PDA

View Full Version : Racial modifiers and culture



cheezewizz2000
2010-08-21, 04:21 AM
So here's a few strange thoughts that have been going through my mind recently: how racial modifiers would affect a culture's priorities.

Assuming your average Joe Public has base scores of all 10s, Joe Pubdwarf has a constitution of 12 and a charisma of 8. This higher constitution would make Dwarves better long-distance runners than your average human, so would the Dwarves' national sports tend towards tests of endurance, rather than say strength or skill? Also how are their culinary traditions affected? Would the higher consitution make them tend towards what we would view as more disgusting? If Joe Pubdwarf has at least a +1 to their fortitude saves, would they worry as much about cooking food through? Or would they tend towards much more hearty, rich meals that include loads of spices and flavours just because they can? How does the -1 on charisma checks affect entertainment? Are those with musical talent prized because of their rarity, or are the arts mostly ignored?

Edit: What about historical traditions? We think of Dwarves as having long racial memories, but because so few of them are great dramatists or story-tellers, would they not really have the legends or sagas that preclude an interest in history? Would their low charisma make them indirectly more focused more on the "now"? Edit Edit: Back to sports, would their low charisma make them poorer team-players? Would more individual sports like athletics be more popular?

For comparison, what about Elves? +2 dex and -2 con would result in national sports being more like basketball - tests of skill and accuracy rather than endurance. Would the length of a "half" be reduced because your average Elf sportsman just can't last as long as their Human counterparts? How about THEIR culinary traditions? Would their more delicate constitution result in much more carefully prepared foods that border on the artistic? Or are they bland, rather boring foods because Joe Pubelf just can't handle spice or anything particularly rich?

Anyone else want to add some insights, or add in other races' stat/culture relations? I'd be interested to know what you think. I'm not really concerned about the cultural descriptions provided in the PHB or "Races of X", I'm trying to go for a more bottom-up exploration of their culture based on the natural tendencies of the races.

Balain
2010-08-21, 05:06 AM
... but because so few of them are great dramatists or story-tellers, would they not really have the legends or sagas that preclude an interest in history?....

This caught my eye. Dwarves do in fact tell stories. They have pasts and legends. They may not act them out in plays, but The elderly dwarf is going to tell his grandkids stories. Like the day he went out with dwarf1, dwarf2, dwarf3 and slew a dragon or drank all the ale in a tavern or the legendary dwarf4 punched an orc so hard he found little gooey bits of orc in his armour a week later.

At least my take on it.

Ravens_cry
2010-08-21, 05:18 AM
And don't forget people also do things most people are bad at. For example, humans are long distance runners. Sweat glands, gotta love them, and other adaptations, make us keen endurance hunters. Sprints? Heh, we suck at it. Any predator that is big enough to eat us can run faster. And yet we have made a sport of training people to push the human body to it's limits to eke another fraction of a second faster in the 100 metre dash.
Now, if you had a meeting of all bards, the Dwarven skalds wouldn't probably reach the same heights, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it.

cheezewizz2000
2010-08-21, 05:20 AM
This caught my eye. Dwarves do in fact tell stories. They have pasts and legends. They may not act them out in plays, but The elderly dwarf is going to tell his grandkids stories. Like the day he went out with dwarf1, dwarf2, dwarf3 and slew a dragon or drank all the ale in a tavern or the legendary dwarf4 punched an orc so hard he found little gooey bits of orc in his armour a week later.

At least my take on it.

But the stories won't be all that interesting. What makes a story great is the embelishments that people put into it, and the sort of people that embelish are the kinds with high charisma. "Dwarf 4 Punched an orc so hard that he found gooey orc bits in his armour a week later" is less likely to be passed on than "Our great hero, Dwarf 4, struck the terrible orc warlord, Generigash, with such might that the bones of the Earth itself shook with the force of the blow. Generigash screamed as his very core shattered, his flesh rent from his bones and his body lay motionless on the cold rock. They say that Dwarf 4 had to clean his armour for seven full days and nights before Generigash's terrible stench was cleaned away". I'm not saying they don't have stories, I'm asking if they would have any stories that they would bother to tell as anything more than an annecdote.


And don't forget people also do things most people are bad at. For example, humans are long distance runners. Sweat glands, gotta love them, and other adaptations, make us keen endurance hunters. Sprints? Heh, we suck at it. Any predator that is big enough to eat us can run faster. And yet we have made a sport of training people to push the human body to it's limits to eke another fraction of a second faster in the 100 metre dash.
Now, if you had a meeting of all bards, the Dwarven skalds wouldn't probably reach the same heights, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it.

