Where do monsters spend money?

[Thoughtbot360]

Yeah, yeah, I know. Everything from Owlbears to Dragons (especially Dragons) and nonhumanoid monsters of all sorts collect gold and jewels because its shiny/they ate it but couldn't digest it/for gits and shiggles. But humanoid monsters are both as smart as the "good" races and they have hands but lack natural weaponry-they require tools, weapons, and could build cities if they only had the resources- they probably have an actual economy in which they might (though admittedly, not necessarily) have an actual use for gold.

Actually, one idea I don't see very often in campaign settings is the idea of monsters developing a complex culture and trading with, and possibly even living with each other (similar to how the humans do with Dwarves and Elves in every tradition D&D setting ever.) I'm not just talking about there being a "Gnoll Empire" or an occasional tribe of Orcs using their prosperity to build a city-state instead of a watered-down version of the Mongol horde, I'm talking about vast tracks of nations, several of each race, and many that inter-mingle, and of these even had an economy.

Maybe humanoid society in general is suffering from a dark age, but had been united under a large empire that had collapsed, and humans rose (or are in a position to rise) to a power that fills the gap. Countless races potentially mean countless ancient cultures from which treasure and ruins might be left behind. Maybe most "dungeons" are old palaces or barrow mounds built by "monsters", or even simply fortresses inhabited by the descendants of bandits and pillagers that sacked the humanoid cities when they were wealthy. Maybe those cities are still around an populated.... Wonder what the PCs would do with it?

Of course, seeing as how the Kobolds that attacked the village that hired the level 1 or level 2 PC live within a few miles at most, and how it seems that monsters are packed into every nook and cranny of "civilized" lands that a settlement/wheatfield/mine doesn't occupy, I'd kind of like to see the geopolitical map of where intelligent races live and how much they predate off each other.

Hope this comes out understandable and wasn't just me slamming the keys in a half-asleep frenzy and me just hallucinating that the words made sense. Well, maybe I should sign off by focusing really hard on my closing thoughts:

thklhahut54u9jresyroki 7yr4bjn 74 ybbvuys bien!

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Kobolds are said in Races of the Dragon to have actually mined more gold than Dwarfs. Why do they live in holes in the ground, then? They tribute all of it, every clipped coin, to Dragons. Which explains both where the Kobolds get their gear, why they have so little, and why the Dragons have so much that is useless for them.

[bosssmiley]

What the OP says about the humanoids suffering a Dark Age has been played with in a couple of settings recently (Eberron's Dhakaani Empire and Xendrik giants are the first that springs to mind, with WFRPs Lizardmen and Giants arguably fitting the bill too).

By-and-large though tribal monsters in D&D live in a pre-money 'primitive' economy, rather than in the ruins of a regressed society (that trope fits the Elves, Giants and Kou-Toa more closely). The humanoids don't spend their money on getting stuff or on investments; instead they use it for all the things pre-modern cultures do (status display, honouring the gods, dowries, etc.). Some humanoids might even have formal cultural taboos against trading, like the men of the Iron Isles in "Song of Fire and Ice".

So how do the humanoids get stuff? Why, by raiding and slaughtering the puny weaky mud-grubbing humans as Gruumsh, Maglibuyet and Yeenoghu command. This makes the gods happy, enhances warrior status, and gives rich opportunities for looting, pillaging and...let's just call that last 'making half-orcs' shall we. When the humans send counter-raiding parties (aka adventurers) after you, well, that's just the cost of doing business; try to be elsewhere when they arrive.

Recent revisionism (WoW Orcs) aside humanoids have long been used in fantasy as placeholders for the barbarian other in his 'screaming horde of raiders' mode. It being deemed tasteless to overtly drive out the Celts, slaughter the Amerindians or drive the Neanderthals to extinction in our games we re-skin the wild men beyond our borders with pig noses, tusks and funny skin tones. Conscience-salving demonisation, just like great-grandpa used to do.

[Matthew]

There is nothing stopping humanoids trading with one another or with humans, or with demi humans. Humanising the monsters Star Trek style undermines the point in having monsters, in my opinion. How organised you want the monsters to be is up to you, and is a parallel concern, but its pretty traditional for them to be the foot soldiers of some greater highly organised evil (or else corrupt imitations of human societies).

