Races, Races everywhere, but man do I hate those guys!

[Lord Raziere]

And? they can just use the Weird archetype for truly alien aliens, problem solved.

the entire point of the race archetype system is flexibility in how it is used. want to have all your real aliens be Weird while the other seven are covered only by normal humans in your game? ok, do it, no restrictions on that. you want to ditch the Weird archetype in your game? ok, no restrictions on that.

but I'm not writing things specifically for your game.

I'm writing things to cover as much people as possible. what makes you think you get special treatment just because you protest that wouldn't be how it would be in your game? hmm? you want to modify things for your game, modify them, but don't come crying to me to change the foundation for everyone.

[Tanuki Tales]

And? they can just use the Weird archetype for truly alien aliens, problem solved.

You're missing the point entirely.

[Lord Raziere]

and your missing mine.

the Weird archetype is emphasis placed upon that alienness- just like a dwarf can be Intelligent or Tough, even if they are same kind of dwarf. one dwarf comes from a proud family of tinkerers and scholars, and therefore gets the Intelligent Archetype. The other is an orphan who labors for many years and learns how to fight, Tough Archetype.

now say we have a particularly weird player who wants to play a tyranid.

if he wants to be fighty, he chooses Tough. if he wants to be an even more alien tyranid than other tyranids, he chooses Weird. archetypes aren't straitjackets, all archetypes could be occupied by something completely alien to humanity if you want it to….but the Weird archetype alien makes those look relatable. if the "normal" aliens are all spidery beings who communicate through rapidly changing visual patters all along their body, the Weird alien is a super-intelligent shade of blue or a flying cube singing a wordless song.

it matters that its sufficiently different from the rest to be foreign. not how alien it is.

why are so eager to nail this down when this system will work best when I don't? better to make a good wide foundation and then let others make their own personal changes for their own purposes.

[Tanuki Tales]

and your missing mine.


No, I see your point, I just don't agree with it.

[Karkos]

Pretty much anything Tolkien-esque. Yeah, I said it!!!!!! :smallmad:

Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs have been beat into the ground then dug up and beat down ad nauseum. Elves are super pretty and really good at magic. Dwarves are Scottish stereotypes. Orcs are bigger and stronger than everyone else, but somehow just end up as fodder that die in droves (makes no sense).

Dark Sun atleast tried something a little different with their approach. I really appreciated it for that.

If I ran a game (highly doubtful at this point) Elves would be damn near extinct and run similar to the Skexxes in the Dark Crystal. Dwarves would be xenophobic isolationists that rarely left their mines/underground complexes. Orcs would be more respected for their strength and not all would be evil.

The concept of half-breed races I find ridiculous without some sort of high level magic being involved. I would let Half-Elves and Half-Orcs exist in my campaign, but they would be all sterile (like mules, tigons, ligers, etc). Am I supposed to believe a 20 ft+ tall giant raped a human woman without doing serious internal damage?

:smallconfused:

[hamishspence]

Half-giants in D&D aren't quite the same thing- being a magical creation, rather than the result of crossbreeding (Dark Sun).

Half-ogres are a bit problematic- but who says the ogre parent has to be male?

"They're all human undeneath, the differences are superficial" is a bit unimaginative, but could work.

Take a look at the many breeds of dog- and you could easily have ones that fit into each archetype:

Greyhound: Elf
Great Dane: Ogre
Bull Terrier: Orc
Rottweiler: Human
Dachshund: Dwarf
Chihuahua: Halfling

or whatever types you prefer.

[The Oni]

Am I supposed to believe a 20 ft+ tall giant raped a human woman without doing serious internal damage?



Maybe the woman was a high-level barbarian, survived with her epic CON rage and decided to keep the kid? :smalleek:

[hamishspence]

I liked OoTS's take on half-orcs:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html

[HalfTangible]

Pretty much anything Tolkien-esque. Yeah, I said it!!!!!! :smallmad:

Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs have been beat into the ground then dug up and beat down ad nauseum. Elves are super pretty and really good at magic. Dwarves are Scottish stereotypes. Orcs are bigger and stronger than everyone else, but somehow just end up as fodder that die in droves (makes no sense).

Dark Sun atleast tried something a little different with their approach. I really appreciated it for that.

If I ran a game (highly doubtful at this point) Elves would be damn near extinct and run similar to the Skexxes in the Dark Crystal. Dwarves would be xenophobic isolationists that rarely left their mines/underground complexes. Orcs would be more respected for their strength and not all would be evil.

The concept of half-breed races I find ridiculous without some sort of high level magic being involved. I would let Half-Elves and Half-Orcs exist in my campaign, but they would be all sterile (like mules, tigons, ligers, etc). Am I supposed to believe a 20 ft+ tall giant raped a human woman without doing serious internal damage?

:smallconfused:
A) it could've been consensual >.> rape doesn't have to be involved
B) ya know what they say: Size doesn't matter *winkwinknudgenudge*

[Frozen_Feet]

There is a mythological precedent for half-giants: in Viking folklore, I believe, it was considered a great feat of bravery and virility for a human man to woo and bed a lovely giant lady. (Presumably the men then fled like their tails were on fire to avoid paying child support.) I mean, that's how Rubeus Hagrid came to being.:smallwink:

In any case, no rape was involved. Get your minds off the gutter. Therkla would be ashamed of you.:smalltongue:

[Deffers]

Yeah, I happen to remember at least ONE campaign journal on here in which UMD featured HEAVILY in our narrator's character's backstory tryst with a giantess. Human Bards gonna be Human Bards.

So, I mean, let's be real here. Even Evil people can feel genuine love towards others. No need to be all over-the-top with biological differences, or even alignment ones.

[Karkos]

I find it strange that noone's commented on my making of the more common half-breed races sterile yet. I just don't like the idea of there being no species boundaries ala Shadowrun and The Elder Scrolls videogame franchise.

There would still be of course sorcerous bloodlines, tieflings, aasimars, etc because they came from a inherently magical parent, but the more mundane species still need boundaries.

[The Oni]

Also, the way I always understood it half-Orcs weren't really a "race" per se; they don't have a culture of their own. They either hang with humans (who distrust and mistreat them but use them for their strength) or Orcs (who distrust and mistreat them but use them for their intellect).

Now, you want a plot hook: how about a half-Orc version of Redcloak rallying half-Orcs everywhere to throw off their centuries of oppression by both races and overthrow a human kingdom? Possibly with the Moral Myopia bonus of using enslaved/dominated/deceived full-blood Orcs as shock troops?

[GenericGuy]

I don’t really have “half-races” in my setting, though most races can produce offspring with humans but the child will be either the mother’s or father’s race (more often than not the mother’s), it’s because humans are the proto-people from which all the humanoids descend (whether by natural selection or unnatural selection). And if you come across someone with a “monstrous” parent and human parent, 9 times out of 10 the father was the human.

Forgot to add my opinion to the OP.

Most DnD races are culturally customizable, so I don’t really hate any specific race as their traits can vary campaign to campaign, fiction to fiction. However I can’t stand the “oppressed race” whose there for us all to feel sorry for, the people who everyone hates and is constantly enslaved, so all players or writers can easily build a character who “rages against the man man” and is automatically “deep.”

[hamishspence]

Faerun's got at least one kingdom where orcs, half-orcs, and humans live together on relatively equal terms- Thesk.

