuous strands of humanity.

The elves...and their relationship with humans (both socially and genetically)...is something I won't get into today, but it's fairly mapped out. The orcs, on the other hand, aren't something I considered before, other than: A) they're one of the indigenous species (unlike humans), B) they're antagonistic to the humans, and C) their capabilities (game-wise) are more-or-less as described in the PHB.

Now, however, I am thinking of half-orcs as something much more similar to the indigenous peoples of North America, and their relationship with the "new" humans being something very much like that of the indigenous people to the white (and black) settlers that came to the (Pacific Northwest) region in the 1800s.

[my game world is set in the PNW...my game map is Washington State and the surrounding area]

Unlike the actual indigenous people, orcs are not humans. However, they are close enough that the humans have attempted to assimilate them into their culture...much the way as Canadian and US governments attempted to reprogram native peoples with their own values, customs, languages, etc. And using similarly brutal and inhumane methods.

A "half-orc" then is NOT a hybrid species of human and orc. Instead, it is an orc that has been taken and culturally re-educated by the humans (good-intentioned or not). They've been taught the language, taught the skills, learned the values and etiquette, all in an attempt to make the creature "less orc." The classes available to the half-orc (fighters, clerics, thieves, and assassins) are the only ones humans would deign to teach an orc (and clerics only to 4th level), or that orcs could pick up on their own. Sorcery? Absolutely not...though within their OWN culture, they teach their own versions of sorcery and clerical magic (using the tribal spellcaster rules on page 40 of the DMG). Such individuals...derisively referred to as "witch doctors" by the humans...are not available as player characters, as their powers are only used for the good of their peoples, rather than "adventure."

Non-indoctrinated orcs, then, have far different cultural priorities than the average adventure-seeking humans. It's not that orcs who retain their own upbringing and social structure don't (sometimes) get the urge to go out and plunder an ancient ruin...but the game is not about those individuals. It's about the humans (and human-accepted) who cooperate, hang out in (human) towns/cities, and look to increase their wealth, prestige, and standing (amongst human-types). 

Nothing halfway
about this guy....

The orc peoples...of which there are many tribes and traditions...are just a little too hostile to the encroaching humans to mix easily into an adventuring party. Those that do can ALL be considered "half-orc," or rather "half-human," based on their different perspective and outlet. Not all of them will hate and resent humans, though most will have mixed feelings about them. 

Not sure why this particular approach to humanoids feels better than human-on-human violence that was so off-putting when I considered setting my game in historic South America. It's not because the actions of American settlers in the west was any less egregious than what happened in (what is now called) Latin America...just research a bit about the Yakima War for a taste of that action. But for some reason, it doesn't feel so problematic to me. Perhaps, I just have more of a handle on the local history and politics, that I feel I can steer the narrative better. Perhaps using "fantasy races" I feel like there's the opportunity to resolve things in a different (maybe better) way. Perhaps I've just grown and matured the last couple years and feel capable of dealing with the harsh reality of colonialism and racial relations.

Or maybe it's just that my children (who are my players) have some understanding of real world history and won't just be going "Cowboys and Indians" on the poor old orcs.

I don't know, but I'm digging on the whole concept. It opens some other issues, of course (like, what exactly is up with Lavinia and her half-orc sons in UK2: The Sentinel...are they adopted? Is she some sort of horrible ex-teacher from an Orc Boarding School?). But the more I reflect on it, the more I find the subject matter something I want to engage with. I hope Diego's new PC can stay alive for a while...I'll be interested to see where his adventures take him.

Plans Change

Turns out my in-laws (who have been staying with us since June 17th) will be staying longer...till August, in fact. Which is fine (we all get along well) and generally fun (especially for the kids), though it means the diet, etc. will all be put on hold for another ten days (pretty hard to quit drinking the beer when they want to tour the local breweries...of which there are many 'round these parts). 

