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

[Arkhosia]

Pathfinder chose a pic of one as the illustration for the Dire Boar:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/mon...boar/dire-boar

Neat! It may not be the same species, but still.

[Jeff the Green]

Loads of pre-dinosaur reptiles (particularly those on the way to mammals) look pretty fantastic (my memory fails me on the name, but I'm sure at least one had venom like a water shrew, but the size of a cow). Try looking at the pictures here.

My personal favorite (though a synapsid rather than therapsid) is Dimetrodon.

[Salbazier]

A question for linguist and Greek-speakers. I'm trying to come up with a name for a source of magical powers. 'Thauma' means wonder and 'thaumaturgy' means wonder-worker in Greek, right? (Ancient or modern, I have no idea). So what would be the Greek translation for 'source of wonder'/'wonder-source'?

[TheWombatOfDoom]

A question for linguist and Greek-speakers. I'm trying to come up with a name for a source of magical powers. 'Thauma' means wonder and 'thaumaturgy' means wonder-worker in Greek, right? (Ancient or modern, I have no idea). So what would be the Greek translation for 'source of wonder'/'wonder-source'?

I believe it would be Ge/nesis, so something like - Thaumanesis would be appropriate.

[hymer]

I’m looking for some help batting some ideas around. The setting is space opera (heavily Master of Orion inspired if that means anything to you), so things need not make sense in the strictest terms. I’m fleshing out a planet, which will veer into space western territory. The place was recently settled by a mighty empire, but a coalition of opponents came and took out the colony, as they would not allow large settlements in this strategic sector by any of the major players in the galaxy. This was done by fighting over the planet in a space battle, and then sending in marines to mop up with backup from the victorious spacecraft. This resulted in a heavy bombardment, which has left large parts of the otherwise pleasant planet a dry, lifeless waste.
Only the indigenous species are now left in any great quantities, and they had been lifted out of a very technologically backwards position and made into farmers and miners to support the settling colonists (exact nature of that relationship isn’t settled on and ideas for that are welcome). The locals do not understand most of the technology left to them, and so find themselves thrown back to their old ways, but now with pulse rifles in place of spears (nearly all the ray guns were taken from them after the invasion, but the invaders weren’t much more worried about firearms than spears, so there are plenty of those). I’m aiming towards a situation much like the American Civil War, with huge numbers of guys using tactics that do not fit the weapons they’re using, and battles usually having huge casualty rates.
I’d like for there to be at least three factions, two of which are hoping to achieve planet-wide dominance and one or more, which is/are basically hoping the others will wear each other out, leaving the others free to govern themselves.
I’d also like for the differences between the factions to be more ideological than geographical or ethnic. Ideally, each position should be easily grasped and mutually exclusive with each other.
Very little is settled on beyond what’s described here, so any and all ideas, thoughts, etc. are most welcome.

[HeadlessMermaid]

I believe it would be Ge/nesis, so something like - Thaumanesis would be appropriate.

Thaumanesis isn't a proper word, it doesn't mean anything. (Sorry. :)) Thaumatogenesis (Greek compound words are weird like that) would literally mean "the creation of a wonder/miracle". So it wouldn't be a place or an item, but an act, a procedure. Possibly a unique and significant procedure, because the word "genesis" carries a lot of gravitas.

Wonder-working is thaumaturgy. This again is a noun meaning an act, a procedure, but it's not so fancy as genesis, it's more of an everyday thing. It would mean a profession, a craft, a magic school or discipline.

The wonder-worker (the person who does all that) is a thaumaturgist.

The above are legit for both ancient and modern Greek. Wonder-source is tougher, I can't think of anything that would make perfect sense in ancient Greek. In modern, a literal translation would be "thaumatopege", which sounds a bit awful in English, doesn't it? [Pege (πηγή) means fountain, spring, and it's used metaphorically to mean "source".]

So help me a bit here. When you say "source", do you mean it like "power source"? Something that fuels all this wonder-working? Or something else?

