Marriage in long lived races and demi-humans?

[bookkeeping guy]

So some of the ad&d another sources I looked at seemed to be writing the idea in that the longer a demi-human or other race lived the less they believed in marriage. They seemed to be pushing the idea that they would switch off and change partners every 30 years or so, modified by how long the average member of its race lived.


I confess that bothered me a lot.


I had always been thinking it was the opposite. That their living longer meant they understood life was fragile and that because of it they would cooperate more in stable focused security systems that were permanent.

I'm curious what others would have to say about this.

Technically its not going to change the game stats much but it could alter people's perceptions of what the game world is like.

What do you think?

[Knitifine]

A quick glance at divorce statistics show that monogamous couples are most likely to experience divorce during the first 10 years.
With only this knowledge, I would say it's probably likely that a couple that's been together for a decade would stay together regardless of their life times, baring significant events that could change the worldviews of a good portion of the population (and may strike one partner but not the other, introducing a new conflict that might be divorce worthy).

My advice would be to have fun with your options. There's no reason that different types of unions would be held by different groups.
I remember in my homebrew setting it was a general rule that elves had two partners, while humans preferred one, and beastfolk saw no clear line between friends and lovers, thus they had no unions.

Probably more than long lives, you'll have to ask yourselves what kind of society the people live in. Various types of unions have been seen throughout human history, and you're certainly not limited to that when you go into the realm of fantasy.

Just be sure to clear with your players the customs of their people, so they don't become surprised when they're expected to have both a husband and a wife.

Good luck!

[Chronikoce]

In my opinion it would depend greatly on the culture's interaction with other races.

For example, if there is a very long lived race that frequently interacts amicably with short lived races then I could see them not placing as much emphasis on the idea of marriage. They might value true friendships even more because they know that such a relationship is necessarily fleeting when compared to their whole lives.

The idea of marriage and committing yourself to a single person almost seems disingenuous when you know that the other person will die in a fraction of your lifespan. Furthermore the regular frequency at which those they meet die compared to their total lifespan could lead them to avoid forming the type of deep relationship that leads to marriage simply to prevent the inevitable heart ache that will accompany their death.

On the other hand a long lived race that doesn't interact with short lived races could easily have the idea of marriage in their culture. The commitment would be even more impressive because both spouses may live hundreds or more years. I could see a person who grew up in such a culture being able to form a bond with a member of the short lived race and making the commitment of marriage even with the knowledge that their loved one will die.

[weckar]

I don't personally think other cultures - let alone races - would necessarily invent the concept of marriage at all, or at least not in any form we would recognise it in.

For better or for worse, the development of marriage for us as humans was intrinsicly linked to the maintaining and tranferance of property. If your culture/race is nomadic or communal when it comes to such things the development of marriage is even less likely.

[Sarethus]

Why would other races have only one form of marriage?

There was a fantasy / Sci-fi series I remember where one race had 7 types of marriage.

Of those 7 only 3 or so were regarded as permanent but all were regarded as 'True' marriages in regards to children, inheritance etc. Although a few might have individual aspects explicitly spelled out in a contract.

Some even had a time frame specified. For instance the protagonist of the series due to family pressure got married (to a good friend but whom she was not in love with) for a set period of three years (and told her family that was as far as she would go) after which the marriage would automatically dissolve without them having to do anything.

Then there was the Patryn marriage ceremony from the Death Gate Cycle series.

They had a normal one where it was a normal/ceremony marriage thing.

And

They had one where they magically linked the couple together to the point they could telepathically speak / sense each other and could only be broken by death.

[Cwymbran-San]

R.A. Salvatore has brought up the theory that the longer living races, in his case elves, need to separate their lives into fractions, so they will not go mad from the experience of hundreds of years (a discipline the drow seem to lack, thus they are more prone to madness).

I find it completely reasonable that an elf/dwarf/whateverraceyouwish could commit him/herself entirely to a single being, even if their respective lifespans differ. As soon as one partner dies, the survivor goes through a period of mourning from which he/she emerges as a new person - the next fraction of life has begun.

And elves, especially in irish mythology, have developed the "paths" for this exact reason - to cope with hundreds of years of memories, good and bad.

edited for typos

[Fizban]

Simple disease, famine, and territorial agression (internal or external) will kill people off regardless of listed maximum age. If the goblins that breed ten times as fast as an elf manage to kill an elf, you'd better believe that elf's widow will need to find a new mate pronto if they want any chance of keeping their species from going extinct.

[One Step Two]

There was a pair of novels by Peter F Hamilton called the Commonwealth Saga, in which scientists having mastered the human genome have allowed humans to functionally live forever.
What people in that series did was form Marriage Contracts with one another (and others as the case may be), in which detailed what both parties expected from a marriage, for each participant, and how it could be ended amicably.

That example might be more prevalent in a Lawful society, whereas more chaotic or natural beings such as elves may see such relationships being like the seasons themselves. Each starting as a Spring of new wonder, but in the end Winter may come, but that does not mean sadness, merely renewal, whether with each other, or someone else entirely. There'd be no inherent malice in such an ending, being so long-lived means they have already come to terms of how such relationships work, some endings may be bitter, but others are equally as sweet.

[J-H]

Marriage in some form is pretty much a constant through human history. Part of it's for faith and religious reasons, but part of it is usually also because procreation and inheritance is important, and very few people want to leave their legacy to children who aren't theirs - unless they are deliberately choosing to adopt.

The second half of that reason may bear less relevance for a long-lived society; on the other hand, children are a joy, and having a stable environment to raise them in may be perceived as more important.

I would expect more caution when entering into relationships and marriage. There's plenty of research showing the damage wrought by promiscuity (including decreasing the very ability to pairbond chemically and stay married), so casual "slept with a human and made a half-elf, oops" seems less likely. If I wanted to depict this in a game setting, I would steal heavily from the Minbari in Babylon 5. They're space elves anyway - but they have a whole series of traditions before getting married that help the man and woman determine if they are really compatible and a good choice.
I'd also expect more family involvement, since a marriage alliance and the in-law relationship lasts hundreds of years instead of decades.