[BobVosh]

There is nothing stopping humanoids trading with one another or with humans, or with demi humans. Humanising the monsters Star Trek style undermines the point in having monsters, in my opinion. How organised you want the monsters to be is up to you, but its pretty traditional for them to be the foot soldiers of some greater evil.

In other words...monsters aren't people, don't have souls, and exist to die for your amusement.

Most worlds just don't pander to this sort of thing. Forgotten realms does, but only 500 yards( i think) underground. Whereever the underdark begins, monsterous races economy begins.

*edit* that first sentence of mine is not meant to be flame, I was going to say it before I read his, sorry if it sounds that way

[Matthew]

In other words...monsters aren't people, don't have souls, and exist to die for your amusement.

Well, more like exist to provide conflict in the story and a truly "evil" other, but the issue of "orc souls" is one that even Tolkien never settled on an answer for. Arguably, the purpose of everything that exists in the campaign setting is to die (or at least submit) for the amusement of the players.

[nagora]

I agree with Matthew on the dangers of turning monsters into humans in rubber suits, which is the current vogue. Dragons collect gold because they like it - which isn't wildly far from why humans collect it - other monsters do other things with it, but mostly I don't see them as having any real use for it themselves. Evil monsters will, of course, take gold off humans (and demi-humans) simply because it causes the humans distress to do so. But they're much more likely to want the practical stuff like magic items or livestock. In the case if highly intelligent races like Mind Flayers, I think a gold economy also robs them of some mystic. Perhaps they like gold art, but their economy might be built on some strange psychic barter or polyhedral dice. Gold, is just too mundane and above all too human to work well as a monster economy, IMO.

Naturally, certain evil humans will trade with monsters like orcs but by and large, the evil monsters are there as a threat to society and the "normal" way of life, not an alternative lifestyle. If the orc tribe over the hill is just another tribe that might trade normally with other tribes and states then there simply isn't any point in them being orcs and you've fallen into the trap of making them "just green people".

Whether monsters have souls or not is moot; the important point is that for some reason or other they want to separate your soul from your body.

[Gamerlord]

Well i think they spend them at black market areas and some sort of areas created specifically for trading gold for loot.

[Oslecamo]

It's simply usefull to have gold and shiny stuff to get in good terms with the local dragon.

Plus, it's shiny. Lots of animals like to collect shiny stuff. Primitive mens collected pretty shells and bones despite having no real use for them.

[charl]

It's great for attracting the attention of humans, most of which are stupid and easy to make into primate kebab. Yummy. :)

The occasional adventurer party is just one of those hazards you have to live with.
EDIT: Or die with, as it were.

[Yahzi]

I agree with Matthew on the dangers of turning monsters into humans in rubber suits

The alternative is meaningless. If monsters don't choose to be evil, then they aren't evil; at worst, they are amoral, like animals. But how can you have a moral victory over an animal?

So either your campaign treats the monsters as humanized (possessing the most humanizing trait possible: the ability to choose between good and evil) or your campaign is simply Wild Safari.

[chiasaur11]

The alternative is meaningless. If monsters don't choose to be evil, then they aren't evil; at worst, they are amoral, like animals. But how can you have a moral victory over an animal?

So either your campaign treats the monsters as humanized (possessing the most humanizing trait possible: the ability to choose between good and evil) or your campaign is simply Wild Safari.

Hey, I have an example of a wild animal you can have a moral victory over:

Bears.

[Matthew]

The alternative is meaningless. If monsters don't choose to be evil, then they aren't evil; at worst, they are amoral, like animals. But how can you have a moral victory over an animal?

So either your campaign treats the monsters as humanized (possessing the most humanizing trait possible: the ability to choose between good and evil) or your campaign is simply Wild Safari.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. Is the victory over the orcs in the Lord of the Rings meaningless? They cannot choose to be good, after all.

[AstralFire]

I personally choose the other option earlier outlined: skipping monsters entirely, for the most part. I only keep a few things around just to be killed because they are dangerous, dumb animals. Mostly dragons. Monstrous races kept are full PC races.