[TheWombatOfDoom]

Thaumanesis isn't a proper word, it doesn't mean anything. (Sorry. :))

You'd know better than me, Head! I'm just glad I knew what source was. I'm not really great with compounds, as you can see.

[Yora]

Does anyone know if bronze mirror were ever used as actual mirrors, or if they were just symbolic representations of one? (Most images of significant ancient bronze mirrors don't have a flat surface at all.)

If they were used as practical mirrors, why bronze and not silver? Rich people would probably have been able to afford the silver. Is bronze easier to keep shiny?

[HeadlessMermaid]

Does anyone know if bronze mirror were ever used as actual mirrors, or if they were just symbolic representations of one? (Most images of significant ancient bronze mirrors don't have a flat surface at all.)

Umm, the surface that's decorated in relief is the backside. The mirror side is flat and smooth as expected.

Here are both sides of an early medieval mirror (large image, will stretch) :

Spoiler

Show

Silver mirrors were also used. They were less common, but then again, so was silver.

[Arkhosia]

How strong is obsidian and other igneous rock?
I was thinking of making a duegar city in a active volcano that the duegar made the floor of by directing lava and making it harden.

[Xuc Xac]

Obsidian is just glass and it behaves the way you'd expect glass to behave. "Other igneous rock" includes a broad range of materials. It's like asking "how strong is stuff that comes from the ground?" Some igneous rocks will crumble to sand under the pressure of your hand. Some are very hard and tough like granite.

In general, the most durable minerals are the ones that have the lowest melting point. The ones with a really high melting point are unstable at the temperatures on the Earth's surface because it's like being "superchilled" and they crumble more easily. Rocks are made of minerals, so tougher rocks are made mostly of those low-melting point minerals like quartz and feldspar. Igneous rocks are the ones that formed from a liquid state. The slower the rock cools and solidifies, the larger the grains will be. Cool it very very slowly (over centuries) and you can get something really grainy like granite with noticeable flecks of different colors from the different mineral crystals. Cool it more quickly, and the final composition has a finer-grain like basalt. Cool it extremely quickly (using lava as a replacement for concrete) and you don't have any grains at all: that's obsidian.

Also, unlike what you see in the movies, you can't stand next to lava inside a volcano. It doesn't just burn you when you touch it. It radiates heat that will burn you if you just get close to it. If you stand next to a river of molten lava without protection, you'll blister and burn just like standing in a fire. Those dwarves couldn't just put railings and yellow caution tape around the lava to keep people from stepping in it. If there's lava still flowing, then the place is uninhabitable.

[Beleriphon]

Also, unlike what you see in the movies, you can't stand next to lava inside a volcano. It doesn't just burn you when you touch it. It radiates heat that will burn you if you just get close to it. If you stand next to a river of molten lava without protection, you'll blister and burn just like standing in a fire. Those dwarves couldn't just put railings and yellow caution tape around the lava to keep people from stepping in it. If there's lava still flowing, then the place is uninhabitable.

Unless they're azers. But at that point they can build a city IN the lava flow.

[Salbazier]

Thaumanesis isn't a proper word, it doesn't mean anything. (Sorry. :)) Thaumatogenesis (Greek compound words are weird like that) would literally mean "the creation of a wonder/miracle". So it wouldn't be a place or an item, but an act, a procedure. Possibly a unique and significant procedure, because the word "genesis" carries a lot of gravitas.

Wonder-working is thaumaturgy. This again is a noun meaning an act, a procedure, but it's not so fancy as genesis, it's more of an everyday thing. It would mean a profession, a craft, a magic school or discipline.

The wonder-worker (the person who does all that) is a thaumaturgist.

The above are legit for both ancient and modern Greek. Wonder-source is tougher, I can't think of anything that would make perfect sense in ancient Greek. In modern, a literal translation would be "thaumatopege", which sounds a bit awful in English, doesn't it? [Pege (πηγή) means fountain, spring, and it's used metaphorically to mean "source".]