[Karkos]

Also, the way I always understood it half-Orcs weren't really a "race" per se; they don't have a culture of their own. They either hang with humans (who distrust and mistreat them but use them for their strength) or Orcs (who distrust and mistreat them but use them for their intellect).

Now, you want a plot hook: how about a half-Orc version of Redcloak rallying half-Orcs everywhere to throw off their centuries of oppression by both races and overthrow a human kingdom? Possibly with the Moral Myopia bonus of using enslaved/dominated/deceived full-blood Orcs as shock troops?

Culture does not equal a race if they can still procreate.

If a half-orc marries a half-elf what do you get? A kid that's a 1/4 orc 1/4 elf and 1/2 human? Give me a break. Then we start getting PC backgrounds where he's human but had an orc great grandfather on his dad's side and an elf great great grandmother on his mom's side.

It's been a decade since I DM'ed a game, but those kind of backgrounds used to really piss me off. If you're a human just be a human and be proud!!!!!!!!!!

[Karkos]

Faerun's got at least one kingdom where orcs, half-orcs, and humans live together on relatively equal terms- Thesk.

Fine by me as long as the half-orcs are sterile. :smallsmile:

[The Oni]

Culture does not equal a race if they can still procreate.


Are blasians a race? They can in fact procreate.

I've only ever played one human character, but he was in fact quite human. The white hair strangling people was odd enough without also giving him eldritch heritages.

[Karkos]

I don’t really have “half-races” in my setting, though most races can produce offspring with humans but the child will be either the mother’s or father’s race (more often than not the mother’s), it’s because humans are the proto-people from which all the humanoids descend (whether by natural selection or unnatural selection). And if you come across someone with a “monstrous” parent and human parent, 9 times out of 10 the father was the human.

I would actually be ok with it in these circumstances.

But that would imply humans are the eldest race and D&D's evident hardon for Tolkien and the elves would scream heresy :smallbiggrin:

[Karkos]

Are blasians a race? They can in fact procreate.

I've only ever played one human character, but he was in fact quite human. The white hair strangling people was odd enough without also giving him eldritch heritages.

I meant to say species.

[GenericGuy]

I would actually be ok with it in these circumstances.

But that would imply humans are the eldest race and D&D's evident hardon for Tolkien and the elves would scream heresy :smallbiggrin:

And that is the exact word the Elves scream when this fact is discovered:smallamused:.

[hamishspence]

Races of Destiny's "The Broken Mold" myth had humans as the first race to come into being, yet the last to enter the world.

The gods make the first human, all contributing. Then they have a falling out over how the second human would be (each wanting to make it their way)- and accidentally break the mold.

They leave, and each try and recreate it themselves. Their own biases each colour their version of the mold, since none can remember it exactly. And thus are born the elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, and so on.

The first human, centuries later, finishes fixing the broken mold, and creates more humans. These enter the world.

[Karkos]

Races of Destiny's "The Broken Mold" myth had humans as the first race to come into being, yet the last to enter the world.

The gods make the first human, all contributing. Then they have a falling out over how the second human would be (each wanting to make it their way)- and accidentally break the mold.

They leave, and each try and recreate it themselves. Their own biases each colour their version of the mold, since none can remember it exactly. And thus are born the elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, and so on.

The first human, centuries later, finishes fixing the broken mold, and creates more humans. These enter the world.

Zarus would approve of that myth :smallwink:

[Segev]

I kind-of play with this in the goblin and orc societies I've written up before, but there's interesting potential in an orcish empire wherein the orcs are the upper class and humans are their abused slaves used for their intellect. But, being the smart ones, the humans basically run things and ARE in charge; they just have to be manipulative and clever to keep the orcs' abuse of their right to be physically abusive to a minimum and to keep the orcs reliant on human "advisors" all the time. But on the surface, and as far as the orcs can generally tell, the orcs are 100% in charge and humans are just slaves.

Half-orc/half-humans might be the ones who realize the horrible truth and are, as usual, torn between the worlds. Do they reveal that humans are manipulating orcs despite that manipulation being what keeps them from being horribly abused slaves as half-human? Do they work with the humans despite not being quite as clever and thus not able to stand up in the games of deep manipulation and politics?

[hamishspence]

Zarus would approve of that myth :smallwink:

There's others. The Tale of Clay is more popular: each god created a race, and they all met up. Each showed all the rest what theirs looked like by shaping the clay. Then they all went home.

The clay, awakened by the touch of them, came to life, and tried to choose a form. It ended up compromising, taking a bit of them all.

When the gods came back and saw it, they were impressed, decided to let it live, and created a mate for it- and thus were born the first humans.

The Book of Zarus has its own myth- which has him not created by any of the gods, but by the world. He created his own wife, was murdered by the wedding present the gods gave him (a drink of wine which he was honour-bound to drink) and the world elevated him to godhood on death - and his wife bore the human race.

[Tanuki Tales]

Ligers or Tigons (can't remember which) aren't always sterile, by the by.

[Frozen_Feet]

In general, the line between species is rather fuzzy, and taxonomy of organisms is rather more complex than fiction usually acknowledges. Weirder things than halfbreeds have existed.

[The Oni]

I kind-of play with this in the goblin and orc societies I've written up before, but there's interesting potential in an orcish empire wherein the orcs are the upper class and humans are their abused slaves used for their intellect. But, being the smart ones, the humans basically run things and ARE in charge; they just have to be manipulative and clever to keep the orcs' abuse of their right to be physically abusive to a minimum and to keep the orcs reliant on human "advisors" all the time. But on the surface, and as far as the orcs can generally tell, the orcs are 100% in charge and humans are just slaves.

Half-orc/half-humans might be the ones who realize the horrible truth and are, as usual, torn between the worlds. Do they reveal that humans are manipulating orcs despite that manipulation being what keeps them from being horribly abused slaves as half-human? Do they work with the humans despite not being quite as clever and thus not able to stand up in the games of deep manipulation and politics?

...Damn.

Write this up. Run this as a campaign. You can call it Kratocracy. If you don't, I will.

[AgentofHellfire]

...Damn.

Write this up. Run this as a campaign. You can call it Kratocracy. If you don't, I will.


Run it here!

If you do, I'll play it! :smallbiggrin:

[Mnemophage]

I dislike D&D3.something/Pathfinder's panoply of short races. Having a dwarven exemplar is all well and good, but having a Neapolitan arrangement of short guys causes no small amount of confusion as to who does what. Apart from their shortness and a bit of play in bodily dimensions, there is nothing to physically differentiate a halfling from a dwarf from a gnome. The adherence to the Tolkien ideal without paying attention to why the themes are there at all bothers me. In fact, the height thing at all seems to arise from wanting to play a particular character role - if I want a race that suits my imagined ideal of a mad scientist haphazardly jamming magic into machine into groundhog and then turning it on before bolting to the underground bunker, the gnome's shortness is more of an afterthought to its inventor role.

Not just that, but those themes can be exploited in ways that are different and distinct. Halflings, admittedly, bug me the most - gnomes have a mythological background and dwarves are, at this point, too ingrained to alter, but little differentiates a halfling from a human apart from their height and the fact that they were the main characters in the Lord of the Rings. They don't really have a role, at least not one that can't be filled with a human. You can't play either to or against type with a halfling, because there really isn't a type to begin with. They're just kind of there.