The reason they're staying isn't quite as fine or fun, however: my wife's brother and his family and in-laws have all contracted the COVID. Which is, frankly, horrific and tragically, tragically stupid (most of them, including his wife's aged parents had the chance to get vaccinated, and passed for...reasons). But there's a lot of stupid in Mexico (just as there is up here)...difference is, our government, provides a lot more infrastructure and support for folks (not enough but, hey, people hate paying taxes, right? Plus we have to fund this freedom-saving war machine of ours...) that Mexico simply can't...or won't...provide.

So, we'll see what happens. In the meantime, we're keeping my wife's parents here while my brother-in-law disinfects their house (that he and his wife were watching). *sigh* 

Now, if y'all will excuse me, I'm going to work on my submission for Prince's "No ArtPunk" adventure contest. The thing is due by the end of August and I've still got a lot of writing to do (not to mention drawing the map). I was just thinking about it this morning while brewing coffee and have decided I probably need more half-orcs than originally anticipated...at least two more. Can half-orc assassins be disguised as elven captives? Does that really make sense (i.e. would it fool anyone?)? I guess, by the PHB rules it should...even if they were disguised as elf maiden clerics individual PCs would only have an 8% chance to see through the deception. And if they're female half-orcs, why, that chance drops to 6%. Mm. Who needs dopplegangers in a world of Faceless Men?

Later, gators.

"You can be a GNOME?"

 Ah, AD&D...still king after all these years.

My kids are only now just starting to discover the majesty and mystery of that tome we call The Players Handbook. At first, they were only really using the ability score and equipment tables...now, they're starting to dive in.

As I suspected, their first excitement simply came from the fact that we were playing Dungeons & Dragons again...the boy made an elven fighter, the girl made a halfling ("kender") fighter/thief. Both were approaching the game much as one might a game of B/X or OD&D (their previous forays into D&D), though of course there was some confusion ("What's ring armor?" "What's a bastard sword?" etc.). They were both happy to purchase guard dogs.

Everything else they've taken in stride. I don't think they've noticed, for instance, that armor class goes to 10, or that weapons do different damage versus large creatures.They prefer to shoot arrows into things anyway. They appreciate the extra hit points, of course, but those are always a precious resource and never in large enough supply.

But playing D&D has once again fired both kids' desire (though my son's especially) to run the game. And Diego drafted a dungeon to run AD&D for myself and his sister. And he was tres shocked when I brought a ranger to the table. "What the heck is that?" Maybe you should read up on the new sub-classes and races in the book, I suggested. And, oh boy, did he...now he's trying to get his sister to roll up an assassin or an illusionist, while he himself created a ranger of his own...though his has a bow (unlike mine).

[I am so tired of the ranger archer trope]

I am glad their imagination has been sparked; my own has had a jumpstart as well. However, I will whine that the old complaint still lingers: it's frustrating that one has to wait and wade through novice challenges without being able to get to the higher level content (i.e. "the good stuff"). When last we left off (last night) the party was just attacked by a handful of fire beetles, who appear to be getting the upper hand (AC 4 is especially rough for low-level PCs to hit). It may soon be time to create new player characters...too bad, as they just spent the gold and time to train up to 2nd level.

[ah, AD&D]

For the curious, I will list the particularities of the game I'm currently running:

