PDA

View Full Version : (d20/3.5) A Human Flaw.



Kaihaku
2009-07-19, 06:32 AM
Humans are still killing each other, screwing each other over, and generally making a mess of the world all the time even though most of us agree that it's pretty stupid of us. Humans aren't Orcs, we tend to hate the darker side of things but we seem prone to wallow in it regardless...

For a campaign setting I'm pondering assaulting that supposed bastion of 'balance', the Human race. It strikes me that, in reality, humans are oozing with negative traits and I'd like to apply one to them mechanically. I was thinking something along the lines of 'easily corruptible'. Perhaps just a flat Wisdom penalty? That doesn't seem quite right... Perhaps something more specific, like a penalty to will saves vs. enchantment, level checks vs. intimidate, and will saves against fear? Perhaps something else altogether? Any thoughts or suggestions?

I realize why the designers would put a mostly vanilla balanced race in the mix but for this setting I want it to give humans a bit more flavor. The whole destiny thing that WotC attached to humans is nice but it ignores the darker side of destiny, the fallen side.

Riffington
2009-07-19, 09:47 AM
Humans aren't supposed to be balanced. We're supposed to be the baseline. If you say that humans are corruptible, we know that, but are we more corruptible than goblins or dwarves? If you say yes, that means nothing for humans, it just makes all other races less-corruptible. Do you want that, and if so why?

bosssmiley
2009-07-19, 03:54 PM
I realize why the designers would put a mostly vanilla balanced race in the mix but for this setting I want it to give humans a bit more flavour. The whole destiny thing that WotC attached to humans is nice but it ignores the darker side of destiny, the fallen side.

We only seem balanced and bland when you average out the extremes of human behaviour. Some of us fall to temptation easily, even willingly. Others of us fight long and hard against the evil around us. Still more find themselves constantly torn between taking the primrose path to perdition and the hard and strait way of the righteous man. Each of us is a constant spiritual battleground between the ape and the angel, and the voracious, volcanic energy of the human race is merely a side effect of that eternal struggle. We simply are all that. :smallcool:

Balanced? Yes. Humans are the default benchmark the other races are measured against.
Vanilla and in need of more flavour? Hardly. :smallamused:

I know there was a thread late last year about inherent level-scaling racial abilities for all the core races (based on the failed promise of the 4E races preview). Search fails me ATM, but you can imagine the type of thing: elves become masters of illusion (whatever their class), dwarves become hardier and ever more resistant to outside influence, half elves became consummate diplimats, etc. Humans became ever more charismatic and inventive IIRC.

Xefas
2009-07-19, 04:44 PM
In my campaign world, humans are the youngest race, which is standard for fantasy. However, they're this way because every other race was basically another generation of a 'divine prototype'.

Elves came first, but they were too frail and too prone to seeing the big picture, and completely missing the nuances of the present. Then dwarves, but they were too introverted, routine, predictable, unimaginative etc. Then halflings, but they were too weak and unambitious to survive without the aid of the other races. Then orcs, but they were too unintelligent and prone to infighting and brutality.

Then along came the humans. Free bonus feat pwns you. They have an infinite capacity to succeed at whatever they do. They got the best treatment, being the youngest child of the gods, and the other races don't like it so much.

The 'special' thing about them is that they're totally obsessed with their own image. They even believe the gods are all humanlike in appearance. They gain minor bonuses to creating golems and other constructs that look like humans, and raising undead from human corpses.

FlawedParadigm
2009-07-19, 05:08 PM
I'd probably focus on the opportunistic nature of most humans; mayhap not go so far as to require a Will save unless someone refuses to RP it at all, but mention that humans are often compelled to "take a little extra for themselves", any time they see a clear opportunity to do so. For example, they're inclined to always ask a little extra for their services than people initially offer, take more than their fair share of the credit for accomplishments if it looks like it'd win them favour with someone important, pocket some coins or an item from any treasure they find before returning the rest to the group for proper division, going to great lengths to puff up their own reputations with or without falsehoods, and so forth.

