Random Worldbuilding Questions (Biology, Geography, Society, etc.)

[Yora]

Germany did end up as 300 principalities but I think the actual number of sovereigns was considerably smaller, as many were the lords of numerous principalities at the same time. If they would be split up every generation, the number would very quickly get much higher, but many of the principalities were relatively stable so I wouldn't focus too much on the practice of dividing land among the sons. It did happen, but there were other mechanisms at work to counter it as well.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Of course, how medieval lords related to one another, and inherited and such varied a LOT in different places. Look at Russia, for example! To say it was "feudal" misses a LOT. And there, land would be divided up: a great part of the reason Moscow united Russia was because they kept having just one heir at the ruler's death, so their principality wasn't split up.

[Chilingsworth]

Ok, so here's a question:

What materials were known (or at least theortically producable) during the Midieval/Early Rennisance? (also, I don't mean just in europe)

What I can think of:

Metals (including alloys):

Copper
Tin
Zinc (?)
Bronze
Brass
Iron
(primitive) steel
Lead
Silver
Gold
Pewter
Cast Iron
Mercury

Textiles:

Wool
Linnen
Cotton
Silk

Ceramics:

Bricks
Pottery
Porcelain

Stone:

Granite
Marble
Limestone
Sandstone
Obsidian
Flint

Other:

Wood (both for construction and fuel)
Wickerwork
leather
sinew
hemp
hair (notably horse and human)
bone
ivory
horn
Varrious gemstones (the harder of which might even have been used industrially)
Mortar
Concrete (?) (Certainly known to the ancient Romans, but when was it rediscovered?)
Glass
Soap
peat
Charcoal
Pitch
Bitumen
Turpintine
Straw
Varrious posions (were they aware of any metallurgical uses of arsenic?)
Varrious paints and dyes (mainly either of plant or animal origin, or highly toxic)
collegen-based adhesives (?) (i.e. glue made from horse remains, or fish gelatin)
Plaster
Paper
Parchment
several plant and animal oils and greases
cork (?)

Am I worng with the above list (other than it being terribly organized)?
Is there anything else?

[Xuc Xac]

Metals (including alloys):

Also electrum (gold + silver) and they could have made dental amalgam (mercury + tin + silver + copper) if they knew the recipe.

Textiles:

Any natural fiber would have been possible if they had access to it. I don't think there are any textiles more labor intensive than cotton and the tech required is generally pretty low.

Stone:

All of them. Stone can literally be picked up off the ground. There is no technological prerequisite for using any kind of stone that you can physically reach. It's the bottom rung on the tech ladder.

Other:
Concrete (?) (Certainly known to the ancient Romans, but when was it rediscovered?)

You said "theoretically producible", not "actually produced". Theoretically, concrete could have been made in the neolithic period if they had known the recipe. There are a lot of things that could have been done much earlier than they were in real history; they just weren't because no one had thought of it yet. Do you want a list of things that are possible to produce at that technology level or things that were (or probably were) actually produced at that time?

Also, bamboo and coconut shell could go under other. They both have a wide range of uses.

[fusilier]

See if you can put your hands on a copy of Biringuccio's Pirotechnia, written sometime before 1540. There will be a bunch of stuff in there; you will want a copy with good footnotes because the names may have changed. There are probably some other books but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Cork was known, but it wasn't used for stoppers often until the late 17th century (although I think the Romans may have corked bottles). Cork had many other uses including inserts for shoes and sandals.

There are tons of minerals missing from that list.

I think Arsenic was usually an impurity found in metals, I'm not aware that it was intentionally introduced, but they couldn't really get rid of it. Although some think that arsenic may have been intentionally introduced into copper, but there's no agreement.

Uranium was used to dye glass since the Roman times. Although it appears to have been in the form of Uranium oxide, and was at some point referred to as pitchblende.

[fusilier]

Any natural fiber would have been possible if they had access to it. I don't think there are any textiles more labor intensive than cotton and the tech required is generally pretty low.

Actually, I think flax may be more labor intensive. Strictly speaking, linen is made from flax, although anything made with a "linen weave texture" can be loosely referred to as linen.

[Chilingsworth]

Also electrum (gold + silver) and they could have made dental amalgam (mercury + tin + silver + copper) if they knew the recipe.



Any natural fiber would have been possible if they had access to it. I don't think there are any textiles more labor intensive than cotton and the tech required is generally pretty low.