But that's kind of the point of humans in D&D. There's nothing that we excel at as a species, so we do a little of everything. I'm wondering if a race is naturally better at something, would it be more prominant in their culture, or less so because it's just a given that (for example) everyone can run a marathon?

Ravens_cry
2010-08-21, 05:27 AM
Oh come now, a racial modifier of -2 doesn't make THAT big of a difference.
Equally gifted (charisma in this case) dwarfs would be rarer, but more experience and training (ranks) make up for that. And a typical dwarf is nothing if not stubborn. If they are going to be a storyteller, they are going to be the best storyteller there ever was, damn your eyes. The best from the top twigs of Tree Town to the deepest root cellar of the Necromancer, they will be the best, aye!


But that's kind of the point of humans in D&D. There's nothing that we excel at as a species, so we do a little of everything. I'm wondering if a race is naturally better at something, would it be more prominant in their culture, or less so because it's just a given that (for example) everyone can run a marathon?
I would say both. People like doing what they are good at, but they also like challenging themselves.

cheezewizz2000
2010-08-21, 05:38 AM
Oh come now, a racial modifier of -2 doesn't make THAT big of a difference.
Equally gifted (charisma in this case) dwarfs would be rarer, but more experience and training (ranks) make up for that. And a typical dwarf is nothing if not stubborn. If they are going to be a storyteller, they are going to be the best storyteller there ever was, damn your eyes. The best from the top twigs of Tree Town to the deepest root cellar of the Necromancer, they will be the best, aye!

I suppose it boils down to just how much of a difference 2 points makes. I've always assumed that the very smartest people you're likely to meet in a given day has a 12 in int, and these are the folks that eek out a living as scientists or experts in their fields. But perhaps I am putting too much emphasis on those 2 points. I kind of don't want this to turn into a "stat yourself" thread, more like the exact opposite of that, infact; derive culture from stats. Perhaps there are too many other factors, but there must be SOME tendancies or trends from being naturally inclined towards more endurance and less socialising.

Peregrine
2010-08-21, 05:43 AM
Racial modifiers definitely inform how cultures compare to each other in my setting, so I like where you're going with this. :smallcool: Some specific thoughts:


Assuming your average Joe Public has base scores of all 10s, Joe Pubdwarf has a constitution of 12 and a charisma of 8. This higher constitution would make Dwarves better long-distance runners than your average human, so would the Dwarves' national sports tend towards tests of endurance, rather than say strength or skill?

Gotta side with Ravens_cry here; I expect dwarven sports will be about as varied as human sports. But if there's a fantasy Olympics, then dwarves and gnomes will be odds-on favourites for the marathon.


Also how are their culinary traditions affected? Would the higher consitution make them tend towards what we would view as more disgusting? If Joe Pubdwarf has at least a +1 to their fortitude saves, would they worry as much about cooking food through? Or would they tend towards much more hearty, rich meals that include loads of spices and flavours just because they can?

"Dwarven ale" isn't just a tall tale. Racial +2 to Constitution and another +2 against poison means they drink alcoholic beverages that would give an average human alcohol poisoning after one mug (and kill an average elf).

The idea that dwarves are more likely to eat less-thoroughly cooked food is an intriguing one. A dwarven army that makes extraordinary fast marches, and forages for whatever they can catch and eat on the go (cooked or not), is a scary thought. It also explains how they get by underground on less nutritious fare than exists in the sunlight.


How does the -1 on charisma checks affect entertainment? Are those with musical talent prized because of their rarity, or are the arts mostly ignored?

The arts aren't ignored, but my take on dwarves is that they're very much into tradition, law and the good of society, and not into lauding the achievements of the individual. The low Charisma and Usually LG alignment both fit nicely in that sort of "collective" society. So their arts run towards telling traditional tales, odes and histories. They don't go in for anything avant-garde, challenging or genre-breaking.

Ravens_cry
2010-08-21, 05:56 AM
I suppose it boils down to just how much of a difference 2 points makes. I've always assumed that the very smartest people you're likely to meet in a given day has a 12 in int, and these are the folks that eek out a living as scientists or experts in their fields. But perhaps I am putting too much emphasis on those 2 points. I kind of didn't want this to turn into a "stat yourself" thread, more like the exact opposite of that, infact; derive culture from stats. Perhaps there are too many other factors, but there must be SOME tendancies or trends from being naturally inclined towards more endurance and less socialising.
Yeah, just a little. 12 will give is 5% bonus on a d20 compared to 10. Not exactly the gulf you describe. In fact, you have it backwards in away. The stat modifiers represent the culture and race. For example, Dwarves by default hate orcs, they train to fight them specifically, so culturally they are better at it. Of course, if your world-building, you can expand on that in the ways you describe. But every culture has it's story tellers, it's part of what makes a culture a culture and not a herd. They may not be as talented as some, they may need more practise, but when Grom Drumheart, his beard long and white as snow, takes the stage to tell the tale of the dwarven exile from the Mountain of Sorrows, never to return, even the most jaded elvin courtier sheds a tear.
I agree with you making certain emphases is a nice way to create a distinctive culture though, to delineate it in sharp detail.

