Lizardmen

Some years ago, I noodled around with a D&D high concept I called "Odd D&D" (that link will take you to all posts with that tag.) The high concept started off first with replacing any class that had a spell progression with... another class that didn't. This would have been in a 3e context, so with stuff like Complete Adventurer and Complete Warrior, we had good replacements for the ranger, for instance, that didn't have spells, and additional options like the ninja or the scout or the swashbuckler to give you more options. I didn't mean to disallow all "f/x" however, just disallow the normal D&D f/x, so I made psionics replace magic. The four classes from the Expanded Psionics Handbook, psion, wilder, soulknife and psychic warrior were all legit, as well as the three from Complete Psionic; the ardent, divine mind and the lurk. I also got rid of most of the "classic" D&D races; elves, dwarves, halflings and gnomes. I think I allowed most of the LA +0 EPH races, plus some others too. 

Although that was the initial hook, that's just mechanical stuff and says (relatively) little about the actual world, since psionics can stand in for magic in most instances without too much trouble, even if mechanically it operated a little differently. So after establishing those ground rules, I needed to develop a setting, and again, I wanted it to be "odd D&D" by which I mean elements that are completely within D&D but which usually aren't used as the basis for a setting. I decided a focus on reptilian creatures was the way to go, and that the warm-bloods, i.e., the PCs, were a minority, and were lorded over (mostly) by reptilian empires. I said this at the time (slightly edited):

I think what ultimately needs to be done is to ensure that the "story" of D&D isn't repeated. By this, I mean—what do D&D characters do and what are they about and how can I make sure that I do something different as a unique hook for this setting? To simplify, the entire premise of D&D is that you create these characters that may be vaguely reminiscent of characters from The Lord of the Rings, but then you do a bunch of stuff that is nowhere reflected in any fantasy fiction. To quote JB in one of my favorite rants of his, "Going into dungeons and fighting monsters/picking up loot, all the while growing into more powerful characters, gaining neat 'special powers'" is the point of D&D. If that's what D&D is, then this game, even while using strictly D&D rules, cannot be about that. Rather, it has to be about something else entirely.

I see this as a vs campaign, with lots of political maneuvering and exploration of hostile wilderness. The world of Odd D&D, whatever it ends up being called, is one in which the PC races—the mammals—are the minority. Lizardmen are the main antagonists, and along with their bigger blackscale cousins and a bevy of domesticated big lizards and dinosaurian animals, have overrun a large island (about Greenland sized) of hostile wilderness. The humans (and other races, included half-orcs, goblinoids, etc.) live in isolated enclaves high in the mountains, or in other places that are more remote or inaccessible, and cross through the mainland like sneaking spies, hoping to not be stopped, killed, enslaved or eaten by the saurian overlords of the island.

These isolated enclaves would like to band together to mount an effective resistance against the lizzies, but they can't—they're too politically and culturally fractured. They're not necessarily fractured along racial lines, as they tend to be somewhat cosmopolitan, however. Desperate runs through "lizzie-space" followed by intrigue and skullduggery in their fringe towns and cities, followed by (perhaps) open warfare with wave after wave of attacking lizards at times—that's what Odd D&D will be about. There aren't any dungeons.

Oh, and I'll be borrowing a ton of stuff from Games Workshop I think, in terms of lizardmen social structure. Freaky bloated mage-priests rule, and lots of domesticated and somewhat unrealistically ferocious dinosaurs are fixtures of their society.  They're like a "greatest hits" of dinosaur features all rolled up into a monstrously unrealistically ferocious package—sharp teeth, horns, tail clubs, spikes; load it all up on one monster. I think the way to do this is to start with dinosaurs from the Monster Manuals and give them a few extra attacks of various types. Bigger, worse bite attacks, mace-like tail bludgeoning, poisonous breath-weapons, rake attacks—all in all, simply make the dinosaurs even more savage and dangerous than they already are, and I'll be good to go with monsters for the setting.

Add to that even more dark magic and weird one-off threats here and there, and I've got a lot to keep me busy. But the vs. Lizardmen theme is one that should be dominant.

So yeah, I have always liked the strange alien-ness of the lizardmen as a counterpoint to the "typical" foes of D&D. Lizardmen (and snakemen) are alien and creepy to people, and they have an old pulp tradition. Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert E. Howard, H. P. Lovecraft, all used them to great effect for precisely that reason; they are alien and weird. 

I also recently listened to this podcast during my commutes yesterday afternoon and this morning; which was just about enough time between the two of them to get 95% of the whole episode. I've now listened to two of those podcasts, and I don't know for sure that I need to listen to any more. I have a couple more downloaded, so maybe I'll give them a chance before I give up. Couple of quick comments, though, based on stuff that they brought up:

First, lizards are actually supremely well adapted to drier climates. In fact, it's believed that the rise of the archosaurs during the Permian was in part due to the fact that they were better adapted to the dry conditions that persisted over much of the supercontinent, where they simply outcompeted the proto-mammals vs the environment. I know; archosaurs aren't lizards, but they have the same adaptations there. Today, lizards are among the most common vertebrates that you will find the desert because they do so well. So lizardmen being semi-aquatic and desert-phobic seems kind of strange, but maybe not really. What it means is that in spite of the name, lizardmen essentially take the place of crocodiles in the setting; except sorta anthropomorphic. But if you think of lizardmen as actually more like crocodile or alligator men, then they're not only scarier, but also more accurate. I'm not advocating for changing the name or appearance, just that you think about them more as crocodiles than as skinks or iguanas. They also make a big point of them being neutral rather than chaotic, and that translating into the meme in many modules of lizardmen that you can either wipe out, or you can negotiate with either one. But being neutral makes perfect sense if you think of them as merely anthropomorphic (sorta) predatory animals. Sure, they'll eat you if given a chance, but if you're stronger than they are, then they won't. This is more a condemnation of alignment though; this tortured attempt to use alignment to justify a behavioral theme that is repeated in several modules.