One of the things 4e got right was the rejiggering of their basic races. I find that it reflects to a greater degree the kinds of guys that people want to play. You got dragon guys and nature guys, perfect immortal angels and twisted smoldering devils, giant machines and giant giants, many flavors of elves... in short, it provided interesting and distinct choices without having to fuss around with monster class levels and level adjustments. It makes distilling from a hazy character idea easier. If I wanted to make a dog-guy in 4e, I find the Shifter race, customize a little, there we are. If I wanted to make one in 3.5...

[ShadowFighter15]

If I wanted to make a dog-guy in 4e, I find the Shifter race, customize a little, there we are. If I wanted to make one in 3.5...

... you'd probably use a customised shifter as well. They were in 3.5 as well, as were warforged (they and shifters first appeared in Eberron), Faerun had a half-dozen different kinds of elf... none of them had level adjustments or required fiddling with monster class levels. Maybe some monster feats for the shifter, depending on the character, but that's about it.

[Tanuki Tales]

Apart from their shortness and a bit of play in bodily dimensions, there is nothing to physically differentiate a halfling from a dwarf from a gnome.

Except for the fact that one of those three is not like the others. One of those three are medium-sized. :smallwink:

[scurv]

I hate any Mary sue race I have not read about before that someone sets down at a gaming table (regardless of who is dming) that seems like it was made for the intent of powwah gaming.

[Tanuki Tales]

I hate any Mary sue race I have not read about before that someone sets down at a gaming table (regardless of who is dming) that seems like it was made for the intent of powwah gaming.

For example...?

[HalfTangible]

For example...?

Half-dragon noble drow lich?

[Kish]

For example...?
Half-red dragon troll with a ring of acid resistance?

[JusticeZero]

They don't really have a role, at least not one that can't be filled with a human.If your argument for wanting to remove races is "because they can be filled with a human", then you will find yourself very quickly in a Human-Only game. There isn't a single core race that can't be swapped out with a human culture with only mild adjustments. You can swap the halflings for country dwelling humans. You can put humans in the mines crafting amazing blades. You can put a human civilization of druidically inclined humans in the deep forest, taming and maintaining the forest to support a great civilization of snooty artsy supremacists. You can put in humans with odd colored skin - blueish grey maybe - who are stereotyped as physically brutish descendants left over from a war against the "savage" Orak Horde of humans. The races are simply excessive, and they fill a set of tropes that we don't even bother to question anymore.

[hamishspence]

The races are simply excessive, and they fill a set of tropes that we don't even bother to question anymore.
Maybe we (and the D&D designers) should?

[JusticeZero]

Well, I do. But I have three playable "races" in my campaign at this point, and they are all human. One of them is aquatic, the other is small. I don't actually need the small one. I might put in a plant race at some point, given that there are a lot of plant or vermin based monsters.

[Acatalepsy]

Random thing: Do most people treat 'races' as if they were separate species, or as if they were a different ethnicity/tribal groups? I think it's often more interesting to assume something like the latter than the former; something that's an entirely different species is usually entirely inhuman in thought and action and only rarely interacts with the rest of human-like civilization in the same way a human would.

Also, it's entirely possible to blur the line of what a species is in the first place - take the example of, say, a ring species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species). If you're looking for a biological basis for the 'standard' fantasy race (and half-human / half-orc / half-whatever tropes ) you might conclude that "humanity" in the setting is actually a ring species, with humans more-or-less at the "center" of the spectrum.

[LibraryOgre]

Maybe we (and the D&D designers) should?

I think that happens a lot, and you get different games out of it. D&D usually has races-as-tropes; I can't think of any setting where that isn't true, even if the tropes are a bit different from world to world (comparing Dark Sun, Birthright, and Forgotten Realms Dwarves, for example, leads to a lot of similarities and a lot of differences).

Part of it stems from human tribalism... we tend to stereotype people of other groups, even if we recognize that individuals might differ from those stereotypes (or that our stereotypes are completely wrong and based on false premises). D&D tends to be that, writ large. Dwarves are like x. Elves are like y. Drow are all z.

Now, in D&D, this may have some basis in fact... orcs are, after all, the sentient blood of their overdeity, as are elves. Dwarves were shaped on Moradin's anvil, and that may not be a figurative statement. These facts create a social pressure within society... even if your elf isn't feeling especially like the spawn of Corellon right now, society around you says you are, and that Means Something. It means something to the priests who can have actual conversations with everyone's ultimate ancestor. It means something to the king whose blood is direct from Corellon's designated leader. And, unless he's psychotically unaffected by society, it means something to your elf, who, despite his own intentions and inclinations, grew up with a picture of what an elf should be.

D&D tropes races. I think, given many of the base assumptions of the universe, it would be hard for it not to.

[AgentofHellfire]

Part of it stems from human tribalism... we tend to stereotype people of other groups, even if we recognize that individuals might differ from those stereotypes (or that our stereotypes are completely wrong and based on false premises). D&D tends to be that, writ large. Dwarves are like x. Elves are like y. Drow are all z.



I actually don't even think it's about human attitudes towards other types of people, so much as it is Conservation of Detail--when someone is creating a race, they generally created it to fill a certain role in the story and to provide a certain brand of perspective and culture for the players. So undercutting the idea of the nature of the race being [X] is kind of difficult because it goes against the whole purpose of the race, and all the established lore.

[BWR]

I suppose I could throw a lot, perhaps most of the Star Wars and some Star Trek races in here. Mostly because, at least in the case of Star Wars, the writers who 'develop' the races beyond what we see in the movies base their entire culture around one incident seen.

In ROTJ we see two twi'leks: Bib Fortuna and Oola. So of course when they are expanded upon they basically become a race of slaves - males as butlers or equivalents and females as sexy dancing slaves. Some writers tried to fix this a bit, but in the end there isn't anything significant they can do. Jabba was not fooled by Luke which must be because the Hutts are immune to mind tricks and not because the Stormtroopers and Bib Fortuna were weak-minded while Jabba isn't. All Bith are musical because we saw a Bith band in the cantina in Mos Eisley. The list goes on. This also applies to human characteristics - Han, who is in later material said to be Corellian, tells 3PO to never tell him the odds, and suddenly derring-do and recklessness and whatnot are national characteristics of Corellia.
The list goes on. This is just amazingly lazy and unimaginative and poor worldbuilding.

In Star Trek, the Klingons that went from dangerous people to ridiculous space vikings. Or the Ferengi which went from being neo-Klingons-as-they-should-be to jokes.
The Vulcan's fundemental failure to graps logic has already been mentioned

[Acatalepsy]

I suppose I could throw a lot, perhaps most of the Star Wars and some Star Trek races in here. Mostly because, at least in the case of Star Wars, the writers who 'develop' the races beyond what we see in the movies base their entire culture around one incident seen.

Quoted for great truth.

Fantasy doesn't have this problem to the same degree, I think. I mean, yes there's always lazy worldbuilding, but even if you think of most fantasy as "Tolkien fanfic", there's enough of a common reference pool - in other fantasy, in mythology, etc - that it doesn't become incestuously self-referential in the same way.

[Tanuki Tales]

Half-dragon noble drow lich?


Half-red dragon troll with a ring of acid resistance?

Neither of those are races, they're simply individuals. And the latter is hardly a mary-sue/gary-stu with how sub-optimal it is.