All of them. Stone can literally be picked up off the ground. There is no technological prerequisite for using any kind of stone that you can physically reach. It's the bottom rung on the tech ladder.



You said "theoretically producible", not "actually produced". Theoretically, concrete could have been made in the neolithic period if they had known the recipe. There are a lot of things that could have been done much earlier than they were in real history; they just weren't because no one had thought of it yet. Do you want a list of things that are possible to produce at that technology level or things that were (or probably were) actually produced at that time?

Also, bamboo and coconut shell could go under other. They both have a wide range of uses.

On the alloys: I forgot about electrum, thanks. As for the amalgam: is it good for anything other than dental work? Also, I didn't know its recipie at all.

On the stone: I was mostly thinking of stones that have noteworthy uses. I suppose I missed some of those, too: Slate, pumice, others?

As for wheather I'm looking for stuff that's theortetically producable, or stuff that was actually produced: What I'm looking for is what materials might have been available. I'm interested in what could have theoretically been made because D&D worlds routinely include characters with superhuman intelligence. I'm wondering in the maximum improvement to the technology level I can reasonably achieve with minimal use of magic. (Magic is a whole nother set of issues to deal with.) Basically, I intend to establish a rough equivilant to DARPA (though I have no intention of limiting my organisation's research to military matters alone,) and want some ideas for discoveries to present to my DM. I already have some magic-based ones in mind, but I lack the knowledge to extrapolate what mundane discoveries might be possible.

Mundane discoveries = things that anyone can (theoretically) use, and that cost no XP to create, and so have utility even in a world of magic. Also, mundane items can't be dispelled or shut down by antimagic field.

[Ksheep]

Here's a breakdown of various dyes through the ages. You should be able to use this to flesh out that list a bit, either directly from the dyes themselves or indirectly by looking at what each of the dyes was made from.

[Renchard]

I have some races in my homebrew which are heavily dominated by one sex over the other, at a ratio somewhere between 6:1 and 10:1.

I'm trying to think of possible genetic patterns where that sex ratio would stay stable over time, but I'll be darned if anything comes to mind. I'm thinking some sort of epigenetic or environmental patterns would be necessary, but I'd love to hear any ideas.

Also, what sort of societal impact do you think a largely male or largely female population would have, if it was consistent? (Not caused by wars/plagues/etc) I have a few types of different societies in mind, but I wonder if anyone has ideas.

[awa]

It depends on how much if any sexual dimorphism there is.
and which gender is dominate.

With a female numerical society you may get them in the leadership positions but not necessarily a species based off lions or seals would have far more females then male but it still be heavily male dominated.

so really their is no this is how it would be if their were more women then men

[hymer]

@ Renchard: Humans have about 50% chance of being male and 49% chance of being female, though even numbers of all sperm are each - the male ones are lighter and so have an advantage in travelling.
So you don't have to come up with genetics that explain this disparity, physics and biochemistry can do it for you - say the disfavoured sex' sperm get attacked by the immune system of the recipient, making their likelihood of conceiving much less.

As for social impact, we'd have to know more about the race, as awa says.

[headwarpage]

Yeah, you can definitely handwave the sex ratio. As for the culture, something to keep in mind is that you can't really base it on any human cultures. For us, a skewed sex ratio would be very unusual. For them, it's completely normal.

[Yora]

Living conditions can make a very significant difference. Even in western society, young adult males are at a severly increased risk of death by accident or violence, which drops significantly after 22 or so and is virtually nonexisting for females.
Young men do a lot of stupid and dangerous things with complete disregard for their safety.

The best number for reference I got was for the US in 2003 for age 10 to 24.
For females in that age range, there are 35 death per 100,00 and for males age 10 to 14, it's a bit lower at 23.
For males 15 to 19 the number rises to 92 and for 20 to 24 it's even 140. That's four times as high as for young women.
Because mortality is very low to begin with, that does not make much of a difference. But imagine a society where mortality for females is 10% and for males it's 40%. That way you end up with a ratio of 3:2 (90% to 60% surviving). And if you take for example goblins where young warriors die like flies, you can easyily have 2:1 or even more extreme.

[headwarpage]

Heck, just make it blatantly magical/mythological. You're in a fantasy setting, right? Say some god or other has cursed the race so that four out of five male children are stillborn. The ones born alive are viewed as incredibly lucky, or blessed by some lesser patron god of the race. They believe they're destined for great things, and become adventurers at a prodigious rate. So half of them end up dead before the age of 25 (or racial equivalent), and suddenly you're working at a 10:1 female to male ratio. Of course, the surviving males tend to have a disproportionately large number of PC class levels and commensurate wealth, which only encourages the next generation to go get themselves killed.