Depending on the amount of RP in your game, that could be a very serious social drawback; anyone with enough experience with humans to recongise this trait in them would be less apt to work with them when it can be avoided. If this seems like *too* much of a drawback, you could give them some minor bonus to level it out a little, like perhaps a +1 to hit with Attacks of Opportunity or something. Or if it's still not *enough* of a drawback, maybe a flat out -2 Racial penalty to Diplomacy or something, for a bad reputation. Whether anyone attempting to be a Paladin might be above such urges, I leave to you. If not, it makes for very interesting RP, but no doubt fairly difficult - some people may go for it, though. If so, you might have to keep a serious eye on anyone wanting to play a human Paladin just to make sure they're not doing it solely to avoid this new flaw.

Tiki Snakes
2009-07-19, 05:25 PM
Humans are clearly a kind of goblinoid.

Their real strength is that they are in-heat all year round, and have a prodigious breeding rate. Just like their goblin cousins.

Their downside is that they are VERY easily corrupted (tending to be amongst the wickedest of civilisations, and the most likely base creature to pretty much whatever hideous abomination you stumble across).

Whether you make that a will penalty, a roleplaying direction, a core tenet of your world-building, or even a penalty to interaction with non-humans, I couldn't say. :)

Steward
2009-07-19, 05:26 PM
I like Flawed Paradigm's idea. While I hate telling someone how to roleplay their character (really, [i]every elf[i] has the *exact same* personality? Jeez, DM, you want to roll my dice for me too?) if I was going to do that then making it into a roleplaying opportunity instead of just another annoying stat to keep track of is the best way to make it enjoyable while still fitting your perspective of Humans as a race.

ThaliasRatheron
2009-07-19, 06:01 PM
We only seem balanced and bland when you average out the extremes of human behaviour. Some of us fall to temptation easily, even willingly. Others of us fight long and hard against the evil around us. Still more find themselves constantly torn between taking the primrose path to perdition and the hard and strait way of the righteous man. Each of us is a constant spiritual battleground between the ape and the angel, and the voracious, volcanic energy of the human race is merely a side effect of that eternal struggle. We simply are all that. :smallcool:

You sir, win. The phrasing in that statement kind of took me aback. I applaud your writing :smallbiggrin:

As for the point of the thread, it's a fine balance. You can argue both ways, that humans should be balanced or somewhat weak willed (as portrayed by much of the fiction and other games), but as Tiki Snakes pointed out so.. vividly, Humans are also literally the most prolific race in the various D&D Universes, so they naturally will run the gambit from craven to courageous. In any significant sample, you'll have some serious outliers.

However, it would be rather cool to be able to choose to take that penalty to will saves vs. enchantment and such-like for some sort of bonus. Because I think something like that should be offset. I for one do not like to have dominate person cast on me.

Tiki Snakes
2009-07-19, 06:18 PM
You sir, win. The phrasing in that statement kind of took me aback. I applaud your writing :smallbiggrin:

As for the point of the thread, it's a fine balance. You can argue both ways, that humans should be balanced or somewhat weak willed (as portrayed by much of the fiction and other games), but as Tiki Snakes pointed out so.. vividly, Humans are also literally the most prolific race in the various D&D Universes, so they naturally will run the gambit from craven to courageous. In any significant sample, you'll have some serious outliers.

However, it would be rather cool to be able to choose to take that penalty to will saves vs. enchantment and such-like for some sort of bonus. Because I think something like that should be offset. I for one do not like to have dominate person cast on me.

I think to some degree the argument could be that humans are very much lacking a drawback, and are often, in various editions, suspiciously good, really, to be considered truly balanced. Let's face it, human is the default choice for many builds, and is one of the better choices for practically every build, almost reguardless of edition. A little extra drawback for the flexibility they enjoy is a tempting homebrew.

Not that I'll be doing the same, but it's certainly something i've considered previously.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-19, 06:21 PM
Humans are clearly a kind of goblinoid.

Their real strength is that they are in-heat all year round, and have a prodigious breeding rate. Just like their goblin cousins.

Now that is an interesting idea. I might have to use that at some point.

ThaliasRatheron
2009-07-19, 06:27 PM
Granted. I'd be lying if I said I didn't play human about 90% of the time I've joined a campaign. An extra feat and those extra skills points rather outweighs any bonus other races might give. I dunno though, it seems like every setting, from LotR, Warhammer, and so on paints this very negative image of humanity as a whole.