[(Un)Inspired]

What's wrong with magitech? :smallconfused: Technology with a magical power source, I see no problem with that =/


Because it's so often unnecessary. Often magitech is just normal techology reskinned to fit in a world that has 80,000 years of culture but for some reason hasn't invented black powder, or the internal combustion engine.

It's like just because Tolkien was a Luddite anything that even whiffs of modernity is taboo to include in fantasy.

[Lord Raziere]

Ha, me I love magitech. and normal tech, and other kind of tech.

but I agree, the weird luddite technology taboo needs to die. more magitech settings pleeeease! and to really make it different from normal tech, we simply have to extrapolate from principles different from our own. and I think magic has principles different enough to do so.

but me, I'd get bored if only normal tech was allowed to be design and such, cause why limit ourselves to real world technology, when we can have fantasy technology?

but then again once you realize that technology is such a flexible concept that anything you make probably has a real world analogue, its kind of pointless NOT to make it a reskin, because its incredibly hard, probably not worth the effort and its better to have something relatable for people to latch onto.

oh well, one or the other. guess they both work.

[Lorsa]

Because it's so often unnecessary. Often magitech is just normal techology reskinned to fit in a world that has 80,000 years of culture but for some reason hasn't invented black powder, or the internal combustion engine.

It's like just because Tolkien was a Luddite anything that even whiffs of modernity is taboo to include in fantasy.

Did you ever think that maybe it's because black powder doesn't exist in the world and that thermodynamics work differently?

Personally, I don't like to see firearms or steam-powered trains in my generic fantasy worlds. That means I don't like magitech either although I can accept it a bit more than real tech. After all, once you have internal combustion engines, it's only a small step until you are at present day technology level and if I want that I'll just play a modern game.

[The Oni]

Magitech lets you do stuff that regular tech couldn't possibly do, like high-speed airships and clockwork golems with laserblades. But I agree, magitech guns are silly.

[Kalmageddon]

Magitech lets you do stuff that regular tech couldn't possibly do, like high-speed airships and clockwork golems with laserblades. But I agree, magitech guns are silly.

Why?
Using magic to make a gauss gun comes to mind. Or making a laser gun. Or a plasma gun. Or a black hole gun.
With magic all of these things are incredibly easy, if a bit expensive, maybe.

[Lord Raziere]

or a necrogun, or a lightning gun, or a happy gun. its shoots positive emotions, to mind control people with said positive emotions in a hypnotic manner. or a gun that shoots nightmares, or a gun that heals people, or even a gun that shoots ignorance, thus erasing knowledge and memory.

guess which one of these is outlawed by the fantasy governments? hint: its not the one shooting energy of pure death and decay.


Its the happy gun. mind control is far more dangerous than death.

[The Oni]

Black hole gun, won't you come, and wash away the reign. At any rate, magitech guns that can do that stuff are silly because they're just wands. I can shoot you with a black hole gun or I can point at you with my wand of Create Black Hole, it's exactly the same, I just look cooler when I draw the first one.

[Lord Raziere]

Well yeah, thats the point, why have a silly wavy-stick when you can have a GUN to shoot it instead?

that and wands are outdated tech, beginning stuff, requiring elaborate swishes and speaking certain words.

guns is pull trigger and bam you have it, more efficient.

[Kalmageddon]

Well yeah, thats the point, why have a silly wavy-stick when you can have a GUN to shoot it instead?

that and wands are outdated tech, beginning stuff, requiring elaborate swishes and speaking certain words.

guns is pull trigger and bam you have it, more efficient.

Exactly.
Magitech guns would be basically rechargeable wands that don't require the user to have knowledge of magic in order to operate them, instead requiring only a competence feat to aim properly, if that.

[TheCountAlucard]

Mind taking your discussion on awesome magitech guns elsewhere? We're trying to talk about racism and hate here. :smalltongue:

[LibraryOgre]

Mod Wonder: Temporary close while I move some posts to a new topic; we drifted a little.

[Kalmageddon]

Why was my first post in this thread moved?
It mentioned Asari at the beginning but everything else was pretty much on-topic, if I'm understanding the subject of this thread correctly.

[Acatalepsy]

...anyway, on the subject of purely fantasy races, I have no dislikes in particular; any of the 'stock' races can be done well, or poorly, and the difference lies primarily in creating interesting details, culture, etc - and tying everything together tightly.

As before, though, I tend to prefer a more "races as different ethnicity/tribe" sort of thing rather than being entirely different species.

[Wardog]

I don't like elves, especially Tolkien elves. The massive hypocrites, reading the Silmarilion they have screwed up in grander more destructive ways than the humans could ever accomplish and they have the gall to look down on us? Those that followed Tolkien's example tend to suffer the same problem.


Tolkien elves are at least justified in their attitudes. They are the first (non-angelic) beings created by Eru, and were created to fill the specific niche of epitomies of grace, beauty, and skill.

Physically, they are better than humans. Faster. More dexterous. Tougher. Near-immortal. Innately magical (for a given definition of "magical"). Not to mention more charming and (in certain fields) wiser/more intelligent. And the High Elves exceed that baseline as a result of spending time in Valinor, in the presence of and learning from the gods.

And of course, they have all the pride, arrogance and hubris that comes with that. When they screw up, they screw up harder than humans as well.


The big problem with a lot derivitive elves (IMO) is that people tend to view Tolkien's elves as too good/too powerful and so tone them down, but in doing so undermine the concepts that justified (or at least explained) typical elven behaviour and attitudes in the first place. Derivitive elves tend just to be agile skinny humans, who live longer than humans (despite being frailer), and are arrogant and isolationist for no obvious reason.

Reduced lifespans (i.e. less extreme longevity) are (IMO) one of the worst ways to make elves "better". Because a 300 year lifespan is not really fundamentally different from a 70-120 year lifespan. Sure, it will have important consequences for culture and attitude, but not in the absolutely overwhealming way that a 10000+ year one would (Galadriel's age in LotR).

It's the difference between "I saw the American Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars (but didn't take part because they didn't concern me)" and "I was there when humans first learnt to grow crops" or "I taught Gilgamesh how to build walls".


The other thing that seems to be forgotten when people make derivitive elves is that in Tolkien humans were also special creations of Eru - just intended for a different purpose.


****

One race concept that it think is bad (and has unfortunate implications) is the orc-varient that some official D&D came up with. I can't remember their name, but the basic idea was that they were descended from humans who were cursed to become orcs, as punishment for their sins. (Which isn't necessarily a bad concept). And they have a whole culture based around proving they are better than normal orcs. Which agian isn't necessaily a problem - except that a big part of this involves hating and despising normal orcs and thinking they are better than them.

Which if I was an orc I would think was quite insulting. "I'm an orc because my parents were orcs, as were theirs, all the way back to the begining. You are an orc because some of your ancestors sinned and were cursed by the gods - and that makes you better than me??"

[hamishspence]

One race concept that it think is bad (and has unfortunate implications) is the orc-varient that some official D&D came up with. I can't remember their name, but the basic idea was that they were descended from humans who were cursed to become orcs, as punishment for their sins. (Which isn't necessarily a bad concept). And they have a whole culture based around proving they are better than normal orcs. Which agian isn't necessaily a problem - except that a big part of this involves hating and despising normal orcs and thinking they are better than them.

Which if I was an orc I would think was quite insulting. "I'm an orc because my parents were orcs, as were theirs, all the way back to the begining. You are an orc because some of your ancestors sinned and were cursed by the gods - and that makes you better than me??"
That would be the Sharakim, in Races of Destiny.