• Rule books being used include: the PHB, DMG, MM, and Fiend Folio. The MM2 and DDG might be used in the future but have not, as of yet, been necessary. No Unearthed Arcana or later rules.
• Ability scores are rolled 4D6, arranged to taste, and character must have at least two "15" scores to be considered viable.
• Demihumans who single class may add +2 to their maximum applicable level when otherwise limited.
• First level hit points are maximum to begin; "1s" are rerolled when leveling. 
• Training costs are in silver pieces instead of gold. Training time is determined randomly (roll 1d4), doubled without a trainer/mentor.
• Psionics have not yet been added to the game.
• To this point, I have simply been using 2d6 (B/X) reaction rolls when necessary, rather than the more complex system provided in the DMG. This might change once I've had a chance to put together a cheat sheet, but it seems unnecessary for a more complex system, considering that none of the PCs have any kind of reaction adjustment (average charisma scores).
• We are not using alignment at the moment; there are no alignment languages and players have not chosen alignment for their characters. Right now, the entire issue of alignment seems an inconvenience; i.e. an obstruction to play. Not only is it difficult to explain, its mechanics are obscure. The players are basically "good" (and are playing their characters as such) and until it matters for some reason, I am simply using alignment (with regard to NPCs, magic items, etc.) as rough guidelines for motivation. 

And that's about it. Um...yep. Everything else is being used as written. I'm only going to worry about changing things if/when we run into a "snag" in play. 

Regarding the campaign setting: as I wrote the other day I am taking it extremely slow with regard to putting things together. The world definitely has a "post-apocalyptic" vibe to it, though in the way of Bakshi's Wizards rather than Dragonlance/Krynn.  Orcs, for example, are simply mutants. They are not a particularly "fecund species;" instead, mutants (caused by bad magic/radiation/something) are found amongst most species. A "half-orc" is the mutant offspring of a genetic human; tainted areas of the wilderness might give rise to a higher percentage of "half-orcs" in the population. Orcs proper are bestial descendants of such creatures being driven into the wilderness, forced to band together in tribal communities, further mucking up their own blood lines. Such creatures have an antagonistic relationship with the races that have spurned them.

[goblin kind, on the other hand, are an actual, non-mutant species. They're enmity towards dwarves are based on rivalry born of competing subterranean species; their hostility towards humans and elves come from these latter groups being allies with dwarves. Kobolds, in my game, are simply "small goblins," (like gnomes are "small dwarves") not dog-headed gremlins]

Typical orcish horde.

I've often, in recent years, considered orcs to be something akin to the sword & sorcery trope of "beastmen," creatures that, AD&D, would normally be modeled by the mongrelman creature found in I1: Dwellers of the Forbidden City and later (published officially) in the Monster Manual II. The justification for this comes directly from my reading of the Tom Moldvay's (B/X) description of the orc:

"Orcs are ugly human-like creatures who look like a combination of animal and man."

...the first time ANY physical description of orcs (outside of coloration) is given in any of the D&D books. To me, it conjures a bit of an Isle of Dr. Moreau vibe, and I'm happy to run with that...especially the idea of such mutant creatures setting down their own laws and traditions in an attempt to build some semblance of "society."

But, again, I'm digressing. And I have errands to run. The Seahawks are playing tonight (we'll see how THAT goes...), and since the MLS playoffs don't start (for Seattle) till Tuesday, that means my weekend should be very freed up for Dungeons & Dragons. Rainy days in November are good for gamers!

: )

In The Tomb

Happy Holy Saturday! As we all await our own "resurrection" from the caves in which we're sheltering (see what I did there? Easter humor), I figured I'd post up a few addendum notes to yesterday's post. I mean, why the hell not?

Regarding my re-typing of OD&D:

Finished doing Book III...well, as much of it as I plan on writing at this point. The thing devotes a LOT of space (about a third of its page count) to aerial and naval combat, neither of which are incredibly pertinent to my campaign at the moment. I understand the authors' original intention of including everything necessary for a "complete game," but this is more appendix kind of stuff for "special adventures" (this may be a B/X prejudice as the original Expert set put ship and waterborne combat info in a just such a chapter at the end of the book). For better or worse, I don't see my players doing a lot of aerial combat maneuvers in game.

That leaves a lot of space, however, which I will be using to fill out GM info (from later works) that I really want to include. I went through the later OD&D supplements, as well as The Strategic Review and early Dragon magazines...

[ha! in the other room my daughter is having a video "play date" with one of her kindergarten friends and she's attempting to explain the Dungeons & Dragons game we've been playing. Funny stuff.]