I think it would be interesting to have a choice between two drawbacks with minor bonuses attached.

Maybe, as above, you can choose a -2 penalty to Will saves vs. Enchantments and other affects, but gain a +1 bonus to Attacks of Opportunities and Spot checks. Give it the title of 'opportunistic', or something along those lines, where the character is looking out for greener pastures and thus is more susceptible to suggestion. Granted that most people here are looking for straight drawbacks without a bonus to tag along, but. I'm a little biased.

Could also have a secondary option to for those who want to remove the stigma normally attached to the human race.

Kaihaku
2009-07-19, 08:37 PM
If you say that humans are corruptible, we know that, but are we more corruptible than goblins or dwarves?

In many fantasy settings, yes. Humans tend to be more corruptible than most races, races like Orcs and Goblins are already corrupted which is indicated by their alignment biases. They're already fallen.


If you say yes, that means nothing for humans, it just makes all other races less-corruptible.

So adding a statistic flaw to Humans means nothing to Humans? I'd rather thought it would mean something both to Humans and to the other Races.


Do you want that, and if so why?

I think I stated fairly clearly in my first post that, yes, I did indeed want that for a specific setting. I'm not certain why you're arguing against it. If you don't like the concept that's fine, there aren't high chances that you'd be playing in this setting regardless.

Why? Perhaps I want a setting where players are encouraged to play Races other than Human and those who do choose to play Human have a hurdle to overcome, something to make their struggle a bit more heroic? Perhaps, as you stated, I wanted to make the other standard Races a bit more noble in comparison? Perhaps, akin to Tolkien's mythology, I want a setting where Trolls and Orcs were created by Evil Forces but where Humans, who were created by Good, tend to slide towards Evil? It's not that radical of a departure, it's been a theme not just of fantasy but in much of literature for centuries.


We only seem balanced and bland when you average out the extremes of human behaviour. Some of us fall to temptation easily, even willingly. Others of us fight long and hard against the evil around us. Still more find themselves constantly torn between taking the primrose path to perdition and the hard and strait way of the righteous man. Each of us is a constant spiritual battleground between the ape and the angel, and the voracious, volcanic energy of the human race is merely a side effect of that eternal struggle. We simply are all that. :smallcool:

There are certainly wolves and shepherds among us but it seems to me that most humans are sheep. All shepherds begin as sheep.

Or, at the least, that's what I want to convey in this specific setting. Heroic characters should overcome that tendency, certainly, but this time around I don't want to write it out.


Vanilla and in need of more flavour? Hardly. :smallamused:

*shruggle*


I'd probably focus on the opportunistic nature of most humans; mayhap not go so far as to require a Will save unless someone refuses to RP it at all, but mention that humans are often compelled to "take a little extra for themselves", any time they see a clear opportunity to do so. For example, they're inclined to always ask a little extra for their services than people initially offer, take more than their fair share of the credit for accomplishments if it looks like it'd win them favour with someone important, pocket some coins or an item from any treasure they find before returning the rest to the group for proper division, going to great lengths to puff up their own reputations with or without falsehoods, and so forth.

It's not quite what I was thinking of but it is interesting and would make for some good roleplaying. Though, I think it skirts close to Kender grounds in some ways.


Depending on the amount of RP in your game, that could be a very serious social drawback; anyone with enough experience with humans to recongise this trait in them would be less apt to work with them when it can be avoided. If this seems like *too* much of a drawback, you could give them some minor bonus to level it out a little, like perhaps a +1 to hit with Attacks of Opportunity or something. Or if it's still not *enough* of a drawback, maybe a flat out -2 Racial penalty to Diplomacy or something, for a bad reputation.

Opportunistic is an good thought. It's a bit more proactive than what I had in mind but I might add it in as a later Character Option.

For Diplomacy, I'd have a bad racial reputation weigh in as a circumstance mod depending on who was being diplomacized. A gnome who had been betrayed by humans would be quite skeptical, an Orc possibly less so. For a racial trait I'd prefer something that applies specifically to the individual.


Whether anyone attempting to be a Paladin might be above such urges, I leave to you. If not, it makes for very interesting RP, but no doubt fairly difficult - some people may go for it, though. If so, you might have to keep a serious eye on anyone wanting to play a human Paladin just to make sure they're not doing it solely to avoid this new flaw.