FelixG
2010-08-21, 09:31 AM
I have no real input on this yet, but i find the topic intriguing!

Terraoblivion
2010-08-21, 10:55 AM
If Joe Pubdwarf has at least a +1 to their fortitude saves, would they worry as much about cooking food through? Or would they tend towards much more hearty, rich meals that include loads of spices and flavours just because they can?.

You lost me here. What has spices and flavors got to do with physical endurance and sturdiness? I don't think anybody has ever made a scientific connection between being healthy giving a greater endurance to spicy food, or that people who aren't healthy can only eat bland food.

Peregrine
2010-08-21, 11:12 AM
You lost me here. What has spices and flavors got to do with physical endurance and sturdiness? I don't think anybody has ever made a scientific connection between being healthy giving a greater endurance to spicy food, or that people who aren't healthy can only eat bland food.

Perhaps very spicy food requires a Fortitude save. Save or cry? :smallwink:

Spiryt
2010-08-21, 11:17 AM
Spicy food aren't generally good for you liver, and in consequence skin, and other organs....

I can sometimes notice connection between it and worse skin etc. although people often can't percept the connection.

With more healthy and badass liver, you could eat more jucky stuff I guess.

Bakkan
2010-08-21, 12:52 PM
I suppose it boils down to just how much of a difference 2 points makes. I've always assumed that the very smartest people you're likely to meet in a given day has a 12 in int, and these are the folks that eek out a living as scientists or experts in their fields. But perhaps I am putting too much emphasis on those 2 points. I kind of don't want this to turn into a "stat yourself" thread, more like the exact opposite of that, infact; derive culture from stats. Perhaps there are too many other factors, but there must be SOME tendancies or trends from being naturally inclined towards more endurance and less socialising.

I'm of the opinion that 2 points doesn't make all that much difference. As has been mentioned, it only means a 5% greater chance (at most) of succeeding at a particular task given equal training.

Also, if we assume that "normal" people are statted out with a 3d6 organic roll, then a member of MENSA (who must be in the "most intelligent" 2% of people) needs to have a 17 INT. So I would imagine that most professional scientists have at least a 14 INT, most professional entertainers have at least a 14 CHA, etc.

Spiryt
2010-08-21, 01:00 PM
I'm of the opinion that 2 points doesn't make all that much difference. As has been mentioned, it only means a 5% greater chance (at most) of succeeding at a particular task given equal training.

Also, if we assume that "normal" people are statted out with a 3d6 organic roll, then a member of MENSA (who must be in the "most intelligent" 2% of people) needs to have a 17 INT. So I would imagine that most professional scientists have at least a 14 INT, most professional entertainers have at least a 14 CHA, etc.

Without any snarkyness, calculations like that are pointless.

6 simple abilities in simple game like 3.5 will only broke to pieces when you analyze them to much. From baboon having greater strength than horse to more complicated matters....

Scale is simply to low and not detailed enough for starters.

LibraryOgre
2010-08-21, 02:11 PM
But the stories won't be all that interesting. What makes a story great is the embelishments that people put into it, and the sort of people that embelish are the kinds with high charisma. "Dwarf 4 Punched an orc so hard that he found gooey orc bits in his armour a week later" is less likely to be passed on than "Our great hero, Dwarf 4, struck the terrible orc warlord, Generigash, with such might that the bones of the Earth itself shook with the force of the blow. Generigash screamed as his very core shattered, his flesh rent from his bones and his body lay motionless on the cold rock. They say that Dwarf 4 had to clean his armour for seven full days and nights before Generigash's terrible stench was cleaned away". I'm not saying they don't have stories, I'm asking if they would have any stories that they would bother to tell as anything more than an annecdote.


See, this is where you miss out for not having earlier edition materials under your belt.

Dwarves do have tumblers, jugglers and acrobats but, unlike humans, their actions are designed to show the wonder of dwarves, not be laughed at. Dwarves do have jokes, but most humans and elves tend to miss the important lineage that was clearly stated in the first line, and wander off before you get to the punch paragraph.

Umael
2010-08-21, 02:12 PM
Gotta side with Ravens_cry here; I expect dwarven sports will be about as varied as human sports. But if there's a fantasy Olympics, then dwarves and gnomes will be odds-on favourites for the marathon.