...and made notes of the things I want to incorporate into the text. There are some interesting world assumptions I'm finding in the text. The fact that orcs are readily available for hire as mercenaries (and for low prices) says something about their place in the world/civilization of the game...especially as other humanoids AREN'T (goblins are too feral? I suppose). But how does this easy relationship sit with rangers? Not good I suppose (which is why they prefer to live in the wilds). Still, it helps explain half-orcs when orcs are regular participants in inter-species relationships...

Then there's the whole issue of evil (i.e. "chaotic") patriarchs. The same rules for high level clerics apply to evil high priests...which means any such individual that builds a stronghold is going to attract a large force of "faithful" fanatics...not to mention the automatic "tithes" (20 g.p. per inhabitant per year!) that starts rolling in to the EHP's coffers. Apparently all gods are honored in this fantasy setting...sets up all sorts of Isle of Pan Tang ideas.

Regarding the Tomb of Horrors:

Man, that adventure is the gift that just keeps on giving. After The Keep on the Borderlands, I've got to believe it's the module I've run the most over the years (yes, more than White Plume Mountain). Last night, I ran the original OD&D tournament version of the module for the kids, though using the illustration pack from the later 1980 publication. Kids each took two of the pre-gens from the adventure: Diego used an 8th level paladin ("Rider") and a 12th level magic-user ("Winklebart"); Sofia used a 4th/6th level Elf fighter-mage ("Fiddly Fiddler") and a 10th level cleric (first call "Sheila May," later changed to "Lovine the Artist"). The kids had a lot of fun picking out all the cool spells their high level characters could carry, and spent a good amount of time selecting equipment that provided them the right mount of utility with the most efficient encumbrance.

Because we were starting rather late at night, I declared we'd go with the two hour tournament time limit (though we probably went over by a bit). The players started by exploring the "right-hand" (western) false tunnel. The collapsing ceiling killed Fiddly, necessitating the use of Lovine's raise dead spell. Fortunately, the elf made his resurrection survival roll and two weeks later they were healed up and ready to try again.

The party's second foray into the dungeon saw them exploring the "left-hand" (eastern) entrance. Despite the rumbling they heard behind them, they decided to press forward and try to open the doors. It was only after they discovered the blank wall behind the doors that they turned to find the tunnel behind sealed by a shifting wall. "What do we do now?" What do you want to do. "Well, we'll check out the fake doors, but we'll be careful for traps." I think you've already set off a trap don't you? Oh, right. Fortunately, Winkle had memorized the passwall spell so they were able to escape.

Next up was the main (central) tunnel entrance. Here they managed to fall in most every pit trap along the path, but led by their stalwart paladin (with high hit points and amazing saving throws) they managed to traverse the length, finally arriving at the corridor's end. Finding and reading the the cryptic message on the floor, Diego decided to try the misty arch while Sofia's characters remained behind to "watch for monsters." The teleportation deposited Rider and Winkle in a rather messy heap in the chamber of the four-armed ghoul who surprised the pair (apparently they were still disoriented by the mist's effects). Random die showed the ghoul going after the wizard, who quickly died. Rider fought a round with the creature before deciding to flee due to low hit points and the strategic disadvantage of facing a monster with 4 attacks per melee. Charging through the exit he kicked open the plastered door to the main tunnel, only to plunge into the pit lying on the other side (death by impalement...he still made his saving throw). Hearing the commotion the rest of the party retraced their steps, recovered Rider's body, and retreated from the tomb.