[awa]

you asked for some ideas on societies so here's a few. Im going on the assumption that these creatures are mentally and physically similar to humans becuase that's the base line and most dnd races fit while within the human bell curve anyway.

1/10 female to male. Society is small becuase population growth is incredibly difficult. Women have virtually no rights and never leave the home their function is to have as many children as possible. Women are pampered and not allowed to do anything that might possible endanger them in any way. If the society is capable of interbreeding with neighboring races raiding for women may be a very common practice.

1/6 male female. women are the back bone of the society they are the farmers, and the crafts men, most men are forced to join the army at a young age where they mostly get them selves killed in the constant low level conflict between groups not really a war because war implies peace not endemic conflict. The men who do survive tend to have many wives.

[Conners]

Been wondering about a humanoid (human size) with amazing strength, and what this would mean realistically. For the example, let's say that, despite being of a mostly human weight and build, they are stronger than a Grizzly Bear.


The ability to wear thicker armour, is one very handy result. There are problems with leverage, but large weapons ought to be more easily wielded, to an extent? The high strength-to-weight ratio could also make them very agile and swift.
In movies, super heroes throw around cars like nothing.

Spoiler

Show

In reality, unless you have a lot of weight, even with the necessary strength you can't do that. You sort of could, I guess... if you managed to get great leverage you could pick up a car--but throwing it any reasonable distance would probably be out of the question.

One problem I have been considering, is that unless their bones/etc. is much tougher than humans', they could easily destroy their body through utilizing their power.

[Spiryt]

One doesn't have to search far, orangutans and chimpanzees are as close to humans as one can get among existing species, and are usually somehow smaller as far as mass and overall dimensions go.

They are also ferociously strong compared to us, and 120 pounds scrawny apes were recorded doing stuff that would leave most roided out power-lifters stunned.

In their cases, such strength comes at a price of much lesser endurance, precision in detailed maneuvers, as far muscle system goes.

They also generally have way worse reach and generally ability to cover space, despite long damn arms etc. - because they more stocky build that provides crazy leverage for the back, chest, hip etc. muscles also leaves them less 'lenght'.

[Yora]

Bones are extremely strong. I think there is very low risk of flexing muscles so far that they start to crack.

[awa]

every thing Spiryt said also expect them to be slower notice how animals that are fast for their size tend to be thin for their weight while animals that are strong tend to be very blocky.

so they would not be super agile or fast.

Note this assumes your using biologically rules. if were just talking about humans with the strength of grizzly's every things out the window.

I would expect an animal that some how has both endurance and strength to need to pull in massive amounts of calories combine that with a big brain they may have to eat meat or similar foods almost constantly to keep going.

edit bones are strong but if we were sticking human sized bones on grizzle+ sized strength their may be some problems (then again im just guessing here)

[Chilingsworth]

Bones are extremely strong. I think there is very low risk of flexing muscles so far that they start to crack.

It might be worth noting that even normal humans can't (usually) use the full potential of their strength. This limit is overcome by large adrenaline surges. The reason the limitation exists is that use of our full strength can indeed cause significant damage, including to bones. That's normal humans. Someone with superhuman strength? Well, unless their bones and muscles are made out of something other than the usual minerals and proteins... yeah, they could definately hurt themselves.

Oh, and since we're explicitly talking about humans with superhuman strength here, I'm guessing we can assume their bodies wont be made out of unsual materials.

On the other hand, if someone gained that strength naturally, their bones and muscles could strengthen to compensate, to a point. I have no idea what that point is, though.

Changing subject slightly, what might happen if strength was suddenly increased, as in the case of a bull's strength spell? Obviously, we might assume that the spell also toughens the body enough so it wont self destruct, but what might happen if it litteraly only gives increased strength?

[Wyntonian]

Changing subject slightly, what maight happen if strength was suddenly increased, as in the case of a bull's strength spell? Obviously, we might assume that the spell also toughens the body enough so it wont self destruct, but what might happen if it litteraly only gives increased strength?

I'd predict the connective tissues and small bones would be the first to go. Stress fractures in the wrists and ankles, cartilage damage in most major joints and various tendons and ligaments quitting because they never signed up for this.