If a dwarf and a human were both running a marathon, I would back the human. That 30' base movement means the human covers the same distance in 2/3rds the time. The best times for men is just a little over two hours, for women just under two hours fifteen minutes. Given that the marathon is 26 miles, that means that someone is maintaining an average 13 mph for two hours. Ursain Bolt is one of the fastest, if not the fastest, sprinter in the world, clocked at about 23.75 mph. Assume 26 mph, a super-human sprinter, if able to maintain top speed, could do a marathon in one hour.

Using similar stats, a top dwarven sprinter, if able to maintain top speed, would take 90 minutes. Even with 18 Constitution, no human has maintained top speed for one hour. Are you saying with 20 Constitution, the dwarf runner can?

Terraoblivion
2010-08-21, 02:14 PM
I find that fairly unlikely, Spiryt, given that a large variety of different spices might render a dish spicy, and it is fairly unlikely that a matter of perception of flavor would refer to a consistent effect on the health.

Also i have been unable to find any reference to this supposed effect of any of the more common spices, such as chili or cumin. And it doesn't fit with any folk wisdom, dodgy health advice or actual medical advice from doctors that i have heard. I'm not absolutely stating it is wrong, just that i have not been able to find anything to this effect nor heard anyone else say it.

Spiryt
2010-08-21, 02:24 PM
Well, as far as I know Capsaicin, that's main reason of spiciness of many spicy stuff, is deadly poison in bigger doses.

Like many of those, it can be actually pretty healthy.

But still it poisons, and at least for me, spicy stuff in bigger doses, causes pretty skin problems pretty quickly.

Terraoblivion
2010-08-21, 02:57 PM
Ummm, capsaicin is only really what makes chili spicy, not all sorts of other spices. As for the health effects of it in actual food stuffs, all wikipedia has to say is that nothing has been clearly determined in regards to whether it causes cancer or not. Nothing indicates that it causes more general liver damage.

However, it is by no means impossible that you are allergic to it.

Poison_Fish
2010-08-21, 03:00 PM
Well, as far as I know Capsaicin, that's main reason of spiciness of many spicy stuff, is deadly poison in bigger doses.

Like many of those, it can be actually pretty healthy.

But still it poisons, and at least for me, spicy stuff in bigger doses, causes pretty skin problems pretty quickly.

Just like Milk is bad for the body in high doses? It can effect people differently depending on their personal biology, but a lot of the spices aren't actual "poison" in any sense of the term.

Also, I find the concept of this thread pretty.... bad. Biological determinism would be such a minor factor in influencing culture, as has been the subject of deep academic debate. But frankly, it just doesn't work that way. There are so many stronger factors to the creation of what's considered "culture", chief among them (far beyond biology) is the ecology of the region in which the unit of population existed and developed.

Just because you have +2 constitution doesn't mean you'll be eating garbage food. Culinary arts is a form of taste developed by the culture based much more on the ecological tools they had to work with.

AdamSmasher
2010-08-21, 03:24 PM
A +2 or -2 difference in stats doesn't make all that much difference. Give the 3d6 rolling system used for average people of a race and trying to work that in to reality, 1 out of every 216 people has an 18 in a given stat.

So odds are your valedictorian had an 18 in intellect, and he wasn't a phenominally intelligent super-being. He was just some really smart guy. Your top athlete probably had an 18 in something, or the MUCH more likely 14 in all physical stats. +2 is noticeable over a species, but for individuals it doesn't make all that much of a difference. It's more like a slight predisposition.

Peregrine
2010-08-21, 03:27 PM
Using similar stats, a top dwarven sprinter, if able to maintain top speed, would take 90 minutes. Even with 18 Constitution, no human has maintained top speed for one hour. Are you saying with 20 Constitution, the dwarf runner can?

I haven't done the numbers, but by D&D rules, Constitution determines winners in long-distance pursuits. And if a game world's marathon-equivalent is a long-distance run in armour, dwarves definitely win. :smallsmile:

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-21, 03:35 PM
I really like the idea of elfs not using guardrails.

Or of non-dwarfs needing canaries to safely travel in dwarf cities.

Umael
2010-08-21, 03:51 PM
I haven't done the numbers, but by D&D rules, Constitution determines winners in long-distance pursuits. And if a game world's marathon-equivalent is a long-distance run in armour, dwarves definitely win. :smallsmile:

By the numbers, running a marathon in armor means that the dwarves will win. Humans and dwarves both run at 20' while in medium or heavy armor, but dwarves have the +2 Constitution modifier.

(Reminder: gnomes, despite their +2 Constitution modifier, don't have 20' movement in medium or heavy armor.)