Second, they talk about lizards as noble savage American Injuns. This is a silly conversation anyway, but its worth pointing out that the noble savage archetype is much older than the European colonization of the Americas. It actually refers to the ancestors of the peoples of northern Europe; the Celts and Germanic peoples, as opposed to the decadent and corrupt Romans. Flipping it so that the Americans are now supposed to be the decadent and corrupt ones while the Injuns are noble savages is kind of weird. Mostly, the Injuns were just savage savages, not noble savages, although its true that the Americans at least respected them as antagonists in a way that they never respected, say, the black population of the South or the Caribbean or even Central and South America, which was largely enslaved, or at least the descendants of slaves. This leads in a roundabout way in the podcast to some minor handwringing over cultural appropriation. If these two guys can talk about these topics with a straight face, and if they continue to do so in future podcasts, that will absolutely ensure that I stop listening to them quickly. But I'll give them at least one more chance to demonstrate that they're better than that nonsense. 

Finally, the last topic in that that I want to address is something that came up near the end of the podcast when they discussed the possibility of lizardmen as a PC option (which I would never allow except in an even odder D&D game than my Odd D&D.) They even quote a post from jrients, who was an old, semi internet famous blogger in the gaming sphere once upon a time. I found the post they're referring to, so I'll quote the relevant section too:

Even a guy like me, who like robots and lasers in his D&D, occasionally gets on this funk where I consider trimming down the character build options to achieve some sort of artsy-fartsy effect. You know the drill. "I want to do something Arthurian, so no Asian-flavored classes in this campaign." or "This is going to be all Conan-y with the swords & the sorcery, so no demi-humans in this campaign." Although I truly, deeply understand the profound artistic reasons for such an approach, let me simply say: f*** that s***. We're talking about D&D here. If you can't fold themes and motifs into a game starring an elf ninja, a halfling bard, and two ill-tempered gnome wizards then you should be writing bad fan fiction, not running actual games for real players. Just please don't post your stories anywhere on the net where I might see them.

No, jrients. F*** your s***. Even the polite podcasters made the point that "f*** that s***" isn't a substantive argument. It's worse. It's just trying to position yourself as the moral authority through emotional manipulation and bullying. What you're really saying is "if you don't play the way I think you should, you should just write bad fan fiction, because you're wrong." No, actually, that paradigm is completely wrong. And endorsing a runaway "just say yes" paradigm where not only anything goes, but anything has to go is ridiculous. There are perfectly good and unusually commonly expressed reasons why limiting things is perfectly acceptable. And gonzo weird D&D isn't what D&D is; that's one interpretation of what D&D is, and I doubt its even the most common one. Although 5e and Pathfinder both have been migrating slowly towards all kinds of weirdo animal-people races and crap. D&D is changing, but jrients, being a OSR guy, should know that stating "gonzo D&D is D&D" as if its an objective fact is absurd. Gary Gygax himself didn't understand why people would want to play anything other than a human fighter, and only added elves and dwarves as a bait and switch to get Tolkien fans on board. 

That's not a substantive argument either, that's an appeal to authority. But the point is; if people want to play a more constrained game, and clearly many many people do, then that's not wrong, and telling them that they don't deserve to be playing D&D is just insulting and stupid. However, you want to play is correct for you and your group if they're all in agreement. And if someone is out of alignment with the rest of the group, then they need to resolve that with the group, and not have someone try and one-up the whole group based on BS claims of moral authority that your preferences are superior to someone else's. What an arrogant, self-important, solipsistic thing to try and pass over on the community. As you say, jrients: f*** that s*** back at you, you dipsh***.

Bonus, quick point. The monsters on Trampier's PHB cover were troglodytes, not lizardmen, or at least that's what I always assumed. Lizardmen don't live in dungeons, for one thing; they live in swamps, and any "dungeons" featuring them are usually their beaver-lodge like lairs in the swamp. Troglodytes are underground. It's literally in the name. 

——( † )——

Another point, not related to the podcast, but which I thought of after the fact. As I'm reading the Riftwar Saga right now (need to pick up the last book as soon as I finish Space Pirates of Andromeda), I recall that he also used snake people as the manipulative bad guys quite a bit, and the Pantathian serpent priests were kind of the ultimate bad guys that were actually in the setting. As opposed to The Enemy, which of course is revealed to be the combined essence of the Valheru, which the snakes are trying to bring back into the world due to their misplaced worship of Alma-Lodaka, the Valheru who created them. In the greater Riftwar Cycle, of which the Riftwar Saga is only the first part, we get a few bridging books, the Princes of the Blood stuff, etc. and then we get to the Serpentwar Saga, in which Pantathian serpent people use lizardmen-like Sauur as soldiers, similar to how sometimes the yuan-ti are depicted as using lizardmen. I kinda like this stuff, and of course it makes sense to me that lizardmen and snakemen are likely to be allied with each other against ... y'know, people.

As an aside, in the events of the Serpentwar Saga, the Pantathians essentially go extinct. Too bad. They were a classic villain. Feist should have taken a page from Howard and Lovecraft and kept them as a mysterious threat rather than simply a race of religious fanatics who can be killed by a single invasion of their egg creche.