I'd introduce means for Player Characters to overcome the Flaw but it would come at a price, probably a Feat.


I like Flawed Paradigm's idea. While I hate telling someone how to roleplay their character (really, [i]every elf[i] has the *exact same* personality? Jeez, DM, you want to roll my dice for me too?) if I was going to do that then making it into a roleplaying opportunity instead of just another annoying stat to keep track of is the best way to make it enjoyable while still fitting your perspective of Humans as a race.

That's a good point on focusing more on roleplaying and I do like to mix things up in campaigns, but I'm stuck on humans having a negative trait for this setting.


However, it would be rather cool to be able to choose to take that penalty to will saves vs. enchantment and such-like for some sort of bonus. Because I think something like that should be offset. I for one do not like to have dominate person cast on me.

I already have a bonus in mind, it was the flaw that was proving difficult to pull together.


I think to some degree the argument could be that humans are very much lacking a drawback, and are often, in various editions, suspiciously good, really, to be considered truly balanced. Let's face it, human is the default choice for many builds, and is one of the better choices for practically every build, almost reguardless of edition. A little extra drawback for the flexibility they enjoy is a tempting homebrew.

I would, obviously, concur.


I think it would be interesting to have a choice between two drawbacks with minor bonuses attached.

It's an interesting thought but not one I think I'd use as a starting option in this setting. It might crop up later though.


Maybe, as above, you can choose a -2 penalty to Will saves vs. Enchantments and other affects, but gain a +1 bonus to Attacks of Opportunities and Spot checks. Give it the title of 'opportunistic', or something along those lines, where the character is looking out for greener pastures and thus is more susceptible to suggestion.

Granted that most people here are looking for straight drawbacks without a bonus to tag along, but. I'm a little biased.

I already have a balancing positive trait in mind, I just wanted some help putting together the negative trait.


Could also have a secondary option to for those who want to remove the stigma normally attached to the human race.

I don't intend to have this as an option at character creation but rather as a later option, be it a Feat, an additional benefit of Human Paragon levels, or something else altogether.

Actually, I think a Sheep trait might be the way to go. Humans are easily influenced and tend to abandon oaths, principles, and loyalties in favor of the pressures of the moment. Now, keeping in mind that there would be a character option to overcome this trait and an additional balancing positive trait, what would that look like mechanically?

GoatToucher
2009-07-19, 10:01 PM
"Actually, I think a Sheep trait might be the way to go. Humans are easily influenced and tend to abandon oaths, principles, and loyalties in favor of the pressures of the moment. Now, keeping in mind that there would be a character option to overcome this trait and an additional balancing positive trait, what would that look like mechanically?"

I think that saying "Your race is a bunch of honorless douchebags." is not a very fun thing to do, and that you are essentially taking away the human's bonus feat by making them buy off this fairly arbitrary penalty/stigma.

To tap back into literature, I would remind you that, in LotR, everyone of all races was tempted to corruption by the ring, with only three exceptions: Tom Bombadil (weird eternal being) Sam Gamgee (halfling) and Faramir (human).

Human moral flexibility is already represented in their not having a unified cultural alignment and having an accompanying greater tendency to fight among themselves, compared to the other races. Put RP pressures to heighten this if you must (and, indeed, that might need to some interesting RP), but reflecting it statistically would not seem to add anything to the game, in my opinion. It would be like adding stats for elves being arrogant jerks, or Dwarves being greedy drunks. What you are talking about is strictly an issue of personality, not physicality or cultural imperatives. Deal with stereotypes in the RP, not the systems.

ThaliasRatheron
2009-07-19, 10:10 PM
Human moral flexibility is already represented in their not having a unified cultural alignment and having an accompanying greater tendency to fight among themselves, compared to the other races. Put RP pressures to heighten this if you must (and, indeed, that might need to some interesting RP), but reflecting it statistically would not seem to add anything to the game, in my opinion. It would be like adding stats for elves being arrogant jerks, or Dwarves being greedy drunks. What you are talking about is strictly an issue of personality, not physicality or cultural imperatives. Deal with stereotypes in the RP, not the systems.