Of course, if you don't do your marathon in armor, we are back to humans (or half-elves or half-orcs) being the race favorites.

FMArthur
2010-08-21, 04:17 PM
I was about to point out that Old and Venerable orcs are as smart as adults of any normal race, but then I looked at their shorter lifespan and taking into account how warlike most orc societies are has given me the impression that orcs are not only dumber than other races, but also have fewer old folks to tell them not to be so dumb. :smallfrown:

Greenish
2010-08-22, 08:53 AM
I was about to point out that Old and Venerable orcs are as smart as adults of any normal race, but then I looked at their shorter lifespan and taking into account how warlike most orc societies are has given me the impression that orcs are not only dumber than other races, but also have fewer old folks to tell them not to be so dumb. :smallfrown:Shorter lifespan means they'd reach Old and Venerable faster, though.

And of course, the warlikeness of orcs depends on the setting. (Eberron orcs are pretty laid-back, unless you're an aberration.)

Tetrasodium
2010-08-22, 09:15 AM
Well, as far as I know Capsaicin, that's main reason of spiciness of many spicy stuff, is deadly poison in bigger doses.

Like many of those, it can be actually pretty healthy.

But still it poisons, and at least for me, spicy stuff in bigger doses, causes pretty skin problems pretty quickly.

Drink enough water and you can get water poisoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication), humans should stop that and leave it to dwarves... oh wait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydration). Too much of anything is bad for your body.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-22, 09:25 AM
Drink enough water and you can get water poisoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication), humans should stop that and leave it to dwarves... oh wait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydration). Too much of anything is bad for your body.

And a sturdier body can endure more excesses, so it goes back to the fact that yes, statistically dwarves are able to shrug off otherwise nasty tummyaches and deadly doses of whatever.

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-22, 09:29 AM
I honestly think one of the problems is that D&D assumes humans are average in all areas, when we very definitely aren't.

All creatures in D&D are automatically geared more towards endurance than quick bursts of action (without special abilities), because that's what humans are good at. Even though most animals on the planet don't have nearly as much endurance as we do.

Greenish
2010-08-22, 09:33 AM
I honestly think one of the problems is that D&D assumes humans are average in all areas, when we very definitely aren't.

All creatures in D&D are automatically geared more towards endurance than quick bursts of action (without special abilities), because that's what humans are good at. Even though most animals on the planet don't have nearly as much endurance as we do.The problem being that most writers are human (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MostWritersAreHuman).

Beorn080
2010-08-22, 09:42 AM
You lost me here. What has spices and flavors got to do with physical endurance and sturdiness? I don't think anybody has ever made a scientific connection between being healthy giving a greater endurance to spicy food, or that people who aren't healthy can only eat bland food.

The two reasons to spice food during the period represented by the "standard" D&D setting, independent of flavoring, were to preserve it and cover up the flavor of less then fresh and rotting food. Most spices act as a preservative to some degree, with salt being the best.

So, if we assume that dwarves developed the +2 against poison, and to a lesser degree the +2 con, against poorly cooked and dangerous food, especially while marching, their normal dishes would consist of highly spiced food so that while on the march to war, they would still be eating the same meals.

Edit: Forgot to point out that that reasoning is assuming you consider rotten meat to be a poison when rolling saving throws.

137beth
2010-08-22, 09:44 AM
But the stories won't be all that interesting. What makes a story great is the embelishments that people put into it, and the sort of people that embelish are the kinds with high charisma. "Dwarf 4 Punched an orc so hard that he found gooey orc bits in his armour a week later" is less likely to be passed on than "Our great hero, Dwarf 4, struck the terrible orc warlord, Generigash, with such might that the bones of the Earth itself shook with the force of the blow. Generigash screamed as his very core shattered, his flesh rent from his bones and his body lay motionless on the cold rock. They say that Dwarf 4 had to clean his armour for seven full days and nights before Generigash's terrible stench was cleaned away". I'm not saying they don't have stories, I'm asking if they would have any stories that they would bother to tell as anything more than an annecdote.


Just because they aren't very good at storytelling, doesn't mean they WON'T tell stories:smallsmile:

Peregrine
2010-08-22, 10:05 AM
I honestly think one of the problems is that D&D assumes humans are average in all areas, when we very definitely aren't.

I don't think it's so much "humans are average" as "humans are the point of reference". However, you're right about the result; perhaps because there's a clear 0 point but no definite upper bound, humans do become "average" in the sense of "mediocre", because there's a lot of room for stuff to be better at what we do (whereas being worse than us is frequently seen as a serious drawback) -- so we just don't end up looking exceptional at anything.