[weckar]

There's plenty of research showing the damage wrought by promiscuity (including decreasing the very ability to pairbond chemically and stay married), so casual "slept with a human and made a half-elf, oops" seems less likely. The same argument could easily be reversed by not calling it "damage" but "experience", making marriage less likely de facto. I don't believe that for all races and cultures marriage would be inherently desired, so in that case it would not be "damage".

[Name1]

Demi-Humans might marry, but the longer they life, the lower is their ability to spawn more of their kind (if it weren't, they would already rule the world), so it stands to reason that if one becomes available to breed, they breed to spawn more asap.

[Segev]

I don't personally think other cultures - let alone races - would necessarily invent the concept of marriage at all, or at least not in any form we would recognise it in.

For better or for worse, the development of marriage for us as humans was intrinsicly linked to the maintaining and tranferance of property. If your culture/race is nomadic or communal when it comes to such things the development of marriage is even less likely.

Er, actually... there are animal species which mate for life in unions that are REMARKABLY marriage-like. Penguins come to mind as prime examples, with their elaborate wooing rituals that even include giving gifts whose acceptance or refusal signal the start (or not) of the life-long mate-pairing much the way human wedding vows do.

[2D8HP]

For humans IRL it's rare for "in love" to last more than a decade, but shared memories are often a basis of a lifelong commitment.
For D&D, I imagine "Lawful" Dwarves as having strict "pair-bonds" (beard bonds?), see here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0084.html), and I imagine that the "Chaotic" Elves would be more......fluid.

:durkon::
As faithful as an Elf!
Dwavish insult

:vaarsuvius:
As open-minded as a Dwarf.
Elvish response

:durkon: & :vaarsuvius:
As patient as a human

[Segev]

For humans IRL it's rare for "in love" to last more than a decade, but shared memories are often a basis of a lifelong commitment.

I have no idea how that's measured statistically. I can state that my own parents were very much in love; Mom is still devastated, not merely aching. She's picking things up because she has to, but... well. I probably shouldn't go into too much detail. But their date nights are especially hard, now. They had them every week. They were married for 42 years.

[2D8HP]

. I can state that my own parents were very much in love;.I was making a distinction between "in love" (Romantic love as insanity, "butterflies" etc.) which usually doesn't last and love as attachment

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060120_lovefrm.htm

[Segev]

I was making a distinction between "in love" (Romantic love as insanity, "butterflies" etc.) which usually doesn't last and love as attachment

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060120_lovefrm.htm

Interesting.

I've never experienced this "romantic insanity butterflies" sense; I've oft thought it mostly people mistaking lust-at-first-sight for "love"-at-first-sight, but haven't really been able to comment from an experimental standpoint as I've, at best, thought somebody was attractive...but never been head-over-heels. :/

I'd LIKE to fall in love. It sounds great, and leads to something I do want out of life: a family. Ah well.

[Vizzerdrix]

How easy it is to get resources would have a huge impact on this as well. If food is hard to gather, or local dangers are plentiful, then you wont see people having multiple families. Youll stick with one person to give your offspring a better chance of survival.

[digiman619]

Is this the lifespan talk? I'm not having the lifespan talk!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoh_hfR4o8

[weckar]

Er, actually... there are animal species which mate for life in unions that are REMARKABLY marriage-like. Penguins come to mind as prime examples, with their elaborate wooing rituals that even include giving gifts whose acceptance or refusal signal the start (or not) of the life-long mate-pairing much the way human wedding vows do. True. There are of course also a great many species that have nothing like it. I never implied it was something exclusively human, just that it certainly was not a required development.
Especially considering that on some level all the named creatures are still related.

[Name1]

True. There are of course also a great many species that have nothing like it. I never implied it was something exclusively human, just that it certainly was not a required development.
Especially considering that on some level all the named creatures are still related.

Eh, I believe when it comes to human sexuality, the birds got it right: For most birds, it's fairly common that the egg your mate sits on isn't actually from you. I think it's called "social monogamy".
For actual monogamy, it's more likely to happen in the animal kingdom than it is for any sentient race.

So depending what you define as marriage (the legal documents vs the actual idea behind it), animals might take this more seriously than mankind.

[Extra Anchovies]

In The Lord of the Rings, Arwen chose a mortal life to marry Aragorn. Perhaps there could be some ritual or spell by which a (willing) member of a long-lived humanoid species reduces their lifespan to that of a shorter-lived species, with their new effective age being at the bottom of the age category they had attained as a long-lived species? To give an example, a middle-aged elf who went through the ritual would end up with a human age of 35, enter old age in 18 years, become venerable 17 years after becoming old, and die 2d20 years after becoming venerable.

Alternately, whenever one of you reaches old age (or venerable, if you're a cheapskate), that person kills themselves, and you pay 1,280 GP to have an NPC Druid cast Reincarnate on them to stick them in a random young-adult-aged body - as long as each of you can gain a level back and you can collectively accrue more than 1280 GP per partner in savings in each lifetime, you and any number of other people can live forever. Even better is to always have you and your partner(s) do this at the same time, because a) you get to experience your new bodies all at the same time, which would be a nice bonding experience, and b) the Druid might give group discounts.

[Zaydos]

Of D&D races with long lives... Elves are noted as switching off (RotW), dwarves as having life-long monogamy (RoS). That's top of my head. I believe gnomes and halflings were also noted as monogamous in 2e, and gnomes in 3.5 but not 100% sure. Checking RoS gnomes marry for life.

Outside of humanoids only one I can remember it being mentioned one way or another for was dragons which stated 'some dragons form life long mated pairs, some don't, some dragons are polyandrous some polygynous, some both, some monogamous, even within a color dragons vary a lot'.