So help me a bit here. When you say "source", do you mean it like "power source"? Something that fuels all this wonder-working? Or something else?

Source as in power source, yes. But also source as the thing that caused the ability to do wonder-working to exist.

[Arkhosia]

Obsidian is just glass and it behaves the way you'd expect glass to behave. "Other igneous rock" includes a broad range of materials. It's like asking "how strong is stuff that comes from the ground?" Some igneous rocks will crumble to sand under the pressure of your hand. Some are very hard and tough like granite.

In general, the most durable minerals are the ones that have the lowest melting point. The ones with a really high melting point are unstable at the temperatures on the Earth's surface because it's like being "superchilled" and they crumble more easily. Rocks are made of minerals, so tougher rocks are made mostly of those low-melting point minerals like quartz and feldspar. Igneous rocks are the ones that formed from a liquid state. The slower the rock cools and solidifies, the larger the grains will be. Cool it very very slowly (over centuries) and you can get something really grainy like granite with noticeable flecks of different colors from the different mineral crystals. Cool it more quickly, and the final composition has a finer-grain like basalt. Cool it extremely quickly (using lava as a replacement for concrete) and you don't have any grains at all: that's obsidian.

Also, unlike what you see in the movies, you can't stand next to lava inside a volcano. It doesn't just burn you when you touch it. It radiates heat that will burn you if you just get close to it. If you stand next to a river of molten lava without protection, you'll blister and burn just like standing in a fire. Those dwarves couldn't just put railings and yellow caution tape around the lava to keep people from stepping in it. If there's lava still flowing, then the place is uninhabitable.

Oh.
How would steel and other metals fare?
If it helps, the structure is made by houses carved out of the surrounding basalt volcano walls, connected to each other by walkways. The structure is carved in the area below the edges of the hole at the top if the volcano.
This volcano resides in a sinkhole, acting like an iceberg: the top of the volcano is above land, rest is below ground. The duegar have carved a path into the volcano from a underground cavern.

[Yora]

Sinkholes are created by water hollowing out cavities in sedimentary rock and don't have anything to do with volcanos. I even think that volcanos are not found in places that can create sinkoles.

Do you mean a caldera? That would basically be a giant volcano that collapses into its own chasm, forming a huge crater. Inside that massive crater, new smaller volcanos could grow up if the lava continues to come up from below.

In either way, I don't see what the similarity with icebergs would be. All volcanos are entirely underground with only the opening to the surface showing at the surface. In the case of stratovolcanos (the standard mountain with fire on top), there is also a big bump in the surface of the ground as lava is pushing from below.

Iron makes for fantastic constructions, but it doesn't occure in pure form in the Earth crusts, to my knowledge. And iron is actually the heaviest of the light elements (this would go into the formation of solar systems, just know that the heavy elements are all super-rare in comparison to the light elements), so most of it sits at the core of the planet and never comes up to the surface through volcanos.
What you find at the surface and in the crust is almost entirely iron-oxide, which is rust. And just a terrible-terrible material for anything. It's just like crumbly sand.

With lava, a lot depends on its composition, the way it cools, and the way it was flowing as it was cooling. Depending on that, the hardened lava can have all kinds of different properties. Duergar allied with some Azers (or maybe having Azer slaves), might very well have the knowledge how to direct the lava flows and manipulate the way it cools to result in an excelent material for big fortified castles. Though that would most certainly require a huge amount of magic. Just putting on a ring of fire resistance and going to work with a shovel won't do. But having a bunch of azers and a host of magma elementals doing the brunt of the work, I think it sounds entirely plausible in a fantasy world.
Simply treat the walls of a lava castle the same way as walls made from stone.

[Arkhosia]

Sinkholes are created by water hollowing out cavities in sedimentary rock and don't have anything to do with volcanos. I even think that volcanos are not found in places that can create sinkoles.