Lady Moreta
2010-09-02, 08:22 AM
Oooh, fun! :smallbiggrin:


So here's a few strange thoughts that have been going through my mind recently: how racial modifiers would affect a culture's priorities.

Assuming your average Joe Public has base scores of all 10s, Joe Pubdwarf has a constitution of 12 and a charisma of 8. This higher constitution would make Dwarves better long-distance runners than your average human, so would the Dwarves' national sports tend towards tests of endurance, rather than say strength or skill? Also how are their culinary traditions affected? Would the higher consitution make them tend towards what we would view as more disgusting? If Joe Pubdwarf has at least a +1 to their fortitude saves, would they worry as much about cooking food through? Or would they tend towards much more hearty, rich meals that include loads of spices and flavours just because they can? How does the -1 on charisma checks affect entertainment? Are those with musical talent prized because of their rarity, or are the arts mostly ignored?

Edit: What about historical traditions? We think of Dwarves as having long racial memories, but because so few of them are great dramatists or story-tellers, would they not really have the legends or sagas that preclude an interest in history? Would their low charisma make them indirectly more focused more on the "now"? Edit Edit: Back to sports, would their low charisma make them poorer team-players? Would more individual sports like athletics be more popular?

Not in the slightest... it would in fact, make it far more likely that Dwarven storytellers would be more highly valued and prized than in other cultures. If indeed dwarves value the past, then anyone who knows the stories of the past will be highly valued, considered extremely important.

Or, if they do have long racial memories, it would mean the complete opposite - they'd have many storytellers. They probably wouldn't have drama as such, but long chants and sagas - absolutely.


Or are they bland, rather boring foods because Joe Pubelf just can't handle spice or anything particularly rich?

Or, does eating spicy food become a challenge? it becomes prestigous, a competition. Any time two elves get together, it's a race to see who goes for the water first.


But the stories won't be all that interesting. What makes a story great is the embelishments that people put into it, and the sort of people that embelish are the kinds with high charisma. "Dwarf 4 Punched an orc so hard that he found gooey orc bits in his armour a week later" is less likely to be passed on than "Our great hero, Dwarf 4, struck the terrible orc warlord, Generigash, with such might that the bones of the Earth itself shook with the force of the blow. Generigash screamed as his very core shattered, his flesh rent from his bones and his body lay motionless on the cold rock. They say that Dwarf 4 had to clean his armour for seven full days and nights before Generigash's terrible stench was cleaned away". I'm not saying they don't have stories, I'm asking if they would have any stories that they would bother to tell as anything more than an annecdote.

Of course they would... the problem here is that you're comparing dwarven culture to another culture (humans in this case). Unfortunately, you can't do that, it simply won't work. Dwarven culture has to be compared to dwarven culture (which has obvious problems of its own). You're saying that a great story is the second example you gave. Perhaps a dwarf saga/legend wouldn't tell it exactly in that manner, but a dwarven story must be considered great or not by dwarven standards, not human ones. A great dwarven story would be one that said "and he was picking bits out of his armour seven days later". The ancedotes would become the sagas and legends as they are told and retold.


But that's kind of the point of humans in D&D. There's nothing that we excel at as a species, so we do a little of everything. I'm wondering if a race is naturally better at something, would it be more prominant in their culture, or less so because it's just a given that (for example) everyone can run a marathon?

It probably would. People in general like to feel superior, there is a certain ego (and I use the word in the technical sense, not in the vernacular) about each culture that says 'my way is superior'. So yes, if one culture is particularly good at something, it probably would become more important within that culture. It would however, depend on why they're so good at something, I don't know many cultures that take pride in being good at waging war for instance. In that case, it would likely take on less significance. I am trying desperately to think of an example, but I'm tired and my brain isn't cooperating. If I think of one, I'll post it later.


The idea that dwarves are more likely to eat less-thoroughly cooked food is an intriguing one. A dwarven army that makes extraordinary fast marches, and forages for whatever they can catch and eat on the go (cooked or not), is a scary thought. It also explains how they get by underground on less nutritious fare than exists in the sunlight.

This. This is the point. You can't look at 'dwarves have a +2 to con therefore they'd be able to eat on the go' (which is nasty by the way). You have to look at why they have a +2. What is it about their environment and living conditions that has given them this ability to handle poisons and rougher food? And yeah, living underground would do that. They'd have to live on whatever they could get that grows underground, which isn't much. Even if they were able to redirect sunlight down for growing things, it wouldn't be as effective as natural sunlight. Therefore, natural selection would take place, and the tougher dwarves would survive - eventually giving rise to the +2 bonus we have now.