So at least as of 2e the long lived races tend towards monogamy (which while marriage was the norm for humans, monogamy vs polygamy varied a lot), and apparently have lower divorce rates than humans so...

The exception is the CHAOTIC elves who hate to be tied down to ANYTHING for life.

Also note that sans a competent healer Filth Fever works as the Black Plague and is one of the less lethal diseases in 3.5.

Of course a 1st level Expert with Skill Focus Heal and +3 Wisdom (unlikely but possible) can cure it in two days from 1 person/10 minutes of time they dedicate to it each day with like a 70% success rate.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Name1
For most birds, it's fairly common that the egg your mate sits on isn't actually from you. I think it's called "social monogamy".

This is conflating two very different aspects of breeding bird biology--extrapair copulation as opposed to "egg dumping," in which eggs are laid in another bird's nest. Social monogamy also varies by species and family--it's common in warblers and some seabirds, for instance, but uncommon in other seabirds depending on the species and their breeding environment. Even within populations of a single species, some individuals pursue extrapair copulations while others do not.


Originally Posted by Extra Anchovies
…as long as each of you can gain a level back and you can collectively accrue more than 1280 GP per partner in savings in each lifetime, you and any number of other people can live forever.

And long-lived races would be more likely to accrue that amount, since longer adult lives allow for greater earning power.

But if practicing this version of immortality became widespread, it would destabilize societies, since older citizens cycling through bodies would prevent younger generations from replacing them. The "recycler" immortals might compensate by reducing or ceasing reproduction, but apart from the personal and social consequences, that could leave their entire populations vulnerable to catastrophe or disease.

[Name1]

This is conflating two very different aspects of breeding bird biology--extrapair copulation as opposed to "egg dumping," in which eggs are laid in another bird's nest. Social monogamy also varies by species and family--it's common in warblers and some seabirds, for instance, but uncommon in other seabirds depending on the species and their breeding environment. Even within populations of a single species, some individuals pursue extrapair copulations while others do not.


...No, I was talking about the difference (or rather, that there is a difference) between sexual and social monogamy. A lot of birds and most humans choose the latter, with the former being what marriage is actually supposed to be. "Egg Dumping" is when a species dumps their eggs into another species nest to have them fed, which is something different entirely.

In case of sexual monogamy, extrapair copulations don't exist, while they do in cases of social monogamy (which is the difference between the two). Bringing this back to humanity: Humanity is more likely to have social monogamy than it is to have sexual monogamy (IMPE).

...Except, of course, you were refering to the fact that sexually monogamous birds can be victims of "Egg Dumping", in which case... yeah, I agree, that can happen.


Anyway, that's why I assume that elves and other longliving species are more likely to be socially monogamous than sexually monogamous.

[lunaticfringe]

Penguins are a terrible example, they stay together to rear chicks. After the chick is reared 85% of penguins will breed with new partners in future breeding season. Social Monogamy is not the same as Sexual Monogamy. 90% of studied bird species engage in Social Monogamy, or Rear chicks as a pair. This does not mean that they do not breed with other sexual partners. Only 3% of studied Mammal Species engage in Social Monogamy. Drawing conclusions that Human Sexual Monogamy has some sort evolutionary basis is generally considered a flawed concept nowadays(Scientifically Speaking, it's totally a Social Construct).

On to the fantasy stuff. That is entirely up to you. I'm not going tell what you feel/think is right or wrong. My Elves engage mostly is Social Monogamy, they raise the kids and most will part ways(amicably) afterwards. The concept of True Love/Soul Mates & Sexual Monogamy exist but it is very rare and not the norm. Such couples are considered blessed or cursed depending on which elf you ask If one partner dies the other usually dies not long(in elf time anyway) afterward.

[Name1]

Drawing conclusions that Human Sexual Monogamy has some sort evolutionary basis is generally considered a flawed concept nowadays(Scientifically Speaking, it's totally a Social Construct).

...I'm actually saying the opposite: Humans don't have sexual monogamy (IMPE). Of course, this is, as I said, IMPE, as in, I've never seen one so far in my life. Now I'm not the oldest member of this community (I hope :smalleek:), but I'm just saying that loyalty isn't as human a quality as we'd like to assume.

[lunaticfringe]

...I'm actually saying the opposite: Humans don't have sexual monogamy (IMPE). Of course, this is, as I said, IMPE, as in, I've never seen one so far in my life. Now I'm not the oldest member of this community (I hope :smalleek:), but I'm just saying that loyalty isn't as human a quality as we'd like to assume.

Lol my post wasn't directed at you in anyway. I read the Penguin thing & launched into my quasi nature nerd rant. I hadn't even read your posts yet.

My point was in Biology, Monogamy most often means Social Monogamy not Sexual Monogamy. Most people just assume it's Sexual and I launch into my nerd rant. Sorry.

Also is Social Monogamy not proof of Loyalty?

[Name1]

Lol my post wasn't directed at you in anyway. I read the Penguin thing & launched into my quasi nature nerd rant. I hadn't even read your posts yet.

My point was in Biology, Monogamy most often means Social Monogamy not Sexual Monogamy. Most people just assume it's Sexual and I launch into my nerd rant. Sorry.

Also is Social Monogamy not proof of Loyalty?

Oh... sorry for assuming that then^^°

On the other topic, personally, I'd say "Not really". Social Monogamy just means that they stay together (you know, for Tax, Food and Safety reasons), not that they are particulary faithful. In theory, the moment a member in a socially monogamous relationship leaves the house, the other member starts sleeping with the neighbour, it's partners father, silbling, and if they have it, their dog ad still be socially monogamous, as it's still just married to one partner, no matter what or who it sleeps with (again, IMPE). IMO, this doesn't seem very "loyal" to me. IMO, loyalty is an all or nothing kinda deal: You don't just "kinda a bit" betray your government by sending your rival country launch codes, for example (and I'm sure most governments would agree with me on that).