Do you mean a caldera? That would basically be a giant volcano that collapses into its own chasm, forming a huge crater. Inside that massive crater, new smaller volcanos could grow up if the lava continues to come up from below.

In either way, I don't see what the similarity with icebergs would be. All volcanos are entirely underground with only the opening to the surface showing at the surface. In the case of stratovolcanos (the standard mountain with fire on top), there is also a big bump in the surface of the ground as lava is pushing from below.

Iron makes for fantastic constructions, but it doesn't occure in pure form in the Earth crusts, to my knowledge. And iron is actually the heaviest of the light elements (this would go into the formation of solar systems, just know that the heavy elements are all super-rare in comparison to the light elements), so most of it sits at the core of the planet and never comes up to the surface through volcanos.
What you find at the surface and in the crust is almost entirely iron-oxide, which is rust. And just a terrible-terrible material for anything. It's just like crumbly sand.

With lava, a lot depends on its composition, the way it cools, and the way it was flowing as it was cooling. Depending on that, the hardened lava can have all kinds of different properties. Duergar allied with some Azers (or maybe having Azer slaves), might very well have the knowledge how to direct the lava flows and manipulate the way it cools to result in an excelent material for big fortified castles. Though that would most certainly require a huge amount of magic. Just putting on a ring of fire resistance and going to work with a shovel won't do. But having a bunch of azers and a host of magma elementals doing the brunt of the work, I think it sounds entirely plausible in a fantasy world.
Simply treat the walls of a lava castle the same way as walls made from stone.

Yeah I was thinking of a caldera: didn't know what that was called.

I was thinking also that duegar, would at least maybe mine for the metals by themselves or with slaves.
Love the idea of azer and magma elemental slaves.

Another idea: elves making homes out of living trees, carving hollows into them, and manipulating the trees to grow in just the right shapes for creating structures such as bridges in-between hollows, and a large array of branches that form a huge, horizontal, round platform.
I am aware of the art of bonsai, but would the elves be able to create these large, living structures practically?
TL;DR:
Would it be near-impossible to manipulate enormous trees like a bonsai with common technology, is what I'm asking.

[TuggyNE]

Unless they're azers. But at that point they can build a city IN the lava flow.

Azer Fortress would be SO AMAZING.

[Thinker]

Trying to come up with a variant on the traditional elven appearance. I don't want them to be like house elves, or santa's elves or even keebler elves. I also wanted to account for varying appearances similar to how humans have different skin color.

Anyone have any ideas?

That probably depends on the nature of your elves. Are they intended to be a PC race? Are they associated with divinity (as with mythological origins)? Are they humans in rubber masks? What do you want to use your nontraditional elves for?

[fusilier]

I’m aiming towards a situation much like the American Civil War, with huge numbers of guys using tactics that do not fit the weapons they’re using, and battles usually having huge casualty rates.
I’d like for there to be at least three factions, two of which are hoping to achieve planet-wide dominance and one or more, which is/are basically hoping the others will wear each other out, leaving the others free to govern themselves.

First of all, I don't agree with the assertion that in the American Civil War the tactics didn't fit the weapons -- but I understand what you are saying.

The main issue is that if you want huge battles with large numbers of people fighting and dying, then you need the infrastructure to support large armies. You will need transport, communications networks, surplus food, and all the organization and bureaucracy needed to coordinate that.

Then there's the issue of the technology itself. If they don't understand it, then they won't be able to repair or replace it as it wears out. Large stockpiles of equipment will help (and may even be strategic targets), but eventually they will run out -- and they will run out quicker if you have large armies going at each other constantly. Also the technology to run farms efficiently will be stressed and gradually lost, making it harder to support large field armies. With no way to replace equipment, all factions will probably look something like the losing side of a war of attrition, except that it will look more like the end of such a war from the very beginning.