Word up.

Besides, I'd like to think that in general, when talking about the PC's in any sort of game, that they represent someone who is beyond the norm for their specific race. So even if for example humans as a whole are more easily corruptible, this may not apply to PC's because of their rather exceptional status. And if you'd rather the character *be* so easily corruptible, well you have the option of a lower wisdom score and the glorious invention of role playing to represent that aspect.

Worira
2009-07-19, 10:31 PM
Humans are frail and short-lived, but they breed quickly and learn fast. They're very friendly, and have a natural knack for getting along with members of other races. They have trouble carrying a proper load, but make up for it with their long, flowing stride. They are almost completely blind in the dark.

Knaight
2009-07-19, 10:34 PM
I'm going to totally break with everything here. Humans don't have to be the baseline, they can be exceptional. Think about The Damned (by Alan Dean Foster) here. Humans are stronger, tougher, and more inclined to violence. As far as everyone else is concerned their minds are screwy. Even people able to control people mentally can't control humans, as contacting a mind that violent is bad for the psychic.

Eventually humans fall in with the Weave, an organization of about 6 species. Other than humans only one species was even capable of combat. Humans were capable and enjoyed it to some extent, at least while it was going on. One of the other species would throw up upon seeing the side of the average greek urn, although there were individuals capable of progressing beyond that point.

My point is you don't need a generic baseline, and humans don't have to be close to it. To draw something else in, Mouse Guard has several brilliant mechanics. First among them is Nature, a specific stat. Every species(mouse, rat, owl, wolf, whatever) has a Nature rating, as well as 3 things that are their basic nature. The higher the nature rating the closer they are to that basic nature, the lower the more distant.

Lets take an example here. Lets say you decide that in your setting orcs are violent, emotional, and superstitious. The higher the nature of an orc, the more violent, emotional, and superstitious they are, although there will be variance between the three. Lower Nature orcs are able to repress these urges better, and are more civilized. However the nature stat can be used to benefit anything in the nature. Thus a more orc like orc, with a higher nature, can use their nature when they get into a fight, making them more likely to win.

This allows for an easy way to distinguish species that remains relevant constantly. The elf being immune to sleep spells and getting a +2 to dexterity is irrelevant by level 10. The elf nature traits are always relevant.

Lappy9000
2009-07-19, 10:37 PM
Tom Bombadil (weird eternal being) Sam Gamgee (halfling) and Faramir (human).Well, I believe Sam and Faramir were both tempted; they just had the will to resist.

FlawedParadigm
2009-07-19, 11:09 PM
Another option, although admittedly a primarily RP option again, would be "short-sightedness"; saying that even under the best circumstances, humans don't think about the long-term consequences of their actions. As is...even the most relaxed, composed, and plotting human never sees more than a year or two into any plan, or in the frenzy of combat, any further than a round or two. This comes of being one of the shortest-lived PC races. Treebeard would call them "hasty."

If you wanted to apply this from a purely mechanical standpoint, it might be best to do it by class; melee sorts get slightly lower AC because they have no taste for defence and dragging a fight out, and spellcasting sorts have a tendency to use their most powerful spells in any given encounter to end it as quickly as possible - perhaps they must always cast from the top two spell levels available to them whenever possible unless they have a *very* good reason not to do so (for example, they're fighting a bunch of mooks while pursuining a villain they know to have Minor Globe of Invulnerability...in that case, they'll save at least a few high level spells to get through the Globe later - they're brash, not utter morons). If you want to be especially harsh, you could rule humans incapable of getting most Insight type bonuses - something immediate like True Strike, sure, but the kinds gained from most Divination spells just wouldn't take if the bonus couldn't be used almost immediately.

You said that you already have a bonus in mind; if you'd share what that was, I might even be able to craft a drawback that makes good sense with that. In this case, if you wanted a little extra bonus, they might get a bonus to some kinds of Reflex save, or an Initiative bonus, for being quick to improvise.

Kaihaku
2009-07-19, 11:22 PM
I think that saying "Your race is a bunch of honorless douchebags" is not a very fun thing to do, and that you are essentially taking away the human's bonus feat by making them buy off this fairly arbitrary penalty/stigma.

Thanks for letting me know? I won't ask you to play in this particular setting?