The paladin was raised (easily making his resurrection roll) and two weeks later the party was back at the Tomb. Down a man (even had they attempted to retrieve Winklebart's corpse, it had been too long since his death to revive the wizard), they party decided to exercise the utmost caution. Taking a vote, they decided to go through the devil mouth this time. Once again, the paladin was chosen to go first (it was really Sofia's idea to try the devil mouth, but then she chickened out of taking the plunge; rock-paper-scissors was executed and Rider was given the job). Tying a rope around his waist and hoisting the lantern, the paladin pushed his way into the mouth, disappearing completely into darkness. Pulling on the rope brought back...nothing. After sticking a few odds and ends into the mouth (torches, both lit and unlit) it gradually dawned on the players that the devil's mouth was a one-way trip. "So where am I?" asked Diego. In heaven...you were disintegrated! Time for bed!

[there was a lot of laughter at my son's expense, even his own. "Sofia, why do you keep letting me make stupid mistakes?!" followed by the realization of his own words. Ah, D&D...I've missed you]

The children were suitably impressed that the Tomb of Horrors was exceptionally deadly and as fierce as its reputation suggested. Of course, they are also interested in going back, though they realize they're going to have to create some more characters. For my part I feel...refreshed by the experience. Maybe in my own way I'm like some sort of withered demilich that needs to bathe in the blood of young adventurers to get the creak out of my bones!

Regarding the chipa:

It turned out delicious. Here's a picture (we made more, but...um...it all got eaten):

Used a combo of queso fresco and mozzarella cheese in place of the queso paraguayo. The video was good (converted everything to English units of measure) and did a half order...still made a ton of chipa. Very tasty.

Enjoy your weekend folks...as best you can.
: )

Considering the Half-Orc (again)

I received positive feedback on my Holmesian half-orc post the other day, which is cool (because I liked it myself), but I find myself wondering if it's enough. Enough to make players consider the possibility of playing a half-orc, I mean.

Because, as it stands, the only real advantage we see here is the ability to play an assassin with infravision. Since there's no multi-classing in my Holmesian vision (leaving out the special case of elves), there's nothing else you get with this species of semi-human that you can't get from, say, playing a half-elf...and the half-elf doesn't carry the same reaction penalty as the half-orc. That's not much of an incentive, especially as my version of an assassin is one that relies, in part, on its ability to get close to a target...something a good reaction roll could definitely help with.

SO...the half-orc needs another bone, in my opinion. Here's what I'm thinking: half-orcs receive a +1 bonus to reaction rolls (no penalty) when interacting with monstrous (non-player) humanoids of an "evil" persuasion: orcs, goblins, trolls, bugbears, etc.

This could make any half-orc PC (of any class) a bit more interesting to play, as well as opening a door that encourages social interaction, and it also increases the possibility of a motley crew of strange henchmen and followers (though the half-orcs' low CHA score would still limit the number of followers in their war bands). What do you think...too much? I definitely prefer something like this to giving them some orc-specific exotic weapon specialty.

"Let's discuss this like civilized folk."

Holmes Rules: The Half-Orc

[sorry for the delay in getting this up...as one might imagine, it gets busier 'round these parts the closer we get to the holiday proper. This represents the last of my "Holmes Rules" additions...an index of posts will go up tomorrow or Friday (depending on free time) for folks' convenience]

"What'd you say about
my mother?"

Half-Orcs -- are nearly as tall as humans, but tend to have a hunched, stooped posture and bowed legs. Their features are heavy and there is a definite "orc-ness" to them that makes others uncomfortable (-1 to reaction rolls, unless dealing with monstrous humanoids like orcs and goblins, in which case this is instead a +1 bonus). A half-orc character receives a +1 to both strength and constitution and a -2 to charisma; these adjustments may not take the character out of the normal 3-18 range. Half-orcs have the equivalent of infravision, and suffer no ill effects in sunlight (though they do not love it). Due to their human ancestry, half-orcs enjoy a good choice of classes in which to progress, including fighters (and the ranger subclass), clerics, as well as both thieves and assassins. Not all half-orcs are churlish and ill-mannered; player characters should generally be assumed to have been raised by humans and thus exhibit the full spectrum of human personality.