Dragons all deserve to die.

[nagora]

The alternative is meaningless. If monsters don't choose to be evil, then they aren't evil; at worst, they are amoral, like animals. But how can you have a moral victory over an animal?

There's two answers to that (at least): firstly, who claimed to be having a moral victory over the orcs? They are a danger; they have to be solved. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you can have a moral victory over whoever put the orcs there. The latter is the LotR solution Matt suggested, and one I've suggested elsewhere as an interesting twist on druids.

Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe and sometimes the orcs hate you because they are built that way and the Mind Flayers hate you because you taste so damn good and won't hold still.

Making the gameworld into a re-sprayed version of our own world with the same mundane challenges applied to orcs and goblins instead of China and America, or whatever, is not a rewarding or interesting experience when one is playing an adventurer in an alien world.

Some races are allies or at least tolerate humans if left alone, others resent them and covet what they have. Humanoids are a convienient example of the latter.

I have much more admiration for someone like MAR Barker who, on rejecting this, go away and design their own races with their own rationales instead of simply assigning a social worker to every orc tribe and then pretending that they've discovered a new roleplaying paradigm.

We are supposed to be engaged in the creation of new myths and legends (as the orc shaman tells the young orc warriors); not wringing our hands and wishing for a Disney "wouldn't it be nice if everydody was nice" world. Somethings hate you, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

[AstralFire]

Somethings hate you, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

This is true. That doesn't make the assumption of entire races of such things more or less mature or intellectual in any way than the contrary.

I just find dedicated evil to be all the more interesting when it is rarer and a choice. And even moreso when it is a warranted hatred rather than some megalomaniacal 'evil'. Hence why I avoid monster usage.

Except dragons. Who must be killed.

And about your comment about things being alien; there is much alien to be found in the familiar and ordinary. If a campaign focuses on those, what then? Your presentation of spray-painted variations on human society as the nature of exploring races beyond "auto-evil" is something of a false choice. It's no more spray-painted than taking everyday rivals and sociopaths and putting them into an entire group devoted to killing you.

[Knaight]

I use the same method as Astral fire, although there are some dangerous things with animal intellect around, but they are basically just animals. Often pretty weird animals, but if we didn't know skunks existed their musk spraying would seem like something from fantasy, so they still fit in the animals category.

[Prometheus]

Here's the thing about the humans in the dark age and monsters being civilized: If their way of life worked, they wouldn't be evil. If they were civilized, they wouldn't be wild monsters. Now I agree, monsters should not be meaningless obstacles that come into existence when they are rolled on the encounter table and pop out of the fog of war, however monsters aren't people for a reason.

I try to have a least one monster kingdom (usually more) in each campaign but what I try to really drive home is how different that society and their very minds work than ours:
-One where the rule of law is put aside for constant power struggle.
-Beings that do not value or recognize any other sentient lifeforms.
-Creatures who always want more even when their needs are fulfilled.
-Being who are misunderstood, and really want to be like us (but aren't)
-Beings who don't lie or break promises.
-With more energy than we devote to art, they devote to something that we wouldn't compare to art at all

If monster didn't feel some other emotions or thoughts with a stronger influence and others with a weaker influence, they would be humanoids.

[Leon]

Ebay*
Home and Dungeon
MonsterMart
etc





*no not what you think, the E is for Evil

[Kami2awa]

Monsters might collect treasure from a magpie-like instinct (e.g. dragons), or a mystical reason (like Discworld dwarfs, who need gold to 'buy' their partner from their parents to get married). Or of course, they may have economies between tribes; they clearly produce a lot of weapons to trade, and also keep slaves (and might trade them).

[GolemsVoice]

Well, you could always go with the Lovecraft variant. (Some) Monsters are in no way better or worse than our society, but rather so alien to us, and we to them, that we cannot hope to comprehend their ways and goals, and they can in no way hope to come to terms with ours. Most humans today have a set of values, a mixture of cultural heritage, personal experience, individual and society-wide goals, religious beliefs, the like. As our planet is rather small, and we today have come to the understanding that some ways of living work, while others do not, our basic values do not differ all that much, if you boil it down to what is really the core, and we have come to accpet such behaviour as normal. Of course, the opposite is true as well. Someone who contradicts our ethics and moral standarts for reasons we cannot understand, or cannot deem good, is often met with fear and exclusion.