The arts aren't ignored, but my take on dwarves is that they're very much into tradition, law and the good of society, and not into lauding the achievements of the individual. The low Charisma and Usually LG alignment both fit nicely in that sort of "collective" society. So their arts run towards telling traditional tales, odes and histories. They don't go in for anything avant-garde, challenging or genre-breaking.

Yes. Genius. Every culture on earth has storytelling, and tales of 'old'. Each culture does it differently though.


Dwarves do have tumblers, jugglers and acrobats but, unlike humans, their actions are designed to show the wonder of dwarves, not be laughed at. Dwarves do have jokes, but most humans and elves tend to miss the important lineage that was clearly stated in the first line, and wander off before you get to the punch paragraph.

This proves my point about not being able to judge a culture by anything other than itself. This is the first rule of field-anthropologists - it's called immersion. An anthropologist doesn't go into the field and stay separate from the people they're studying. They become a member of the culture. The only real way to understand a culture is from within that culture. It is possible to compare and contrast, but you absolutely cannot judge one culture by another - standards are completely different.

Real-world example. Everyone agrees and is familiar with the art of the Greeks and Romans, and no one would argue the point. But what about the cave drawings of the Australian aborigines? for that matter, what about the cave drawings of neatherthals and the ealier homo species? Or the oral traditions of the Maori? Aren't those art just the same? They might not be as spectacular or as familiar to us as the Elgin Marbles, but that doesn't mean they aren't art. All that means is that in our culture it's not seen as art. To the aborigines or the Maori, it is art (I can't speak for the neanderthals :smalltongue:).


Also, I find the concept of this thread pretty.... bad. Biological determinism would be such a minor factor in influencing culture, as has been the subject of deep academic debate. But frankly, it just doesn't work that way. There are so many stronger factors to the creation of what's considered "culture", chief among them (far beyond biology) is the ecology of the region in which the unit of population existed and developed.

Prexactly. Ecology comes before evolution :smalltongue: To expand on my example above, the Greeks and Romans had access to marble, hence the eventually devloped the ability to carve it into statues. Contrast that to Australia - a whole big lot of nothing. The aborigine people had access to caves, that they used for shelter because it's ridiculously hot, and they had access to muds and ochres that enabled them to create drawings. The ecology, the environment dictated the culture of art.

subject42
2010-09-02, 09:27 AM
Or, if they do have long racial memories, it would mean the complete opposite - they'd have many storytellers. They probably wouldn't have drama as such, but long chants and sagas - absolutely.

....snip....

But what about the cave drawings of the Australian aborigines? for that matter, what about the cave drawings of neatherthals and the ealier homo species?

On a related note, it's likely that Dwarven storytellers aren't performers at all. They're likely craftsmen. Why tell a story to one person when you can build a mosaic into the bricks of a city that will inform and entertain an entire culture for millenia?

That would be a Craft (Rock-hewn Comic Book) check, and Dwarves are pretty darned good at that.

Lady Moreta
2010-09-02, 10:54 PM
On a related note, it's likely that Dwarven storytellers aren't performers at all. They're likely craftsmen. Why tell a story to one person when you can build a mosaic into the bricks of a city that will inform and entertain an entire culture for millenia?

That would be a Craft (Rock-hewn Comic Book) check, and Dwarves are pretty darned good at that.

I like that. I hadn't thought of that :smallsmile:

And if Dwarves are heavily into lineage and family lines and history (which everyone seems to agree they are), their art is likely to take the form of statues or busts (think the ones you see of Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar), only in dwarven society they'd be more likely to be Redbeard the Mighty or something. Main street of the settlement would likely be covered in engravings, telling the history of the settlement.

It's quite likely that the dwarves who are heavily involved in the arts are the ones with higher dex than charisma. Or they work together, one tells the story, one engraves it - it becomes a partnership.

dgnslyr
2010-09-02, 11:49 PM
Hrm, on dwarves and storytelling, the -2 is relatively small, only a -1. The LG society, however, would make a bigger difference. Dwarven storytelling is likely rooted heavily in tradition, with legends passed from elder to younger. Also, engravings of it EVERYWHERE, of legends, and the occasional cheese-eating dwarf, as the dwarven beard is capable of smoothing and engraving stone better than any man-made tool.

The extra fort. would mean dwarves are tougher than most, and when the average array gives you few +1 ability mods, if any, an extra +1 could mean double the toughness. I'm sure dwarves are capable of consuming poorly cooked food with less penalty, but considering dwarven standards on craftsmanship, I doubt it happens often. Likewise, dwarven booze can probably give most puny humans liver failure, in sufficient quantities. Imagine what it would do to a tree-hugging elf...