[LibraryOgre]

Why was my first post in this thread moved?
It mentioned Asari at the beginning but everything else was pretty much on-topic, if I'm understanding the subject of this thread correctly.

The Mod Wonder: I was a bit rushed in moving things; sorry about that.

[The Oni]

Again, elves are really only annoying if they don't have obvious flaws, in the same way that Superman is boring when played straight.

[tasw]

Why?
Using magic to make a gauss gun comes to mind. Or making a laser gun. Or a plasma gun. Or a black hole gun.
With magic all of these things are incredibly easy, if a bit expensive, maybe.

My last magi-tech game a while back had soldiers from more advanced contries armed with wands that anyone could use, but they took a few rounds to recharge between uses. So what ended up happening was a lot more like pirate and revolutionary war era movies where they shoot once or twice and then everyone charges.

Kind of gave us the best of both worlds.

On topic I never liked the elf for every season, day of the week, phase of the moon, etc etc.

And giants were never properly done. Most giants in mythology are magical, elemental forces of evil. In D&D they're basically retarded cavemen.

[tasw]

Mind taking your discussion on awesome magitech guns elsewhere? We're trying to talk about racism and hate here. :smalltongue:

goblinoids are rendered to their proper place as slaves to the superior races of the world who have the technology and magical ability to create magi-tech.

Happy?

[Tanuki Tales]

...anyway, on the subject of purely fantasy races,.

This thread isn't about just fantasy though.

So I'm very confused why the Asari portion got moved. If it was on the grounds of not being fantasy...well...that's ridiculous because this isn't about just fantasy. It just happens most tabletop rpgs are of a fantasy slant. If it was moved on the basis that ME isn't a tabletop...well...then the new thread is in the wrong section.

[LibraryOgre]

This thread isn't about just fantasy though.

So I'm very confused why the Asari portion got moved. If it was on the grounds of not being fantasy...well...that's ridiculous because this isn't about just fantasy. It just happens most tabletop rpgs are of a fantasy slant. If it was moved on the basis that ME isn't a tabletop...well...then the new thread is in the wrong section.

The Mod Wonder: We were moving a bit beyond the thread and into its own.

[Piedmon_Sama]

One race concept that it think is bad (and has unfortunate implications) is the orc-varient that some official D&D came up with. I can't remember their name, but the basic idea was that they were descended from humans who were cursed to become orcs, as punishment for their sins. (Which isn't necessarily a bad concept). And they have a whole culture based around proving they are better than normal orcs. Which agian isn't necessaily a problem - except that a big part of this involves hating and despising normal orcs and thinking they are better than them.

Which if I was an orc I would think was quite insulting. "I'm an orc because my parents were orcs, as were theirs, all the way back to the begining. You are an orc because some of your ancestors sinned and were cursed by the gods - and that makes you better than me??"

Those guys are great though because they get +2 Str/-2 Dex due to having forgotten how to use their natural orc strength properly. They're not just prissy, etiquette-obssessed fuddy duddies, they're clumsy etiquette-obssessed fuddy duddies who are gonna drop their tea trays and dance like oxes at social parties.

[ShadowFighter15]

Might need to shift my post back to here out of the ME thread - it didn't add to the Asari discussion at all so it looks pretty off-topic in the ME Races thread now. It's post #8 in the ME Races thread.

[Tanuki Tales]

The Mod Wonder: We were moving a bit beyond the thread and into its own.

So it was moved because it was fleshing out from "Why we hate Asari" to "Why Asari are the way they are"?

Nevermind. Don't want to get smacked with a warning just for talking to a Mod.

[Segev]

Hm. The concept of "ring species" is new to me, but interesting, and does seem interesting on a "elf-human-orc" scale. I'd probably want to expand that a little further to get a larger "ring" that maybe closed at the far ends, but...


It does raise a question: Let's say the completed ring went "gnome-halfling-elf-human-orc-dwarf-gnome." Each can interbreed and make half-Xs with their nearest neighbors. (So half-elf/half-halflings are a thing, half-gnomes/half-halflings are a thing, half-gnomes/half-dwarves are a thing, half-dwarves/half-orcs are a thing, and of course we have the standard half-human/half-elves/orcs.)

In a traditional, real-world "ring species," what could half-elves (of the half-human variety) interbreed with?

Could they breed with half-halflings and half-orcs? Could they breed with halflings? With orcs?

[Acatalepsy]

In a traditional, real-world "ring species," what could half-elves (of the half-human variety) interbreed with?

The point of bringing up the concept a ring species is to point out that species isn't an atomic natural category. In a sexually reproducing species this tends to be the case, but it isn't always, and with several different closely related species things get more blurry.

For example, in the Asari thread someone brought up the New Mexico Whiptail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnemidophorus_neomexicanus), also known as the "lesbian lizard", which reproduces via parthenogenesis. You might wonder how such a species might evolve in the first place - and the answer is that it didn't. It's actually a hybrid of two other lizard species. Similarly, interspecific hybrids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interspecific_hybrid#Interspecific_hybrids) - from mules to zeedonks - are a thing.

For humans, of course, it's pretty clear-cut, but that's mostly because all of the species closely related to us are extinct. We're the only member of our genus that still exists, but there's some evidence to suggest that our ancestors could and did breed with, say, neanderthals.

But basically, there's no simple answer to the question. You'd have to assume that all members of the ring share the same number of chromosomes, but after that, it gets complicated, and you can more or less have it happen as you want. I imagine the farther you get away from "your" part of the ring, the lower the chance of fertility (or the greater the chance that the offspring will be fertile), but that there's a fair degree of randomness involved - but I'm not really a biologist so I might be just talking out of my ass here.

The point to keep in mind is that you don't create about categories like "orc/elf" or "human/elf", that it's all a sliding scale, a question of labels and categories. You could just as easily say that the "humans" are a hybrid of the "orc/humans" and "human/elves" as you could say that the "halfling/gnomes" are a hybrid of halflings and gnomes.


Nevermind. Don't want to get smacked with a warning just for talking to a Mod.

...I'm pretty sure the mods don't bite.

...pretty sure.

[hamishspence]

Similarly, interspecific hybrids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interspecific_hybrid#Interspecific_hybrids) - from mules to zeedonks - are a thing.


Even more distant hybrids than that (intergeneric, and interfamilial) exist- but these are exceptional.

[Tanuki Tales]

For humans, of course, it's pretty clear-cut, but that's mostly because all of the species closely related to us are extinct. We're the only member of our genus that still exists, but there's some evidence to suggest that our ancestors could and did breed with, say, neanderthals.

Interestingly enough, there's a school of thought that humanity has its differing flavors of "ethnicity" because, at some point in the not too distant past, we were beginning to evolve towards a ring species paradigm but a mass die-off forced us in the opposite direction.

[Segev]

I'm not sure a "mass die-off" would be necessary, even. It seems to me that any "ring species" that got mobile enough to to have immigrants from other areas settle in would eventually be able to inter-breed.

Pretend, for a moment, that humanity DID manage to be a ring species with the identifiable ethnicities as the sub-sets. Let's just use physical location around the globe to create the chain, so you wind up with "asian-polynesian-amerindian-european-african-indian-asian" (just tossing some on a list here, not making any claims as to this being genuinely complete).