To tap back into literature, I would remind you that, in LotR, everyone of all races was tempted to corruption by the ring, with only three exceptions: Tom Bombadil (weird eternal being) Sam Gamgee (halfling) and Faramir (human).

Yes. I would remind you that the other races resisted said corruption to a far greater extent than the humans did. It took Saruman, a Maiar, over 200 years to fall into corruption. Bilbo resisted the ring for how many years? Even Golum resisted Sauron's summons for decades, centuries? How long did Boromir or even Isildur resist the ring? Do note that Sauron gave nine Rings of Power to nine Lords of Men which twisted them into wraiths bond to his will, the Nazgūl, but when he attempted the same against the Dwarves they resisted his power.

Turning back, if you look at the account of the Silmarillion, all races were tempted by power, from the Noldor to the Khazād, but Humanity was one of the few races which repeatedly switched sides and fought alongside Orcs as Melkor's servants. Elves committed terrible atrocities but they refused to be servants of Melkor or Sauron.


Human moral flexibility is already represented in their not having a unified cultural alignment and having an accompanying greater tendency to fight among themselves, compared to the other races.

*shruggle*


Put RP pressures to heighten this if you must (and, indeed, that might need to some interesting RP), but reflecting it statistically would not seem to add anything to the game, in my opinion.

I disagree for reasons already given.


It would be like adding stats for elves being arrogant jerks, or Dwarves being greedy drunks. What you are talking about is strictly an issue of personality, not physicality or cultural imperatives.

No, it's about the same as saying that all Orcs have -2 to all mental attributes.

If it's my setting how can you say what it is or is not? Perhaps it's a physiological difference, a shared spiritual weakness, or a curse placed on the race long ago?


Deal with stereotypes in the RP, not the systems.

It's not a stereotype in this setting, it's a universal racial weakness that be overcome to some extent. It affects all humans, it is their fallen nature.


Besides, I'd like to think that in general, when talking about the PC's in any sort of game, that they represent someone who is beyond the norm for their specific race.

And you think that player classes and far above average ability scores don't represent that well enough already?


So even if for example humans as a whole are more easily corruptible, this may not apply to PC's because of their rather exceptional status. And if you'd rather the character *be* so easily corruptible, well you have the option of a lower wisdom score and the glorious invention of role playing to represent that aspect.

*shruggle*

Look, if you can't stomach the idea, that's fine. I highly doubt that you'll ever have to play it. I'm confident that my players can not only stomach but use the idea to reach new heights. So, objections noted... Now could we please focus on the question at hand?

chiasaur11
2009-07-19, 11:33 PM
Another option, although admittedly a primarily RP option again, would be "short-sightedness"; saying that even under the best circumstances, humans don't think about the long-term consequences of their actions. As is...even the most relaxed, composed, and plotting human never sees more than a year or two into any plan, or in the frenzy of combat, any further than a round or two. This comes of being one of the shortest-lived PC races. Treebeard would call them "hasty."


*cough* Havelock Vetinari *cough*.

FlawedParadigm
2009-07-19, 11:44 PM
*cough* Havelock Vetinari *cough*.

...Hablo English?

Knaight
2009-07-19, 11:49 PM
No, it's about the same as saying that all Orcs have -2 to all mental attributes.
...
If it's my setting how can you say what it is or is not? Perhaps it's a physiological difference, a shared spiritual weakness, or a curse placed on the race long ago?
...
It's not a stereotype in this setting, it's a universal racial weakness that be overcome to some extent. It affects all humans, it is their fallen nature.


You need the Mouse Guard nature mechanics. The more you say the more I see it works with your philosophy on gaming. They cover psychological differences perfectly, by offering a mechanical incentive to work with the established psychology.

How about this for a mechanic: Everyone has a nature score from 0-5. Its a measurement of how inclined they are towards working of the instincts and base psychology of their race. They also gain a pool of points equal to their character level + 5. These points can be spent to give a bonus to any action that corresponds with a characters nature, with 1 point being a +1 bonus. An individual bonus can be no larger than the nature score.