And on the topic of humans, this goes double, since we have divorces and polygamy and all that.

[Segev]

...I'm actually saying the opposite: Humans don't have sexual monogamy (IMPE). Of course, this is, as I said, IMPE, as in, I've never seen one so far in my life. Now I'm not the oldest member of this community (I hope :smalleek:), but I'm just saying that loyalty isn't as human a quality as we'd like to assume.

Still just anecdotal, but my parents and grandparents are all sexually monogamous. (I'm still a virgin - makes harvesting virgin blood for necromantic rituals SO much easier and less likely to attract unwanted attention from "heroes" - but I also intend to be when I finally fall in love and get married.)

So at the very least, it happens. I won't deny that infidelity also happens. There have been cultures with elaborate social rituals to accommodate it, even, including the "recognized mistresses" of certain Kings. e.g. Madame de Pompadour.

[Psyren]

I'm just gonna sidestep all the sociology / moral judgement stuff.

The longest-lived mortal races in most settings are Dragons, and they are promiscuous as all get-out. So I see little evidence for the correlation between lifespan and monogamous tendencies.

[Segev]

I'm just gonna sidestep all the sociology / moral judgement stuff.

The longest-lived mortal races in most settings are Dragons, and they are promiscuous as all get-out. So I see little evidence for the correlation between lifespan and monogamous tendencies.

One could argue that that is evidence of negative correlation between the two, which is often posited. I think the OP was even making that supposition.



It is worth noting that, to a goblin or orc, a human has a remarkably long lifespan. If goblins or orcs practiced monogamy, they might question whether such a long-lived race as humans could possibly bear to hold to such a practice, or whether they'd get "bored" of their partners.

Remember that elves don't consider their lifespans long. Neither do dwarves. They consider them "normal." Humans have tragically short ones.

[Psyren]

One could argue that that is evidence of negative correlation between the two, which is often posited. I think the OP was even making that supposition.

He said that notion "bothered him" and that he always thought it was the opposite - that long-lived races would crave the stability of an exclusive partnership because most other aspects of their lives were relatively fleeting. That doesn't make much sense to me.

[CharonsHelper]

I don't personally think other cultures - let alone races - would necessarily invent the concept of marriage at all, or at least not in any form we would recognise it in.

For better or for worse, the development of marriage for us as humans was intrinsicly linked to the maintaining and tranferance of property. If your culture/race is nomadic or communal when it comes to such things the development of marriage is even less likely.

I'd argue that while it is linked to property, it's much more about the care and raising of children as a unit. One parent stayed back and took care of the kids while the other went out and hunted food etc. Heck - even in the modern day the stats show that kids from 2 parent homes have all sorts of advantages. (though one could make some correlation vs causality arguments about the parents' responsibility etc. - it's likely at least somewhat true)

There would need to be something along those lines in any species where the children require care for extended periods. (at least a dozen years for humans - really more like 16ish)

Now - if a species such as elves lived 600+ years, had a breeding age from 50-500, and their children only took only 20-30 years to grow to maturity (far smaller % of their lifespan than humans), perhaps there could be an argument that their marriages (or equivalent) would be more temporary in nature and perhaps have an inherent option to end (useable by either partner) once all of their children together had their coming-of-age ceremony. Maybe it even automatically ends and they have to 'renew' it if they want it to continue.

[SimonMoon6]

Also an interesting fact to be aware of is that in our modern day Western society, as women are more and more treated as equal to men in the workplace, women are often finding it less beneficial to get married in the first place. Marriage traditionally has been advantageous to both parties: men get a woman to stick around for a while while women get the advantage of someone who can support them. But more and more often, women are finding that the trade-off (having to live with a man) is often not worth it, especially when the woman may be earning more money than the man. And thus, while procreation may occur, it does not as often involve a lifelong commitment between two people.

This is relevant because most fantasy worlds want to reflect a modern sensibility (women are equal to men) instead of a more historical approach. So, in such worlds, marriage might seem like an outdated concept. (Or, one could read the most recent issue of Flintstones to see a different approach: marriage is a futuristic concept that society isn't ready for yet).

What is not clear is this: if marriage becomes more rare for these reasons, will the marriages that do occur last longer or not? If marriage only happens between people who REALLY feel a need for such a commitment, will the marriage be therefore built on a stronger foundation? Or will the same stresses that result in fewer marriages also result in more frequent breakups?

[Segev]

There are factors which, frankly, I'd probably be violating the rules of the forum to get into which make the "women being treated more equally" and "decline of marriage" seem more like not-directly-related correlation than causation. I would say that one of those is a result of a positive shift in aspects of society, and the other is a result of opportunistic negative shifts that are trying to hijack the gains of the positive shifts.

Sadly, I don't think I can go any further without turning this into a rules-violating socio-political discussion.


He said that notion "bothered him" and that he always thought it was the opposite - that long-lived races would crave the stability of an exclusive partnership because most other aspects of their lives were relatively fleeting. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Ah, I misremembered the OP's position, then.

It's worth noting that dragons are extremely alien for "sentient races" when compared to humans, and known for their extreme isolationist/iconoclastic tendencies.

Honestly, I imagine it simply varies from culture to culture and race to race, depending on their psychological and biological needs. (And, as we can see by how humans show great variety in behavior in our own society, it will vary from person to person and couple to couple...but you can probably make broad statements of social norms, at least, from culture to culture and race to race.)

[CharonsHelper]

Er, actually... there are animal species which mate for life in unions that are REMARKABLY marriage-like. Penguins come to mind as prime examples, with their elaborate wooing rituals that even include giving gifts whose acceptance or refusal signal the start (or not) of the life-long mate-pairing much the way human wedding vows do.

As said above - penguins don't commonly mate for life.

If you want animals which represent a marriage/nuclear family - go with wolves. Packs of wolves are generally a mated pair and their kids, with the occasional lone wolf which the pack "adopts". Plus - much more badass than penguins.