The Europeans come to America, and start having hybrid kids with the amerindians. The asians settle in America, and also have hybrid kids. The Africans come here and have kids with europeans. Give it a few generations, and you're likely going to have enough mixture that the africans and the asians are having viable offspring more often, just because there's enough amerindian in their ancestry from pairings with europeans.

I mean, we have a lot of "black" people who have distinctly "white" ancestry, and vice-versa, in the USA. But without a family tree, you probably wouldn't know it.

(Please let's not get into a discussion of race relations; this is purely using humans and the settling patterns of immigration that could make the mixed-society out of what was once ring-separated to illustrate an example.)

[Narren]

Tolkien elves are at least justified in their attitudes. They are the first (non-angelic) beings created by Eru, and were created to fill the specific niche of epitomies of grace, beauty, and skill.

Physically, they are better than humans. Faster. More dexterous. Tougher. Near-immortal. Innately magical (for a given definition of "magical"). Not to mention more charming and (in certain fields) wiser/more intelligent. And the High Elves exceed that baseline as a result of spending time in Valinor, in the presence of and learning from the gods.

And of course, they have all the pride, arrogance and hubris that comes with that. When they screw up, they screw up harder than humans as well.


The big problem with a lot derivitive elves (IMO) is that people tend to view Tolkien's elves as too good/too powerful and so tone them down, but in doing so undermine the concepts that justified (or at least explained) typical elven behaviour and attitudes in the first place. Derivitive elves tend just to be agile skinny humans, who live longer than humans (despite being frailer), and are arrogant and isolationist for no obvious reason.

Reduced lifespans (i.e. less extreme longevity) are (IMO) one of the worst ways to make elves "better". Because a 300 year lifespan is not really fundamentally different from a 70-120 year lifespan. Sure, it will have important consequences for culture and attitude, but not in the absolutely overwhealming way that a 10000+ year one would (Galadriel's age in LotR).

It's the difference between "I saw the American Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars (but didn't take part because they didn't concern me)" and "I was there when humans first learnt to grow crops" or "I taught Gilgamesh how to build walls".


The other thing that seems to be forgotten when people make derivitive elves is that in Tolkien humans were also special creations of Eru - just intended for a different purpose.


I actually never liked such ridiculously long life spans for any fictional race. A being that has existed for 10,000 years is going to have such an alien outlook on life and existence that I can't accept any authors portrayal of them. I just feel like they would think in a manner that is literally unimaginable to any human.

[Tanuki Tales]

I'm not sure a "mass die-off" would be necessary, even.

I wasn't saying it was necessary, just what I remember the school of thought attributing to humanity not becoming a ring species with several sub-sets.

[The Oni]

I actually never liked such ridiculously long life spans for any fictional race. A being that has existed for 10,000 years is going to have such an alien outlook on life and existence that I can't accept any authors portrayal of them. I just feel like they would think in a manner that is literally unimaginable to any human.

10,000 is pretty crazy, I agree, but D&D/Pathfinder's elves tend to top out at 1000. Which still leads to a very strange difference in outlook, but it's not all that hard to imagine. Have you ever just ignored a problem you had with a classmate or a fellow employee because you were gonna be gone in a few days anyway and not have to deal with them again? The Elves think that way a lot. Outliving a problem is a valid solution for them.

The interesting thing there is when you meet an old Elf (insofar as he can be called Old, he's still fresher-looking and prettier than we lowly mortals will ever be), he doesn't just have the cultural mores of another generation, but another age. It's the difference between your granddad being a bit racist to the cashier at the Walgreens down the street, and challenging him to swords and pistols at high noon.

[Tanuki Tales]

Speaking of Pathfinder Elves and Half-breeds in general, I always found Pathfinder Half-Elves to be an odd duck. You could approach the half-breed concept for humans, dwarves, halflings, orcs, etc. being sub-sets of the same greater species, but Elves are explicitly aliens in Pathfinder.

In that they literally came from another planet and ended up stranded there way back when with everyone else.

[The Oni]

I'd guess they just happen to be humanoid enough? It's not odd for a race to be created or altered by gods in Pathfinder.

I for one don't play half-Elves, solely because it's problematic to include a race like that and not, say, half-Dwarves, half-Gnomes, etc.

[Segev]

Typically, even when they're not depicted as being "up to date" on all aspects of the modern age, long-lived races in fiction have kept up admirably. Far better than real world human "old geezers" tend to.

In fantasy and even certain sci-fi, this is largely unnoticeable because such settings seem perpetually frozen in stasis, culturally and technologically speaking. (Seriously, unless you go back to "the ancient civilization that was dust before the oldest elf was born" or "dinosaur times," you generally have medieval fantasy tech and magic and culture that has stayed relatively constant for hundreds or thousands of years. An elf who is a few hundred years old hasn't SEEN cultural shifts the likes of which our grandparents have. Heck, the likes of which some of us have in our rather shorter lives! Reminding myself how the world has changed just since the advent of the modern incarnation of the internet is fairly remarkable, to me. I tend to think of a lack of cell phones and having to go knock on your friends' doors to see if they can play as consequences of being a child and not having privileges; in truth, they were consequences of technology of my childhood.)

But it would be interesting to see immortals in a modern-ish setting, with the rapidly-shifting societies of a real world, depicted. Heck, it'd be interesting to examine how and even if cultures run by such individuals would evolve. If George Washington had been a middle-aged elf when he was a middle-aged man, he would likely still be around today; how would a world in which 1/3 to 1/2 our founding fathers were still around differ?

I don't mean "Founding Fathers would turn over in their graves yadda yadda." I mean it less rhetorically: if George Washington had not just won the Revolutionary War, but also led armies in the Civil War and advised the US during the two World Wars and was only now starting to get laugh-lines around his eyes, how would America be different? How would we view this living legend who is still living, from the foundation of this land? How well would he have adapted to modern social shifts? How much would we have shifted? Would the fact that we'd still have hefty segments of the population that have Puritan mores mean we would not have as much change in our perception of what is socially acceptable (let alone morally upright)?

Again, I'm not decrying anything here: I'm curious; how would the presence of long-lived/ancient ancestors change the pace at which cultures advance? How badly would they be left behind, and how would we deal with them if they were?

[Tanuki Tales]

I can't say for George Washington, but I know that Benjamin Franklin would hit the ground running, would adapt splendidly and America would be a better place (at least scientifically) for it. The man was a veritable genius and incredibly ahead of his time and I'd see him viewing the modern world with a sense of wonder as it marched on.

[The Oni]

I actually had a theory on that. Looking at PF's official timeline, society does seem like it's advanced a lot slower than it does in real life - and it may be the stabilizing influence of elves and dwarves (and maybe wizards playing with life-extension magics) that causes it.

[Tanuki Tales]

I actually had a theory on that. Looking at PF's official timeline, society does seem like it's advanced a lot slower than it does in real life - and it may be the stabilizing influence of elves and dwarves (and maybe wizards playing with life-extension magics) that causes it.

Which makes perfect sense.

A lot of our advancement can be attributed to a mix of curiosity, a sense of our own mortality and a desire to make the world a better place (or leave our mark) before we're on our way out.

If you couple a lack of urgency because of a ridiculously long lifespan with a manipulation of magical force that renders most forms of innovation a pointless exercise, then it only makes sense for a cultural and scientific stagnation or stasis to come about.