In addition everyone receives a penalty to resist enchantment that goes along with their nature equal to their nature score. If an orc has a violent nature, and a nature of 4 then they receive a -4 penalty to resist being forced into violence. A bonus is given to resist enchantment when something goes against ones nature, with the bonus being equal to the nature score. Halflings may have a timid nature, and a halfling with a nature of 2 gets a +2 bonus to resist being told to do anything reckless.

Then you give natures, maybe 2 natures with a third, personal one. For example:
Orc
Violent(or Aggressive)
Superstitious

Human
Reckless
Obedient

Elf
Aloof
Careful

Dwarf
Greedy
Loyal

Halfling
Timid
Clannish

Gnome
Curious
Creative

Maenad*
Emotional
Introverted

*Maenads are described as usually logical, but with deep emotions running through them. Most Maenads have a low nature score, but they all have the potential to be emotional. A nature score can change.

Belobog
2009-07-20, 12:51 AM
*stuff about Mouse Guard mechanics*

Sounds a bit like Exalted Virtue mechanics; bonuses if a character willingly stuck to their defining trait, and penalties to resist actions that went against their grain. Granted, the actual mechanics were pretty iffy, since you could max them all out, if you wanted, but the intention was along the same lines, IIRC.

Edit: An idea. Perhaps you could have independent behaviors that anyone could choose (Greedy, Idealist, Tyrant, etc.), and then have one major racial trait that all members of a race share. That way, you could have a large amount of diversity, and still impose a 'curse' upon humanity in the form of this one behaivor that is tied to their nature (and give other races different, perhaps equally problem causing natures).

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-20, 07:51 AM
...Hablo English?

:smallconfused: Don't tell me you haven't heard of Lord Havelock Vetinari, ruler of Ankh-Morpork in the Discworld universe? He would definitely qualify as "the most relaxed, composed, and plotting human" from FlawedParadigm's quote, yet no one would call him short-sighted. Or else. :smallwink:

FlawedParadigm
2009-07-20, 03:40 PM
No sir, not a clue. I mean, of course there's exceptions to every rule. I'm sure somewhere out there is an honest lawyer, and intelligent politician, and altruistic thief. I just haven't come across them. Guy sounds a bit like Littlefinger, though.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-20, 04:10 PM
Guy sounds a bit like Littlefinger, though.

...Hablo English?

:smallwink:

Worira
2009-07-20, 04:33 PM
I don't know, do you?

FlawedParadigm
2009-07-20, 05:10 PM
...Hablo English?

:smallwink:

:smallconfused: Don't tell me you haven't heard of Lord Petyr Baelish, Lord Protector of the Vale of Arryn, and Lord of Harrenhal in the Song of Ice and Fire universe? He would definitely qualify as "the most relaxed, composed, and plotting human" from that one stooge's quote, yet no one would call him short-sighted. Or else. :smallwink:

Riffington
2009-07-20, 08:08 PM
I think I stated fairly clearly in my first post that, yes, I did indeed want that for a specific setting. I'm not certain why you're arguing against it. If you don't like the concept that's fine

That's not it at all. I'm just trying to figure out what it is that you're trying to do. I don't understand it, and I want you to help me understand. I'm reserving judgment on whether I like it or not for now. For starters, are you trying to make humans in your game different from humans on Earth? If so, why?

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-20, 08:48 PM
:smallconfused: Don't tell me you haven't heard of Lord Petyr Baelish, Lord Protector of the Vale of Arryn, and Lord of Harrenhal in the Song of Ice and Fire universe? He would definitely qualify as "the most relaxed, composed, and plotting human" from that one stooge's quote, yet no one would call him short-sighted. Or else. :smallwink:

Very well-played, Mr. Paradigm, as I expected. Don't see why you call yourself Flawed.

FlawedParadigm
2009-07-21, 06:58 AM
Well, I'm nowhere near perfect. For proof, just ask any of my ex-girlfriends, or my parents. I'm not sure what kind of song most of my ex-employers would sing, but I imagine they could find a few imperfections to mention as well. But the ex-girlfriends will probably give you the best tales.

(Though, for the record, it could be pointed out that the actual moniker Flawed Paradigm, at its inception, was not actually a reference to myself, but that's a fairly long story. However, it's the nick I became known as in a couple of other communities, and so I have found it easy simply to keep with it. It's a fun nick either way, so I don't mind.)