Or for birds - the classic are turtle doves - hence all the love symbolism to do with them.

[Segev]

As said above - penguins don't commonly mate for life.

If you want animals which represent a marriage/nuclear family - go with wolves. Packs of wolves are generally a mated pair and their kids, with the occasional lone wolf which the pack "adopts". Plus - much more badass than penguins.

Or for birds - the classic are turtle doves - hence all the love symbolism to do with them.

Fair enough. Sorry I was wrong on what species do it. My point was simply that it does happen, so it's not a uniquely human construct, and thus it's not unreasonable to think non-human races might also have it.

[The Glyphstone]

In The Lord of the Rings, Arwen chose a mortal life to marry Aragorn. Perhaps there could be some ritual or spell by which a (willing) member of a long-lived humanoid species reduces their lifespan to that of a shorter-lived species, with their new effective age being at the bottom of the age category they had attained as a long-lived species? To give an example, a middle-aged elf who went through the ritual would end up with a human age of 35, enter old age in 18 years, become venerable 17 years after becoming old, and die 2d20 years after becoming venerable.

Alternately, whenever one of you reaches old age (or venerable, if you're a cheapskate), that person kills themselves, and you pay 1,280 GP to have an NPC Druid cast Reincarnate on them to stick them in a random young-adult-aged body - as long as each of you can gain a level back and you can collectively accrue more than 1280 GP per partner in savings in each lifetime, you and any number of other people can live forever. Even better is to always have you and your partner(s) do this at the same time, because a) you get to experience your new bodies all at the same time, which would be a nice bonding experience, and b) the Druid might give group discounts.

That sounds like a great way to get regular anniversary visits from angry CR15 Inevitables.

[Name1]

That sounds like a great way to get regular anniversary visits from angry CR15 Inevitables.

Didn't you need to do that a number of times for them to bother? I think a single reincarnation won't bother them enough... maybe as soon as you have a two-digit number...

[Segev]

Didn't you need to do that a number of times for them to bother? I think a single reincarnation won't bother them enough... maybe as soon as you have a two-digit number...

Hey, those angry CR 15 Inevitables are providing you with XP to help you gain back that lost level! It's a wonderful anniversary gift!

[WarKitty]

There's a lot of marriage variations within even human culture. There are cultures where explicitly temporary marriage is a thing (as in, the marriage contract says "we agree to be married for 4 years, after which we will no longer be married"). There's of course various versions of polygamy.

There's also the fact that marriage doesn't necessarily imply living together. So for example, there are cultures where the husband and wife stay living with their respective families, and the husband helps to raise his sisters' children, while only meeting his wife for sex. There's all sorts of variations even within human culture beyond the typical western variety.

[Segev]

There's all sorts of variations even within human culture beyond the typical western variety.

I'd be careful about characterizing it that way; the variety typical of Western culture was typical in China and Japan even before Marco Polo, and all across the middle east, as well. (With variants including polygamy, but definitely recognizable in the "bring husband and wife together to form or expand a household" fashion.)

There are lots of more different variations, yes, but they're the outliers. The variety common to western cultures is by far the most common across the world.

(And, notably, the concept of "marriage" is recognizable across nearly all of them.)

[WarKitty]

I'd be careful about characterizing it that way; the variety typical of Western culture was typical in China and Japan even before Marco Polo, and all across the middle east, as well. (With variants including polygamy, but definitely recognizable in the "bring husband and wife together to form or expand a household" fashion.)

There are lots of more different variations, yes, but they're the outliers. The variety common to western cultures is by far the most common across the world.

(And, notably, the concept of "marriage" is recognizable across nearly all of them.)

That's true - monogamy versus polygyny is really the only major variant you see across a lot of cultures. Although serial monogamy isn't that uncommon as well, even when not officially recognized. Still, for a fantasy world, there are a lot of models around even in human culture that could conceivably be represented.

[Segev]

That's true - monogamy versus polygyny is really the only major variant you see across a lot of cultures. Although serial monogamy isn't that uncommon as well, even when not officially recognized. Still, for a fantasy world, there are a lot of models around even in human culture that could conceivably be represented.

Agreed. Serial monogamy happens, though it usually is not culturally encouraged, just accepted. Usually, it's difficult to do (with divorce being unacceptable or at least harder than marrying in the first place), not something engaged in casually.
Ironically, it was easier in old Mosaic law, because all it took was publicly telling your wife you were divorcing her. But I get the impression from other text surrounding it that this was still considered bad behavior unless your wife was really, really known to deserve it. Unsurprisingly, women would not have quite so easy a time getting a divorce, and it was worse for them because re-marrying was HARD for a woman. Which, given the notions of responsibility that Mosaic law was trying to instill, meant that forcing this hardship on your (ex-)wife was considered a failing as a man.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
He said that notion "bothered him" and that he always thought it was the opposite - that long-lived races would crave the stability of an exclusive partnership because most other aspects of their lives were relatively fleeting. That doesn't make much sense to me.

This makes perfect sense to me. When you live so long, and have seen so many events and changes in the world, you want to share that with someone who has that same perspective, and who can be your rock of stability in a fluid, swirling world.


Originally Posted by Segev
It's worth noting that dragons are extremely alien for "sentient races" when compared to humans, and known for their extreme isolationist/iconoclastic tendencies.

This in spades. The OP's comments seem pretty clearly focused on human-like races, and shape-changing pseudoreptilian hexapods don't really fit in. They can fake it, sure, but they're fundamentally alien to humanoids in almost every way. It's hardly a fair comparison to include dragons with tiny, tender, tasty bipeds.

Really, the dragons themselves would be deeply offended. Flaming and crunching might ensue.

[Segev]

Really, the dragons themselves would be deeply offended. Flaming and crunching might ensue.

They'd better not. Flaming, at least, is against the forum rules!


...oh, crud, the Reds are Chaotic.