[Acatalepsy]

A lot of our advancement can be attributed to a mix of curiosity, a sense of our own mortality and a desire to make the world a better place (or leave our mark) before we're on our way out.

I doubt it. Most people don't think about their own mortality, especially not for the most productive (innovation-wise) years of their life. For your average twenty year old, death at 800 seems as far away as death at 80.


If you couple a lack of urgency because of a ridiculously long lifespan with a manipulation of magical force that renders most forms of innovation a pointless exercise, then it only makes sense for a cultural and scientific stagnation or stasis to come about.

The long lifespan seems more relevant for institutional reform than anything else; a lot of the times institutions and values only change when the old guys are dead. You could end up in a situation where you're perpetually failing to innovate for cultural reasons (centralized control, failure to consider economic activity valuable, material advancement disparaged), and that gets stuck, but that can happen perfectly well sans long life span.

One could argue that long lifespan entails relatively little political turmoil, as competent rulers are not replaced by their incompetent offspring as frequently, and that little political turmoil means less reason to innovate. That strikes me as reasonably plausible.

[PersonMan]

One thing to mention, though, is that although the old competent people will be around longer, so will the old, incompetent ones who got their position through politics or similar. Rising stars will quickly hit a ceiling where every position higher than X is filled with the old guy who's had it for 200+ years and has a successor worked out to replace them already. I can imagine that the more successful elven nations would have methods to remove an incompetent ruler from the throne. A terrible human ruler might bankrupt the nation during their rule by spending everything on their extravagant life, but a terrible elven ruler could tear a nation to pieces doing the same thing for 500 years. So their culture may be more open to forcibly removing rulers - either by death or simply kicking them out of their position.

There could almost be a sort of age-tier-based culture, where the young elves have their more innovative sub-culture but more or less no influence in politics and the like. As they 'mature' out of this 'youthful foolishness' and accept the Old Ways, they can begin to move up in society but need to leave the new things from their youth behind. The idea would be that the difference between elves and the younger races was all in age. So, until one reaches an age of 100 or older, they consider you a child (and potentially worse, if they have a low opinion of non-elves).

Then there's the culture of reproduction. In a place where everyone lives 800+ years, having large families will quickly result in overpopulation. So the difference between 'expansionist, aggressive elven empire who takes all the land they can get and fills it with settlers' and 'peaceful elven kingdom that seeks peace' could be in how large the families are.

[Segev]

Then there's the culture of reproduction. In a place where everyone lives 800+ years, having large families will quickly result in overpopulation. So the difference between 'expansionist, aggressive elven empire who takes all the land they can get and fills it with settlers' and 'peaceful elven kingdom that seeks peace' could be in how large the families are.

Actually... and I'm unfortunately away from the computer with the references on it (but I'll try to dig them up later to share)... there have been some studies of population and food availability done as early as the 1970s that hint that "overpopulation" isn't a thing. That as populations rise, availability of resources (due in no small part to many resources being limited by the manpower to produce them rather than actual scarcity of material) rises even faster. (Particularly wrt food, where the population of food-producing objects would follow the same sort of population-increase model as the humans that manage them.)

Now, whether you agree with this or not - I really am not trying to start a politics-of-science debate here - you can use this counter-concept to write interesting fictional settings and cultures. If higher population due to staying "young" and fertile for longer and living longer is a thing, it is possible that you might actually have less scarcity as more resources are produced relative to the population as the population increases.

This gets particularly true when we talk about a race whose favored class is Wizard. ^_~

I like this concept of "tiers" of society based on age-based cultures. I think you'd see slow adaptation to the "new ways" of the "youth culture" just like we do in real life. I'm not sure how the strata would differ, actually, from real world ones, thinking about it. Just slower.

Upper strata likely WOULD adopt the technological advances...yes, they'd be around longer to remain "behind the times," but I suspect they'd still pick it up.

The cultural shifts - particularly in things like "what is moral" and what isn't - would be more interesting. Would the longer time as "adults" mean that we see a lot MORE youth-culture-strife, or that we see the young more commonly accept the traditional culture before they get into a position to change it?

[Tanuki Tales]

I doubt it. Most people don't think about their own mortality, especially not for the most productive (innovation-wise) years of their life. For your average twenty year old, death at 800 seems as far away as death at 80.

Sorry, I meant an innate and subconscious sense, not a fully conscious and active one.




The long lifespan seems more relevant for institutional reform than anything else; a lot of the times institutions and values only change when the old guys are dead. You could end up in a situation where you're perpetually failing to innovate for cultural reasons (centralized control, failure to consider economic activity valuable, material advancement disparaged), and that gets stuck, but that can happen perfectly well sans long life span.

One could argue that long lifespan entails relatively little political turmoil, as competent rulers are not replaced by their incompetent offspring as frequently, and that little political turmoil means less reason to innovate. That strikes me as reasonably plausible.

And that is counter to "society stagnates because magic is better than technology" how exactly?

[Frozen_Feet]

Your point about magic is a bit iffy. "Magic" is a hollow word that can mean pretty much anything an author decides. You can't make sweeping statements about what magic does or doesn't do, because it varies between settings.

Case in point, in D&D spells are technology, and Wizards are implied to be empirical scientists or at least pseudoscientists. Innovation in magic is their driving force, so the social stagnation you propose wouldn't happen. Or rather, whem it'd happen the setting would already be one of Star Trek, Tippyverse or Praedor.

More important than existence of magic or longevity, would be status of philosophy and especially presence or lack of a scientific method. A conservative society without such method could stick to few, low-tech (including low magic) true&tried methods for centuries. Case in point, some isolated human communities which are in balance with their environment have done just that. Such cultures are simply highly vulnerabld to eradication if encountered by more progressive conqueror culture.

Also, old ape is no guarantee of wisdom. No creature will advance further than its abilities allow. The oldest living things at the moment are bacteria and trees.:smallwink:

[Tanuki Tales]

Your point about magic is a bit iffy. "Magic" is a hollow word that can mean pretty much anything an author decides. You can't make sweeping statements about what magic does or doesn't do, because it varies between settings.

Case in point, in D&D spells are technology, and Wizards are implied to be empirical scientists or at least pseudoscientists. Innovation in magic is their driving force, so the social stagnation you propose wouldn't happen. Or rather, whem it'd happen the setting would already be one of Star Trek, Tippyverse or Praedor.


I fail to see how any of that refutes what I said, when I specifically said that a setting suffused with magic would have little to no reason to follow our world's scientific trends with actual technology. You don't need a car when you can cast overland flight, you don't need a gun when you can cast magic missile and you don't need chemotherapy when you have a direct connection to the Goddess of Mercy and Healing.

And I have no clue why you're arbitrarily calling magic "technology" and wizards "scientists". Especially since, if you were going that route, it would make more sense to call wizards "engineers".

Yes, a Tippyverse would ideally be the end result of a magic heavy setting and you would be getting into Agatha Heterodyne's Third Law, but many stagnated medieval fantasy settings have a pronounced presence of magic. Correlation is not necessarily causation, but you don't re-invent the wheel when you can tell reality to sit down and shut up with your mind alone.

Edit:

Though I believe we should probably drop this line of discussion, since Mark already closed the thread and made a whole new one the last time the conversation drifted like this.

[Scow2]

Your point about magic is a bit iffy. "Magic" is a hollow word that can mean pretty much anything an author decides. You can't make sweeping statements about what magic does or doesn't do, because it varies between settings.