If the warfare was on a large scale, then I would imagine that it would burn itself out pretty quickly; the technology would quickly be damaged, lost, etc., and the war would grind down. If continued it would take on a much smaller scale, probably more like guerilla raids, and more antiquated weapons would be used. If the warfare was more small scale to begin with, then it could last for a long time with technologically superior weapons. In either case the amount of spare equipment available would be a factor to consider.

[Arkhosia]

That probably depends on the nature of your elves. Are they intended to be a PC race? Are they associated with divinity (as with mythological origins)? Are they humans in rubber masks? What do you want to use your nontraditional elves for?

Here's an idea for PC race version:
Bark-colored skin, hair of autumnal hues, hunt to appease their gods.
Great with ranged weapons due to lithe body being slightly more fragile than a human, quick reflexes and strong muscles for dodging and maneuvering into advantageous positions due to thousands of years relying on ranged weapons.

[hymer]

@ fusilier: So if players would like to do something to stop the mindless killing, maybe there should be some interesting targets in the form of repair bots and bureaucratic supercomputers. Farms and mines would probably be the parts that held up the best, since this was the technology they learned to use and practiced. But the rest, of course, is irreplaceable once it breaks down. Thanks for replying.
Since this is the sort of thread where we talk about things like this, I don't think it'd be a problem if you develop your 'first of all' point. The way armies behaved in the field changed quite a bit over the war, so something wasn't quite right. Or?

[HeadlessMermaid]

Source as in power source, yes. But also source as the thing that caused the ability to do wonder-working to exist.

I'll suggest thaumarxis, which would literally mean "the beginning, the origin of a wonder". Not quite what you asked for, but the closest approximation I can think of. ("Power source" is a modern concept, you can't get an exact equivalent in an ancient language. )

Hope that helps. :)

[Beleriphon]

I'll suggest thaumarxis, which would literally mean "the beginning, the origin of a wonder". Not quite what you asked for, but the closest approximation I can think of. ("Power source" is a modern concept, you can't get an exact equivalent in an ancient language. )

Hope that helps. :)

With Greek the best you might manage is something related to the deities as a source of power. That at least implies something that is very, very powerful compared to a human.

[Xuc Xac]

("Power source" is a modern concept, you can't get an exact equivalent in an ancient language. )

Both "power" and "source" are derived from Latin words. I don't think "power source" is that difficult for the ancients to describe just because they didn't have electronics.

[Storm Bringer]

Since this is the sort of thread where we talk about things like this, I don't think it'd be a problem if you develop your 'first of all' point. The way armies behaved in the field changed quite a bit over the war, so something wasn't quite right. Or?

if you want he full knowledge and geekery of the Playgounds resident warfare nuts*, ask this question on the "Got a real Worlds Weapons and Armour Question." thread, which also covers questions about tactics, strategy, and other warfare related topics.

their, your question will be discussed and explained in far more detail than you ever imagined.


but, to answer your question quickly here:

American Civil War tactics (hereafter shortened to ACW), in particular the fairly close order formations and crowded battlefields that so many today feel were a Bad Idea brought on by old generals trying to fight the ACW like it was still 1815, were mainly due the limits of command and control.

in the 1860's, their was telegraphs, railroads, and so on, which improved strategic command and control, which allowed the North to co-ordinate it's attacks on both the East and West theatres to stop the South concentrating it's forces against each in turn.

However, a general in the field could not see knew what he could not physically see, and the fastest method of sending orders was by courier. a colonel commanding a Battalion could only give orders as far as his voice carried, so his men HAD to stay within earshot of him if they were to be commanded. troops that were out of sight of their commanders were effectively independent, out of his control. if they moved, and the commander wanted to send a order to them, well, he was stuffed unless he could find them again.

thus, the compact formations and small (by later standards) battlefields, which did indeed drive up casualties, but it was the only way to control that many men with the tech at the time.


*a category that i would say includes both me and Fusilier.