Now, take on the one side us humans, as presented in most standart fantasy settings. Though they have had different cultural backgrounds, and different world views, their moral values are basically the same (this is a little odd, due to the existence of functional evil countries, but roll with it). Now, take another race, such as the kobolds, or the mind flayers. They are so strange to us, so alien and utterly incomprehensible that we need not begin to try to understand why they are not like us, and why they do what they do, because we lack the background to accept their way of life. (This is more true for societies not designed to emphasis one special facette of the human way of life, such as "everyone works for the greater good", "everyone has skills much greater than humans do") So, why do some monsters do the things they do, and have not yet developed another kind of civilization? It's becausethey have reasons for it which humans can never know!

[Morty]

I personally choose the other option earlier outlined: skipping monsters entirely, for the most part. I only keep a few things around just to be killed because they are dangerous, dumb animals. Mostly dragons. Monstrous races kept are full PC races.

I use the same method. There are no "monstrous" races, although there are some simply uncivilized ones, just as there were barbarians living next to civilized societies in real world. But they aren't simply "evil and in need to be exterminated" as that's just plain stupid. This of course is a problem when playing D&D, because we play in FR that uses the "cannon fodder" theme to its full. Luckily I've never DMed a D&D game, so it hasn't been a problem so far.

[nagora]

I use the same method. There are no "monstrous" races, although there are some simply uncivilized ones, just as there were barbarians living next to civilized societies in real world. But they aren't simply "evil and in need to be exterminated" as that's just plain stupid.

I don't think the orcs would agree; it's not their fault that humans have this genetic weakness that makes so many of them want to co-operate instead of conquring and enslaving.

Some orc shamen have even suggested that this is a sign that humans are not actually intelligent beings with free-will at all, and have questioned therefore whether killing or torturing them should actually count as service to the gods. The shamen suggest that killing humans is no greater service to the dukes of hell than clearing vermin out of a food store.

[Morty]

I don't think the orcs would agree; it's not their fault that humans have this genetic weakness that makes so many of them want to co-operate instead of conquring and enslaving.

Some orc shamen have even suggested that this is a sign that humans are not actually intelligent beings with free-will at all, and have questioned therefore whether killing or torturing them should actually count as service to the gods. The shamen suggest that killing humans is no greater service to the dukes of hell than clearing vermin out of a food store.

Having an entire race think the same purely evil way is something I'd classify as "silly" or at least "not something I want in a setting".

[hamishspence]

This looks to me more like a parody of way people regard killing of orcs in a D&D setting: unsubtle, but it does raise a point.

Personally, I'd say The Orc King novel is beginning to rectify this: suggesting orcs are capable of co-operation, and introducing idea of a mixed orc-dwarf civilization that collapsed, naturally, rather than due to orc treachery.

[nagora]

Having an entire race think the same purely evil way is something I'd classify as "silly" or at least "not something I want in a setting".

If their gods designed them that way, then why not? Do you complain if all beholders have multiple eyes?

As I said, if you don't like out-of-the-box advisary races, then I'd be much more impressed if you made some new ones up instead of turning the ones that are there into cardboard cutouts of modern Western liberalised thinking - that seems far sillier to me, especially in light of real-world history.

Certainly orcs co-operate with each other - they're LE. They just don't even consider the idea of co-operating with humans and their ilk who are inferior scum occupying the orc's natural place as rulers of all.

[Morty]

If their gods designed them that way, then why not? Do you complain if all beholders have multiple eyes?

It might make perfect sense in the context of a setting; but it doesn't make me like it.

As I said, if you don't like out-of-the-box advisary races, then I'd be much more impressed if you made some new ones up instead of turning the ones that are there into cardboard cutouts of modern Western liberalised thinking - that seems far sillier to me, especially in light of real-world history.