[Psyren]

This makes perfect sense to me. When you live so long, and have seen so many events and changes in the world, you want to share that with someone who has that same perspective, and who can be your rock of stability in a fluid, swirling world.

And that's fine - if you're only attracted to similarly long-lived races. But if you find yourself drawn to the races with shorter lifespans - as elves and dragons tend to be - then you're more or less forced to come to terms with the fact that your romances will be relatively fleeting.

[WarKitty]

Agreed. Serial monogamy happens, though it usually is not culturally encouraged, just accepted. Usually, it's difficult to do (with divorce being unacceptable or at least harder than marrying in the first place), not something engaged in casually.
Ironically, it was easier in old Mosaic law, because all it took was publicly telling your wife you were divorcing her. But I get the impression from other text surrounding it that this was still considered bad behavior unless your wife was really, really known to deserve it. Unsurprisingly, women would not have quite so easy a time getting a divorce, and it was worse for them because re-marrying was HARD for a woman. Which, given the notions of responsibility that Mosaic law was trying to instill, meant that forcing this hardship on your (ex-)wife was considered a failing as a man.

A lot of cultures also had financial disincentives to divorce. Under Roman law, a man who divorced his wife had to give her back her dowry. Later Islamic law had a payment in the marriage contract that the husband had to pay if he divorced his wife. The idea of course being that the woman had some means of support in the case of divorce. So even when there were social structures allowing divorce, it's not uncommon in patriarchal societies for some provision to be made from the husband to ensure the support of his ex-wife. Which means I suppose alimony is hardly a modern invention!

[Segev]

And that's fine - if you're only attracted to similarly long-lived races. But if you find yourself drawn to the races with shorter lifespans - as elves and dragons tend to be - then you're more or less forced to come to terms with the fact that your romances will be relatively fleeting.

I imagine elf-written love stories involving a human lover are considered beautiful tragedies. Human-written elf/human relationships are more about the wonder and awe of having so gorgeous and wise a lover.

Though why you'd say they "tend" to be drawn to other races is a little confusing to me. I imagine most are drawn to their own kind, as the ideals of beauty for a given race likely are going to lean towards their own race. As well as the shared culture making a relationship easier. Not to mention the very fact you bring up: a shared lifespan makes it less painful for both.


Though with races, like elves, which are commonly depicted as being in their prime for a very long time, I wonder how common January/December romances are. I mean, if you're 600 years old but look the same age as that 120-year-old, and that's NORMAL, do you stop and ask ages before you even begin a romance, or do you risk learning it later and suddenly thinking, "Man, I'm too old for him/her?" Or do you not care, because you're both still in your prime?

Those 480 years probably encompass a lot of life experience difference between you, but if you're both out in the "adult" world, you might well have a lot of interests in common, so it's not going to pose the usual problem of different social circles.

But it does re-introduce the same problem as "dating a human:" the older one is only going to be around for another 150-200 years or so, while the younger one's looking at nearly 500 years minimum. Not quite as bad as "we've got less time than it will take a full-elven child to grow from infancy to adulthood," but still...

[Knitifine]

Well this certainly seems like a thread that's bringing out the best most progressive perspectives.

That's the accepted sarcasm color, right?

In any case, I'll add one final note on this incredibly touchy topic.

There isn't really an natural inclination in humans to be monogamous. Human romantic and sexual desires run an extremely broad gambit, and while depending on where your from certain thing might seem normal (Two person marriage, heterosexual marriage, marriage within caste, race and/or social class, etc), none of those things really are normal. Some of them are common, some of them have been historically common, and currently the issues of what is the 'proper' way to do things are a hotly debated topic.

In all likelihood lifespan will not play a significant factor in whether a given group is monogamous or not, as you've seen multiple perspectives on the idea already.

Just do what you and your group thinks is fun.

I will again use my world as an example.
I made humans largely monogamous because I knew that would be familiar to my players.
I made elves largely form triads because their patron deities are a triad and it seemed like a nice way to add diversity to my stories which often include tales tied into romance.
I made beastfolk largely independent of romantic partners because I thought the extra diversity would make the world more interesting.

[GreyBlack]

So some of the ad&d another sources I looked at seemed to be writing the idea in that the longer a demi-human or other race lived the less they believed in marriage. They seemed to be pushing the idea that they would switch off and change partners every 30 years or so, modified by how long the average member of its race lived.


I confess that bothered me a lot.


I had always been thinking it was the opposite. That their living longer meant they understood life was fragile and that because of it they would cooperate more in stable focused security systems that were permanent.

I'm curious what others would have to say about this.

Technically its not going to change the game stats much but it could alter people's perceptions of what the game world is like.

What do you think?

In our human societies, there's a myriad of ways to express what marriage is. Some cultures view marriage as little more than a business transaction. Some feel that marriage is an expression of some form of agape, which permeates their bond and consists of sunshine and rainbows. Others still view marriage as a pleasant thing, but not necessarilyone to remain solely between two persons.

If our human societies can't decide what constitutes the only definition of a "marriage", what makes you think that genetically distinct creatures won't have completely different views on marriage, based on their own longevity and cultural values? If Dwarves are supposed to be "Lawful", then I could see them tending more towards biological monogamy. Pair bondings which stay together until death is absolutely a feature in nature, and would make sense for creatures like dwarves.

By comparison, elves, we're told, tend more towards the Chaotic end of the spectrum. Some books even imply that they refuse to have someone build their own houses, as it permits them a certain level of freedom while building. Taking that view of freedom, I could imagine that Elves not even have a concept of marriage, as it would eliminate that personal freedom that their society values so highly.

This is not to say anything about love - love and marriage, historically, are separate, as documented by the number of bastard offspring that kings produce. However, by putting all faith in one form of marriage over another when it's clearly demonstrated that many forms of marriage and love exist within our own, rather ordinary human, experience is to deny the vast array of experience in which the world is born.