Case in point, in D&D spells are technology, and Wizards are implied to be empirical scientists or at least pseudoscientists. Innovation in magic is their driving force, so the social stagnation you propose wouldn't happen. Or rather, whem it'd happen the setting would already be one of Star Trek, Tippyverse or Praedor.Pseudoscientists maybe... but only because of the oversimplification-for-the-sake-of-gameplay that D&D uses.

Of course, while new technology is harder to distribute and spread in a world with long-lived races, it probably actually advances faster... especially if the inventors and innovators communicate. Imagine having Thomas Edison, Nikolai Tesla, Bill Gates, Eli Whitney, Leonardo, Lisa Meitner, and far more all competing with each other to keep invention coming, while Neil Degrasse Tyson, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Carl Sagan, Stephan Hawking, Benjamin Franklin, and Edmund Halley making scientific correspondences, with many of them having corresponded with Archimedes and others from even further back in history.

[Frozen_Feet]

What's arbitrary is making a distinction between "actual" and "magical" tech, when the latter is just fictional tech. Any setting where magic is rule-bound and subject to research turns into sci-fi if taken to its logical conclusions.

Technology doesn't need to progress in the same tracks as in our world to count. If magical innovation happens, a society isn't stagnant.

I call wizards scientists in context of D&D, because that's what they're made to be (though engineer fits just as well, you are right). They research, make theories, put said theories to test, write them into books, share notes with other wizards etc. Their primary ability is intelligence, so their methodology is implied to primarily rely on logic and data analysis.

What is being studied here isn't important, it's how. Scientist of magic is still a scientist.

By contrast, there are settings where wizards are either crackpots or mystics, relying more on innate abilities, supernatural contracts or unshareable personal revelations. Case in point, Harry Potter. These kinds of magic-users do exist in D&D as well, but they are not called wizards.

[Tanuki Tales]

I'm not continuing this line of discussion because it is off-topic and we've already had a Mod have to step in and deal with such behavior once.

[Segev]

I'm not continuing this line of discussion because it is off-topic and we've already had a Mod have to step in and deal with such behavior once.

I made a new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16237911#post16237911) for this topic.

[Tanuki Tales]

So, I hear that Tinker Gnomes and Gully Dwarves get nearly as much hate as Kender. Can anyone enlighten to me as why?

[Jay R]

Evidently, a lot of people really hate certain races. But these races were primarily invented for your characters to face in combat. Isn't the hate a feature, rather than a bug?

[Tanuki Tales]

Evidently, a lot of people really hate certain races. But these races were primarily invented for your characters to face in combat. Isn't the hate a feature, rather than a bug?

I think this is more because we've had mostly examples from DnD derivatives or other systems that are more combat heavy than anything else. And as countless threads have discussed: some view a system's inability to sufficiently do much other than combat as a bug.

[Segev]

So, I hear that Tinker Gnomes and Gully Dwarves get nearly as much hate as Kender. Can anyone enlighten to me as why?

Each is a race primarily defined by a highly irritating and sometimes dangerous trait, and at least a plurality of the time is expected to be "excused" in their annoying, cruel, or hazardous behavior because it is something they "can't help" because their race is "just like that."

Where a goblin whose race is "just like that" will attack and pillage and be treated like a verminous monster, a kender whose race is "just like that" who steals and then lies about it is expected to be treated like a mildly annoying little brother.

Gully Dwarves are rock-stupid and rude and crude and tend to get into antics that make Jar-Jar Binks seem like a tactical genius.

Tinker Gnomes make highly volatile and dangerous inventions of dubious utility and refuse to take safety precautions and even insist that others "try them out."

These behaviors are every bit as irritating to dangerous as anything goblins or kobolds get up to; people - as players - hate these races because they are expected NOT to treat these races as if they were as odious to be around as were goblins.

[Lord Raziere]

So, I hear that Tinker Gnomes and Gully Dwarves get nearly as much hate as Kender. Can anyone enlighten to me as why?

Because according to them, Dragonlance is basically the most horribly cliched setting of stupid wee folk, badly written for an attempt at comic relief? on top of all the other stupidity? at least to those peoples viewpoints?

[Tanuki Tales]

Raziere brings up an interesting point: Does Dragonlance have a higher amount of races that people hate compared to other settings?

[Karkos]

Each is a race primarily defined by a highly irritating and sometimes dangerous trait, and at least a plurality of the time is expected to be "excused" in their annoying, cruel, or hazardous behavior because it is something they "can't help" because their race is "just like that."

Where a goblin whose race is "just like that" will attack and pillage and be treated like a verminous monster, a kender whose race is "just like that" who steals and then lies about it is expected to be treated like a mildly annoying little brother.

Gully Dwarves are rock-stupid and rude and crude and tend to get into antics that make Jar-Jar Binks seem like a tactical genius.

Tinker Gnomes make highly volatile and dangerous inventions of dubious utility and refuse to take safety precautions and even insist that others "try them out."

These behaviors are every bit as irritating to dangerous as anything goblins or kobolds get up to; people - as players - hate these races because they are expected NOT to treat these races as if they were as odious to be around as were goblins.


Interesting. I never thought about it that way.

Raziere brings up a good point about Dragonlance (though I've never played a DL campaign). I always wondered how Kendermore (I think that's the name of the Kender city) managed to function. It seems like it would fall apart from all the "borrowing" going on.

EDIT: Are Kender and Halflings supposed to be the same thing?

[Segev]

Kender and halflings are different, but 3.5 borrowed a lot from kender in look and attitude (though not their kleptomania and more alien mindset characteristics) for halflings.

I imagine that the Kender work as a functioning society because they truly do not have a concept of ownership amongst themselves. They are alien to our own mindsets in that way. And if they need something but can't find it, they just ask around and somebody will tell them where to find one. They'll go "borrow" it (maybe even if it's their own), and voila: all's fine with the world. When they can't find something either where they left it or to "borrow," they do what we do when we can't find something we've misplaced.

It works as long as you have the alien thought processes of the kender. Most beings don't.

[oudeis]

Everything about Dragonlance was nauseatingly cliched and twee but I have a special hate for the small races. Reading the sourcebook material on them was almost physically painful. I hated them so much that if I had ever gotten the chance to run a Planescape campaign one of the first NPCs the players would have encountered- in a tavern, of course- would have been a drunken Krynnish minotaur named Molog, who had an enormous mithril-bound ebony maul he called 'Splat' resting upright next to his chair. He had fled Krynn after killing all the kender and all but a handful of the gully dwarves and tinker gnomes and was the most wanted being on his world. He was also somewhat dumb, and referred to the races collectively as 'smidgies'. When he was drunk, which was all the time, he would frequently mutter "Molog splat-splat smidgies", and if he saw a dwarf or hobbit he would leap up, howl "KILL SMIDGIES!!" and attack in a berserk fury (he would have stopped as soon as he realized the character was actually one of the perfectly acceptable regular races). Ah, what could have been...

[tasw]

Raziere brings up an interesting point: Does Dragonlance have a higher amount of races that people hate compared to other settings?

Other then the million billion varieties of elf I cant think of any setting off hand with more races that drive people nuts.

I'm not a fan of the Eberron races as PC's personally but no where near to the level that people reach when you bring up kender or gully dwarves.

It probably didnt help that the actual novels were pretty cliched and childish either.