Monday, June 9, 2025

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.

10 comments:

  1. Wot? No trolls? In general English and northern European folklore trolls would be viewed as humanoids I think. More so than gnolls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, but (as I've written before), THOSE type of trolls (especially the Nordic type) are better modeled by bugbears and/or ogres. In fact, Chainmail originally made trolls and ogres interchangeable creatures but distinguished a separate "True Troll" as being the regenerative kind found in the Poul Anderson book "Three Hearts, Three Lions." THAT particular monster (which is what the D&D troll is modeled after) is only vaguely intelligent, living only to eat, not using tools, and living in lightless, subterranean caverns. I lump them in the same category as lizard men (i.e. "not humanoid").

      Delete
  2. This series has been a great read, thank you for putting it up. Looking forward to T even if it isn't for Treasures!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha! You're welcome! However, I'm pretty sure "T" is for "Tahoma."

      [this blog already has a lot of posts on "treasure"]

      ; )

      Delete
    2. Yep, I searched extensively on this blog while writing my little adventure the other day (https://acornafloat.blogspot.com/2025/06/a-dungeon-while-i-wait-for-labubu-to.html), since I tried to keep some form of AD&D(-ish) form to it (i.e. "how could the players access this place if they need to swim without armour? Ok, they could have water breathing, that means they're probably level X. And if they're level X, they're expecting Y amount of gold/level" and so on). The reviews you've done over the years (e.g. from Prince's contests) has been a great help as well, e.g. how to get into the right mindset.

      Delete
    3. As DM's we are the architects of our universe...it is important that we get the nuts and bolts correct, or everything falls apart.

      Delete
  3. As with much of the rest of this series, I like how you've worked through some of the more, eh, difficult parts of D&D that were taken from Tolkien's worst impulses. I keep stumbling against half-elves and half-orcs precisely because of the Tolkien antecedents. I should just take a cue from this stuff and reframe them entirely.

    For my part, I have been moving toward modeling my orcs on the "goons" who serve the fairy Maleficent in Disney's Sleeping Beauty, which is, maybe, where the pig-faced orc comes from. perhaps I should add vulture-headed and other such bestial orcs inspired by the other goons, too. I also have some currently-inchoate ideas on goblins (and orcs, etc) as being "twisted" elves, formed when elves become hostile to humanity. One way I think this might manifest is that when an elfin underworld (the "hollow hills" of folklore) is outraged in some way—maybe an artifact is plundered, or someone tries to dig their way in, or some such thing—then the inhabitants transform into goblin-types and start stealing human babies or whatever. Gives me an excuse for semi-rationalized megadungeons for the setting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lots of ways to reframe humanoids. The goons are good, but you can also make them "mutants" of the type found in Bakshi's film "Wizards." That was my original thought.

      For folks who like more Biblical evil, I'd suggest making HELL the center of your campaign...as PCs delve deeper and deeper underground, they get closer and closer to hell (and thus discover more dangerous monsters). The treasure is there to act as temptation. And orcs are simply corrupted humans (i.e. evil men and women who have gone over to Satan and been transfigured because of it). With that type of assumption, half-orcs become "the redeemed," people who have turned back to the Light and goodness (hence, the half-orc's capability for becoming a cleric).

      I mean...there are LOTs of ways.
      ; )

      Delete
    2. Yeah, the mutants of Wizards or the "subhumans" of Frazetta and Fire & Ice.

      I have considered using Biblical myths as a basis, since as it isn't my mythology it sometimes feels maybe a touch less uncomfortable to use, but that's not a rationale I'd come up with—perhaps unsurprisingly, as it's not really a way I think! I would have emphasized the corruption more, but your idea is more subtle.

      Delete
    3. Mm. That may be the first time anyone’s ever called me “subtle” about ANYthing.
      ; )

      Delete