If I make a race of tough, pragmatic and simple people who dwell on the wastelands and are suited to fighting but nevetheless capable of interacting with other races in a non-martial manner what's the difference between calling them orcs and something entirely different? At least "orcs" sound familiar.
I also fail to see how is reshaping standars fantasy races into something more fitting my tastes makes them "cardboard cutouts" of anything. The anaglogies to real-world history are equally lost on me.

Certainly orcs co-operate with each other - they're LE. They just don't even consider the idea of co-operating with humans and their ilk who are inferior scumm occupying the orc's natural place as rulers of all.

Again, because it makes sense in the context of a setting doesn't mean I have to like it.

[hamishspence]

And its hobgoblins that are LE: Orcs are CE on average.

Which doesn't mean both can't form armies, but orc ones tend to be undisciplined hordes kept in line by fear of retribution from vicious leader, whereas hobgoblins are conditioned to be very obedient to authority.

And remember, since 3rd ed, it has been Often CE, and killing orcs just for being orcs is frowned upon. Novels have tried to stress that orcs aren't always evil and have redeeming features, even if they are more likely to be evil than most player races.

[nagora]

IIf I make a race of tough, pragmatic and simple people who dwell on the wastelands and are suited to fighting but nevetheless capable of interacting with other races in a non-martial manner what's the difference between calling them orcs and something entirely different? At least "orcs" sound familiar.

Well, that's the shallow spray-painting I'm talking about. You're saying "orc" but you clearly mean "humans". Why use a well known word to mean something else unless it's just laziness? You seem to want the "ambiance" of having orcs but without the effort of making them any different from the other races.

I also fail to see how is reshaping standars fantasy races into something more fitting my tastes makes them "cardboard cutouts" of anything.

They're cardboard cutout orcs because they're not really orcs, they're just fairly nice, reasonable modern people standing behind a picture of an orc.

The anaglogies to real-world history are equally lost on me.

The tribes inhabiting what is now the US were hunted as animals with not the slightest consideration for their existance. To them the white settlers were no different from the classic fantasy orcs. Similar, indeed worse, things happened in Indonesia and Australia as well as Africa.

You are taking a very narrow view of intelligence. You're saying, to make an analogy, that an intelligent shark would have the same morality and intelligence as a human and would find other strategies for survival than simply eating everything tasty. I'm saying that perhaps the truth is different.

At essense I think you're making the same assumption that the people who coined the term "primate" made - that the human way is the best way and any intelligent race deserving of the title would be just like us; all development is in the direction of our state of being today and everything else is "primitive". I don't think so and even if I did, I don't think that assumption makes for an interesting setting.

[Morty]

Well, that's the shallow spray-painting I'm talking about. You're saying "orc" but you clearly mean "humans". Why use a well known word to mean something else unless it's just laziness? You seem to want the "ambiance" of having orcs but without the effort of making them any different from the other races.

Now you're simply putting words in my mouth. What about orcs not being genocidal maniacs make them bland? By your reasoning it seems, there should be no non-monster sentient races other than humans.

They're cardboard cutout orcs because they're not really orcs, they're just fairly nice, reasonable modern people standing behind a picture of an orc.

No, they're not. What makes you think they are? Just because they're not D&D-like cannon fodder you automatically list them under "cheap WoW orcs knockoffs"? Come on.

The tribes inhabiting what is now the US were hunted as animals with not the slightest consideration for their existance. To them the white settlers were no different from the classic fantasy orcs. Similar, indeed worse, things happened in Indonesia and Australia as well as Africa.

You are taking a very narrow view of intelligence. You're saying, to make an analogy, that an intelligent shark would have the same morality and intelligence as a human and would find other strategies for survival than simply eating everything tasty. I'm saying that perhaps the truth is different.

At essense I think you're making the same assumption that the people who coined the term "primate" made - that the human way is the best way and any intelligent race deserving of the title would be just like us; all development is in the direction of our state of being today and everything else is "primitive". I don't think so and even if I did, I don't think that assumption makes for an interesting setting.

Again, assumptions. What makes you think in a setting where orcs and humans are on equal level of intelligence, are neither inherently good nor evil and in case of a RPG game have PC race status individual societies of orcs and humans still can't hate each other and wage genocidal wards against each other?