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-09-02, 11:55 PM
I was under the impression that dwarves were more into the visual arts. There aren't great dwarven skalds because when a dwarf wants to remember something, he carves a mural of it into the wall of his home, or records it in runes on a sword he's making or something. The -2 Charisma doesn't affect physical works of art, and I felt it was a good indicator that dwarves may not be much for social graces, but they LOVE to work with their hands.

Zen Master
2010-09-03, 05:47 AM
I think you measure yourself against the ones near you. As in, a dwarven bard may have lower charisma than a human one - but he'd never know, because he'd be among dwarves.

However, in foreign relations it's quite likely that dwarves would have more problems than humans, being less adept at diplomacy.

I do think dwarves would emphasize their constitution in sports - maybe combined with other racial traits, lets say Forge Running: Running an underground route (with climbs and so on) carrying a small anvil on your back.

I design fluff in part with an emphasis on racial abilities. For instance, I consider kobolds to be one of the more dangerous evil races, their bonuses to certain skills, their tendency toward magic, their intelligence and their alignment giving me the impression of an industrious, well-ordered society with ample magic to back up their schemes.

Robert Blackletter
2010-09-03, 07:34 AM
The great Dwarfern Skald Rockhammer steps forward in steps forward to tell the saga of Dwarf 4


"Dwarf 4 Punched an orc so hard that he found gooey orc bits in his armour a week later" He intones to the many dwarfs present, they erupt into thunderous applause with one Dwarf actually crying to himself at the epic

The Elven bard, who had challenged Rockhammer to a duel of epic's smiled to his self, "I got this in the bag" he thought as he steps forward


"Our great hero, Dwarf 4, struck the terrible orc warlord, Generigash, with such might that the bones of the Earth itself shook with the force of the blow. Generigash screamed as his very core shattered, his flesh rent from his bones and his body lay motionless on the cold rock. They say that Dwarf 4 had to clean his armour for seven full days and nights before Generigash's terrible stench was cleaned away".

He Sang, as he finished he heard mutterings throughout the crowd

"bit wordy"
"Yeah, talks around the story with a bunch of meaningless jumble"
"who care about the orc name, there always another orc"
"no dwarf could strike a blow so shake the bones of the earth, what rubbish"

subject42
2010-09-03, 11:14 AM
I do think dwarves would emphasize their constitution in sports - maybe combined with other racial traits, lets say Forge Running: Running an underground route (with climbs and so on) carrying a small anvil on your back.

I figured that Dwarves would participate in sports that could be done in confined areas, rather than requiring long tracks. Graeco-Roman wrestling would be a good example of this, while still emphasizing their racial stability.

I don't know why, but I've always pictured Dwarves as playing jai-alai in pitch-black, cramped caverns. Any other race that tried to join in would end up whispering horror stories of the terrifying dwarven initiation rituals.

LibraryOgre
2010-09-03, 11:29 AM
I figured that Dwarves would participate in sports that could be done in confined areas, rather than requiring long tracks. Graeco-Roman wrestling would be a good example of this, while still emphasizing their racial stability.

One of my favorite fantasy series, The Guardians of the Flame by Joel Rosenberg, has dwarves giving a test that consisted of three main parts... debate (highly formalized), drinking, and wrestling.


I don't know why, but I've always pictured Dwarves as playing jai-alai in pitch-black, cramped caverns. Any other race that tried to join in would end up whispering horror stories of the terrifying dwarven initiation rituals.

That is awesome and frightening.

Lady Moreta
2010-09-04, 04:58 AM
I think you measure yourself against the ones near you. As in, a dwarven bard may have lower charisma than a human one - but he'd never know, because he'd be among dwarves.

However, in foreign relations it's quite likely that dwarves would have more problems than humans, being less adept at diplomacy.

Exactly. This just exemplifies the problem faced by anthropologists today. Do you examine a culture by comparing it with another (generally the one you're from) or do you examine it by comparing it with itself?

Anthropology (or Dwarfopology) is the study of understanding a culture in the context of that culture. It's trying to understand why a culture or group does things in one way and not another. Understanding how they see themselves and the world around them. It is extremely difficult to do this without some sort of reference to your own culture, which is why anthroplogists attempt to completely immerse themselves into the culture they're studying.

A dwarf bard has to be studied and understood without reference to the CHA of a human or elf or gnome bard. Perhaps a better way of putting it is to say that - to a dwarf, they don't have a -2 to charisma. As Acromos said, it would only become a '-2' when they left their own culture and ventured out into the world, which is probably why dwarves favour fighters or barbarians. They've learnt that according to the global culture, their diplomats and bards simply aren't as good as those humans are putting out there.