[Psyren]

Though why you'd say they "tend" to be drawn to other races is a little confusing to me. I imagine most are drawn to their own kind, as the ideals of beauty for a given race likely are going to lean towards their own race. As well as the shared culture making a relationship easier. Not to mention the very fact you bring up: a shared lifespan makes it less painful for both.

It can still be a tendency even if it's only the second or third most common configuration. The sheer prevalence of Half-Elves and Half-Dragons proves that on its own.


Or do you not care, because you're both still in your prime?

I mean, even if you weren't, cross-generational romances happen all the time though. Even if the "generation" in this case is closer to centuries or eons, there can still be plenty to attract one partner to the other.

[Zaydos]

On elves. According to both the 2e Complete Book of Mary Sues Elves (it is probably my least favorite D&D book of all time, despite the next project the writer did being one of my favorites*) and the 3.5 Races of the Wild elves reach full physical maturity at 50 years old, their 100 + starting age is just when they typically leave home and start adventuring for reasons of, well veiled assertions of bad writing.

2e included they don't age per se, though still suffer the aging penalties, and when they reach their natural life span feel an undeniable yearning to sail off to the undying lands. Did I mention the book was bad? Moving on however. So elves reach full physical maturity at 50, or at least post pubescence. That leaves them with till about old (263) as reproductively viable individuals, and they're also noted as sending their children off to study with relatives and experience other families at about that young by PHB elves standards age. So the social burden of raising a child takes about 50 years, plus the time it requires to conceive, which being elves is going to be a bit. Still elves are reproductively viable for about 200 years, and it takes them 50 to raise a child, and just because they're unlikely to have offspring doesn't mean 263+ year old elves are likely to stop having love. So elves have about a proportionately 2 times as long window to raise children in as we do. I can definitely buy them as serial monogamists, and hey shacking up with a human for 75 years is definitely a possibility.

That said I'm actually more likely to go for polyamory with elves if I leave them CG.

*The book can be divided into 'here is why fluffwise elves are better than you and everyone else and perfect' 'here are mechanics for making elves, the strongest race in the game, stronger' and a small fragment of 'here are some details on elf culture that's not just they're better than humans/a cool myth for the first elven vampire'.

[gooddragon1]

But twilight proves that even immortal races can stay together reliably in marriage.

[Knitifine]

But twilight proves that even immortal races can stay together reliably in marriage.
This post gave me Tomb-Tainted Soul as a bonus feat.

[Segev]

love and marriage, historically, are separate, as documented by the number of bastard offspring that kings produce.I would hesitate to suggest that all the Kingly bastards are the result of the King's true love for his mistress(es). Lust is a thing, and powerful people are known to exploit their power, position, and wealth to indulge it without feeling much need for an emotional connection to the individuals they use to slake their lusts.


However, by putting all faith in one form of marriage over another when it's clearly demonstrated that many forms of marriage and love exist within our own, rather ordinary human, experience is to deny the vast array of experience in which the world is born.

Nobody suggested otherwise. Only that monogamy seems to be the most common, present across a huge swath of wildly disparate cultures both socially and geographically, with polygamy being the second most-common. "Serial monogamy," too, seems to mostly take the form of an acknowledgement that marriages don't always work out, but seems to be designed to be difficult (in that getting out of the current one is usually nontrivial).

That other kinds exist is, of course, quite true. Heck, simple promiscuity is present throughout human culture; it just usually is frowned upon.

[WarKitty]

I would hesitate to suggest that all the Kingly bastards are the result of the King's true love for his mistress(es). Lust is a thing, and powerful people are known to exploit their power, position, and wealth to indulge it without feeling much need for an emotional connection to the individuals they use to slake their lusts.

One might point out that simple prostitution has been around in pretty much every society as well, although with varying degrees of social acceptance for the act of visiting a prostitute. Simple lust has indeed been a thing for pretty much every class with the resources able to indulge in it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
But if you find yourself drawn to the races with shorter lifespans - as elves and dragons tend to be….

Where do you find the idea that elves as a whole are drawn to younger races? As Segev mentioned, it makes more sense that most elves would be attracted to other elves, for all manner of reasons, and I never had a sense that any but a few elves looked twice at humans.

Tales of love between mortal and elfkind, such as Beren and Lúthien, may be romantic and tragic, but they're also rare. Lúthien's father Thingol certainly wasn't pleased with his daughter's choice: "Then the King was filled with anger, for Lúthien he loved above all things, setting her above all the princes of the Elves; whereas mortal Men he did not even take into his service."

This suggests there could be some significant cultural barriers to mortal/elven love, even more so than between human cultures or classes.


Originally Posted by Psyren
The sheer prevalence of Half-Elves and Half-Dragons proves that on its own.

Where are you getting the "sheer prevalence" of half-elves? Glancing through the 3.0 FRCS, even in Waterdeep and the High Forest half-elves are only 5% of the population, and in many regions they're so rare a percentage isn't even given. There are rare exceptions such as Aglarond, which is called out for its unique concentration of half-elves, but otherwise half-elves are generally thin on the ground.

I don't know Golarion that well, but I never had the impression half-elves were especially numerous; the CRB mentions their loneliness, isolation and lack of a unified culture, which doesn't suggest much of a population base.

(Not to mention half-dragons. Is there a campaign setting where they're so abundant as to be a major race?)

.

[Knitifine]

Where are you getting the "sheer prevalence" of half-elves?
The answer to this an all associated questions is "the metagame".

[Zaydos]

The answer to this an all associated questions is "the metagame".

Hey we're talking 3.x the number of half-elves I've actually seen is less than 5% of characters. It's less than 1%. It's in fact vanishingly rare, more so than the books say.

Half-dragons are more common but remain rare (as PCs) or indicates the villain is breeding super soldiers (NPCs).

[Knitifine]

Hey we're talking 3.x the number of half-elves I've actually seen is less than 5% of characters. It's less than 1%. It's in fact vanishingly rare, more so than the books say.