Ernir
2009-07-21, 04:56 PM
Here is one human racial change I was thinking about.


Humans:
Lose bonus feat gained at first level.
Increase the normal allowed number of Flaws (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingcharacters/characterflaws.htm) taken at character creation by one.




Effectively, humans still get their feat, they just have to pay for it with a Flaw of their choosing. Humans are as varied in their flaws as they are in their strengths, I suppose. :smalltongue:

PLUN
2009-07-21, 05:35 PM
Honestly, I think Humans get the bad rap because humans are, for the most part, more realistically written. We've had millennia of real examples, people and situations to create 'the human experience' with. That generally makes them the point of reference for the fictional races, because, well, people have a lot of experience with being human. Our ideals tend to manifest as the other fantasy races. Even the negative features of other races are based on very human and deeply solitary concepts like pride or greed. We can't escape that, because they're what we, as humans, find bad.

Not that I don't mind the idea of humans as a setting's bad guys. They breed well, are incredible inventive wagers of war and pursue a wide variety of professions with great ability. If someone is going to get high off their own fumes and declare Manifest Destiny, humans as they are vanilla definately a good candidate.

I'm not a fan of 'bad stats represent bad races' though. Some of the nastiest foes are empowered by genetics - Drow for example. Their advantages feed their ego, convince them they are 'superior'. Sure, they can show their working as a more intelligent, more physically fit race... but what gives them the right to rule? The fact they squander their intellect and resources paying lip service to an uncaring, evil godess and festering underground is a tragedy.

Meanwhile the poor orcs get lumped with an intelligence penalty. Are they just 'dumber'? As a race more 'ignorant'? Leaves a bad taste in the choppers that. Maybe they have proud traditions, a 'fit for purpose' educational ethic that discourages 'messy thought' and blind trivia over a deeply focused hunter education. Or maybe low intelligence was the dice they rolled in the game of natural selection. That's not bad actually - again their superiority to the human baseline, a superior physical build and nocturnal lifestyle, has lead to their problems (why be a wizard when I can kick your elven ass 8 times out of 10 as I am?) - not their faults.

tl;dr A fun exercise is to define 'bad guy' races by the advantages they quander or abuse.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-21, 05:49 PM
For a campaign setting I'm pondering assaulting that supposed bastion of 'balance', the Human race. It strikes me that, in reality, humans are oozing with negative traits and I'd like to apply one to them mechanically.

How about human's don't have a bonus feat. They have at least one flaw granting them a bonus feat. They can take one more flaw. In addition they must roll on the traits table. Only human can take flaws and traits. Flaws and traits can be found in the SRD here (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/variantBuildingCharacters.htm).

Falconer
2009-07-21, 06:59 PM
I've always been fairly tempted to give Humans some statistics that make them something other than a hypothetical "jack-of-all-trades". Balance issues aside, I'd give Humans a constitution bonus (at least as I understand, humans have a greater capacity for physical endurance than other animals), and maybe some mechanic to reflect our group-oriented nature (some kind of morale bonus or penalty, maybe?).

And, just tossing it out there, maybe a Handle Animal bonus with dogs? Again, this is with no regard for balance whatsoever.

Faleldir
2009-07-21, 07:46 PM
Balance issues aside, I'd give Humans a constitution bonus (at least as I understand, humans have a greater capacity for physical endurance than other animals)
If you did that, what would "average" Constitution represent? What would be the baseline for humanoids, if not humans? Give them Endurance for free, but don't touch their ability scores.

kopout
2009-07-21, 08:16 PM
Perhaps lock the bonus feet as Endurance?

Kylarra
2009-07-21, 08:21 PM
Locking the bonus feat as something trivial and allowing/forcing an extra flaw sounds like it'd do what you want.

Mongoose87
2009-07-21, 08:31 PM
Locking the bonus feat as something trivial and allowing/forcing an extra flaw sounds like it'd do what you want.

It would laso make Humans about as useless as half-elves.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-21, 09:27 PM
It would laso make Humans about as useless as half-elves.

Not really; you have to take one more flaw, that's all, and another -5 foot speed or -2 to ranged attacks or whatever is easy enough to overcome. You'd have to actively try to make humans suck to get them in half-elf territory.