[hymer]

Thanks for the answer, Storm Bringer. I still stand by the statement that the tactics, at the very least at first, were not equal to the equipment. Indirect approaches were not used at first, trench-digging wasn't done nearly as often (or at all) in non-siege conditions, the use of cavalry was heavily modified as the war progressed, and so on.
As for the thread you mention, it seems people there are having fun, and that's nice, but getting a straight answer there hasn't been so easy. In this thread, it seems more clear that we're talking about what we can do to inspire our games.

[Yora]

I think one important element was, that new rifles significantly increased the range at which entrenched troops could shot advancing enemies, but leaders seemingly didn't find any new solutions for their soldiers to cover the killing grounds without being totaly exposed to enemy fire.
I think it's basically the same problem that plagues the Western Front in Wold War 1.

[hymer]

I think fusilier and Storm Bringer are saying that new ideas did develop, and that there wasn't a whole lot they could have done differently, broadly speaking. Well, strategically, there was plenty they could have done differently, but tactically they were rather locked in on using massed infantry to dislodge massed infantry. Nothing else could.
Not that even Lee and Grant didn't foul it up on occasion and simply wasted lives, but once the situation had become bloody clear, tactics did change. Pickett's charge and Cold Harbor became exceptions, throwbacks to the handling from early in the war.
But it seems obvious to me that both sides took time to learn their lessons, and were not up to tactical speed from the very beginning by a long shot.

[Silverbit]

This seems to be the closest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euchambersia

though as far as I can tell it wasn't all that big.

That's the one, I must have misremembered the size (now a dire version on the other hand...).

(Better a belated response than none at all )

[fusilier]

@ fusilier: So if players would like to do something to stop the mindless killing, maybe there should be some interesting targets in the form of repair bots and bureaucratic supercomputers. Farms and mines would probably be the parts that held up the best, since this was the technology they learned to use and practiced. But the rest, of course, is irreplaceable once it breaks down. Thanks for replying.
Since this is the sort of thread where we talk about things like this, I don't think it'd be a problem if you develop your 'first of all' point. The way armies behaved in the field changed quite a bit over the war, so something wasn't quite right. Or?

I've studied the Civil War considerably, and I am also a Civil War reenactor -- I've seen no evidence that the fundamental tactics changed significantly during the war. The tactics going into the war were two rank formations, and going out of the war it was the same. The muzzle-loading rifle musket, while it had greater range than it's smoothbore predecessor, was too slow loading to really change tactics. Attempts at using looser formations failed - they could not achieve the concentration of men/firepower to break the lines of a traditional two-rank formation.

A little bit of a side note. Prior to the introduction of the rifle-musket, the standard tactics used by the US (and most of Europe), were two or three rank formations, with the introduction of rifle-musket two-ranks became standard, and the three rank formation was dropped. Skirmish, or "light infantry", tactics were also encouraged for all infantry units, not just specialists.

The American Civil War was a huge war, fought by people who had limited military experience, so there was a lot of learning that had to take place on both sides, and a fair share of blundering. Some historians may have confused this for a failure to understand new weaponry. [This is an easy trap to fall into - differences in technology are very easy to observe; organizational faults, leadership competency, etc., are all more difficult to understand and complicated to study.]

Also, while the rifle musket may have increased the casualty rates a bit, I think there is some counter-evidence that claims that Napoleonic battles could be just as deadly, if not more so. The Franco-Austrian War of 1859, was very bloody, but part of that (if not most of it) was due to the very aggressive tactics that the French used.

Breechloading rifles made a much bigger impact on tactics than the muzzle-loading rifle. While breechloading rifles were used during the Civil War, they were more experimental, and never fielded in significant quantities among the bulk of the army (the cavalry forces were most likely to have them, but they were always a minority). After the Civil War they became standard, new manuals were introduced, in the US Upton's manual now shifted to an emphasis on single-rank tactics. You don't have to look any farther than the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1 to see the difference in tactics that breechloading weapons had made.