[EDITED to add the bonus to reaction rolls with evil humanoids]

Hybrids

And then I look at half-elves and I think...so what the hell am I going to do with them?

As I mentioned way back when, I wanted to do a Holmesian write-up for half-elves the same way I did for the various subclasses mentioned in his Basic text. Unfortunately, while I can understand why such a player race might exist (and it provides interesting role-playing possibilities in elf-human relation scenarios), mechanically, it's kind of...meh.

At least, when you consider it in light of my decisions on demihuman classes, level limits, and the absence of multi-classing. I mean, here's what a half-elf gives you:

Infravision (as an elf)
Extra languages (as an elf)
Secret door spotting (as an elf)

Aaaaannd...that's it.

Now, in a game of OD&D or AD&D, there's some incentive to play a half-elf. Additional class options not available to elves (including the cleric, ranger, and druid). Additional multi-classing opportunities (which I'm not using). Higher levels to be gained in some classes...well, really only fighter and assassin (+1 level each). If one uses the optional bard class in 1E AD&D you also have a great incentive to be a half-elf (my long-running AD&D character was a half-elf bard).

I'll probably end up going "off-book" again when it comes to this hybrid species. Considering my current race-class restrictions:

• All elves are combo fighter/mages (no, there are no "elven thieves")
• Dwarves may be either fighters or thieves
• Halflings may be either fighters or thieves
• No demihuman may belong to a subclass

...the best mechanical incentive I can probably include is the loosening of class restrictions for half-elf characters. However (as usual), it has to make sense within the setting of the campaign.

Furthermore, if I decide to include half-orcs (a strong temptation) I need to apply some consistency to how a semi-human hybrid functions. If the half-elf's human nature gives him the ability to participate in human-restricted classes, the same should be true of half-orcs, right? But while the original PHB rules provided a bit of parity (similar levels and classes) there were some inconsistencies (cleric for both, yes; druid, no...and no ranger or magic-user options for the half-orc).

ALSO, I really dislike the idea of giving a character the ability to be a subclass but not the class. For example, I'm tempted to allow half-orc witches (that "earthy magic" thing) but half-orc magic-users? I guess I'm stereotyping the fantasy subhuman here, but I don't see half-orcs scribing scrolls like a Holmesian mage.

Less viable than a half-elf

What to do, what to do. Thing is, do hybrids get "the best" of both species? Should they? The typical Old School D&D response would be "no" to both these questions, but I'm not sure that's right. Certainly humans of mixed race have a tendency to be healthier (less chance of genetic duplication and defect). But we're talking about mixed species, here, not races within the same species. A mule is a good example: combining a horse with a donkey gives you an animal that is:

"more patient, sure-footed, hardy, and long-lived than horses, and...less obstinate, faster, and more intelligent than donkeys."

However, that's not to say they're as fast as a horse, nor as tough and easy to care for as a donkey. They aren't and they aren't. But what they are is their own thing...their own hybrid species.

Tolkien half-orcs were taller than (normally squat) orcs...which could simply mean they had better posture...and no fear of sunlight. Tolkien half-elves were required to choose whether to live as elves or humans, though those who chose humanity were still blessed with abnormally long lifespans (well, abnormal compared to a normal human). In Tolkien, half-orcs were inherently "bad" and half-elves inherently "good," unlike humans who might go over to either side...and until 3rd edition D&D, I never did see a half-orc of good alignment (probably because they were so often multi-class assassins, with an evil alignment restriction).

*sigh* Have I ever mentioned how little I like infravision?

All right, I'm going to have to chew on this for a bit...I'll try to get something written up tomorrow (either for one or both). Later.

[EDIT: while I did "write up something tomorrow" this post was written several days ago, as was its subsequent follow-up. I have half a dozen posts scheduled to roll out on the blog in anticipation of my writing restrictions while traveling. However, I am still looking for comments and feedback on these thoughts.]