[Yora]

In D&D 3rd Edition, it only provides a +4 bonus to Strength, which isn't really that much. The effect should be even less than the strain caused by a panic triggered adrenaline burst. Since it lasts for 10 to 20 minutes, you might get rather sore when it ends, but there shouldn't be any meaningful tears in the muscles or cracks in the bones.
An exception would be for finger bones and feet, which you can quite easily break with normal strength if you punch something hard like a skull. With increased strength but no increase in bone density, the risk of accidentally punching too hard becomes even bigger.

It might be worth noting that even normal humans can't (usually) use the full potential of their strength. This limit is overcome by large adrenaline surges. The reason the limitation exists is that use of our full strength can indeed cause significant damage, including to bones. That's normal humans. Someone with superhuman strength? Well, unless their bones and muscles are made out of something other than the usual minerals and proteins... yeah, they could definately hurt themselves.

But a seperate race of creatures would have grown up all their life with great strain to their bones, causing them to become naturally more dense and durabale. Just look at the flimsy legs of horses, ostriches, or kangaroos. A horses leg significantly thinner than the leg of even an average human, but these bones are doing just fine unless they step into a rabit hole while running. Which will also do the same terrible work to a small human. My mom took almost half a year to recover from it and that was even a very quick recovery for such injury.

[Chilingsworth]

In D&D 3rd Edition, it only provides a +4 bonus to Strength, which isn't really that much. The effect should be even less than the strain caused by a panic triggered adrenaline burst.
Yeah, but often it will be used to help with combat. Combat is often a life-or-death situation. As such, isn't it likely to provoke such an adrenaline boost?

But a seperate race of creatures would have grown up all their life with great strain to their bones, causing them to become naturally more dense and durabale. Just look at the flimsy legs of horses, ostriches, or kangaroos. A horses leg significantly thinner than the leg of even an average human, but these bones are doing just fine unless they step into a rabit hole while running. Which will also do the same terrible work to a small human. My mom took almost half a year to recover from it and that was even a very quick recovery for such injury.
That's definately true. However, there has to be some limit to this. What might that limit be?

replies in bold to save space.

[Yora]

Normal combat certainly increases strength significantly, I agree with that. It can often be seen in sport to a lesser degree. But that's still a different thing that purely instinctual feats of superhuman strength. It could happen in combat when you panic, but there is generally not much use for it. Maybe if someone is lying on top of you and trying to burry a knive into your chest, then you could generate the strength to throw him off with all gear and armor using only your arms and shoulders. But that also would be only for a few seconds and not useful for swinging your weapon.

How much bone could potentialy endure if pushed to the limit? No idea but the material is stronger than concrete. Though concrete is actually only strong when it comes to being compressed and snaps very easly when you put a twisting or bending force on it, so I'm never sure what they exactly mean by that.

Edit: Wikipedia says the compression strength of very high strength concrete is above 70 MPa. Bone has a compressive strength of 170 MPa and the tensile strength (resistance to snapping) is still 100 too 120 MPa. Higher than the best case stress for concrete. That stuff is powerful.

[Chilingsworth]

Well, isn't bone kinda like biological reinforced concrete? In this case, mineral deposits reinforced by collegen and other structural proteins.

[Yora]

Elasticity helps a lot to prevent cracking by bending instead. Ribs are amazingly flexible and bend like green tree branches. It takes a lot to make them crack.

[Conners]

With the super-strength human, was meaning them to be largely normal, except that they had unbelievable strength for the size and species. I'm aware that animals geared to strength aren't particularly agile, but I imagine a human of reasonable weight with super natural strength would be closer to insects and the thinner animals you mention.

In this particular case, damaging themselves through fighting is a concern. I have entertained the idea of them wearing armour which not only functions normally, but also absorbs the shock caused by their own strength--allowing them to punch through brick walls and all that without breaking bones.

If, however, you still want the character to be dangerous (without utterly crippling themselves in the process) I assume a very high level of toughness and resilience is required, else they'd pound their fists to mush with their own strength.

[awa]

insects are a bad example they only function the way they do because there so small. they don't work when you scale them up

[hymer]

@ Conners: You mention insects. Are you thinking insects are really strong, since ants can carry like eight times their own weight? Because that's nothing to do with them being insects (though the exo-skeleton helps not getting damaged), and everything to do with them being small.

Edit: SS'ed.

[Conners]

The issue of insects when scaled up has come up previously in this thread, so I have become aware of this detail. What I meant, was insects' strength relative to their size makes them very impressive on their small scale, and that a human with such uncommon strength could be likened to such.