Half-dragons are more common but remain rare (as PCs) or indicates the villain is breeding super soldiers (NPCs).The metagame in this sense including how much material about them is published. After all the fact that half-elves and half-orcs are called out as core races must mean they're more common that half-dwarves, or gnome-halflings. And even if they're still a small percentage of the population, that's a pretty notable deviation.

[Extra Anchovies]

On elves. According to both the 2e Complete Book of Mary Sues Elves (it is probably my least favorite D&D book of all time, despite the next project the writer did being one of my favorites*) and the 3.5 Races of the Wild elves reach full physical maturity at 50 years old, their 100 + starting age is just when they typically leave home and start adventuring for reasons of, well veiled assertions of bad writing.

2e included they don't age per se, though still suffer the aging penalties, and when they reach their natural life span feel an undeniable yearning to sail off to the undying lands. Did I mention the book was bad?

I don't mean to defend the 2e supplement, but the whole "traveling away instead of dying" shtick is cribbed from LotR, which (IIRC) was itself inspired by European folklore in which humans were gradually replacing elves/dwarves/fairies/etc as the dominant civilization. Tolkien's work has the excuse that elves are openly acknowledged as Better Than You™ from the get-go (and within the story, even), but LotR also carries the blame for establishing that trend in modern fantasy so I'd call it a draw.

Of course, there's exceptions to the just-copy-Tolkien trend if you know where to look - my personal favorite elves are the ones from Lorwyn (the setting of the MTG block of the same name), with their ram's horns, cloven hooves, exceptionally short lifespans, and near-genocidal hatred of anything they consider ugly.


That said I'm actually more likely to go for polyamory with elves if I leave them CG.

I agree. It's also quite possible that elves wouldn't value conventional romance above other strongly emotional relationships. As an example, I point to the Faerie Mysteries Initiate feat, which (at least fluff-wise) places equal value on war (carols), joy (frolics), grace (gyres), and good old-fashioned elfish lovin' (passions).


This post gave me Tomb-Tainted Soul as a bonus feat.

XD

[Zaydos]

I don't mean to defend the 2e supplement, but the whole "traveling away instead of dying" shtick is cribbed from LotR, which (IIRC) was itself inspired by European folklore in which humans were gradually replacing elves/dwarves/fairies/etc as the dominant civilization. Tolkien's work has the excuse that elves are openly acknowledged as Better Than You™ from the get-go (and within the story, even), but LotR also carries the blame for establishing that trend in modern fantasy so I'd call it a draw.

Oh yes I know the source (now not when I got the book), but it was a copy Tolkien moment that really wasn't needed. Also the Undying Lands while possibly equivalent to Avalon and the Otherworld end up with a lot different application and make no sense placed into unspecified D&D campaigns. Tolkien is also where the 'oh yeah the PHB doesn't say so, but elves are unaffected by temperatures within the range of Endure Elements' in the same book came from.

That said it was the writer's first book, they were a kid, and their later work was probably the best look at fiends in D&D history.


Of course, there's exceptions to the just-copy-Tolkien trend if you know where to look - my personal favorite elves are the ones from Lorwyn (the setting of the MTG block of the same name), with their ram's horns, cloven hooves, exceptionally short lifespans, and near-genocidal hatred of anything they consider ugly.

My elves have developed a horrible tendency to end up LN/LE racist empires in the last 10 years* when I bother to do more than say 'sure elves exist you can play them'. Wood elves get off as CG still. When my High Elves are CG it tends to be a backlash against their days as Melniboneans, or to differentiate them from the Grey Elves who are LN/LE. So I guess I'm saying I enjoy the Lorwyn elves but didn't realize they were short lived, just that they were evil little things with their elvish promenades and imperious perfects and Lys Allana huntmasters. Strangely enough I don't like drow.**

*Before that I went more towards the CG lost glories of a noble empire route, slowly dying off due to their low fertility rate as humans became dominant.

**Ok it's because their society is Chaotic Evil to the extreme and their backstabbing should have led to their extinction in a generation, not to empires. They have to value the lives of their other elves in some way for the evil elf empire to work.


I agree. It's also quite possible that elves wouldn't value conventional romance above other strongly emotional relationships. As an example, I point to the Faerie Mysteries Initiate feat, which (at least fluff-wise) places equal value on war (carols), joy (frolics), grace (gyres), and good old-fashioned elfish lovin' (passions).

Oh yeah, that sounds like something that'd be great to expound upon and explore in elves.

[digiman619]

I don't mean to defend the 2e supplement, but the whole "traveling away instead of dying" shtick is cribbed from LotR, which (IIRC) was itself inspired by European folklore in which humans were gradually replacing elves/dwarves/fairies/etc as the dominant civilization. Tolkien's work has the excuse that elves are openly acknowledged as Better Than You™ from the get-go (and within the story, even), but LotR also carries the blame for establishing that trend in modern fantasy so I'd call it a draw.

Of course, there's exceptions to the just-copy-Tolkien trend if you know where to look - my personal favorite elves are the ones from Lorwyn (the setting of the MTG block of the same name), with their ram's horns, cloven hooves, exceptionally short lifespans, and near-genocidal hatred of anything they consider ugly.

To be fair, two decades of fantasy fiction cam out between 2e and Lorwyn; early D&D was Tolkien: The Game in all but name, so copy-pasting his work seems obvious, and Lorwyn (with its Disney-esqe faerie tale worlde) had the Nazi-ElvesTM so when the Great Aurora pulled its Bizzarro World trick, we'd have the heroic Tolkienesqe Elves we all know and love/loathe being the sole source of goodness in a 1st edition Brothers Grimm world.

[Psyren]

Where are you getting the "sheer prevalence" of half-elves?

You mean besides the fact that they're a core race? :smallconfused:

Such pairings aren't happening every other day I'm sure, but they're common enough that half-elves are a known quantity. Certainly moreso than, say, Dhampirs and Tieflings.


Where do you find the idea that elves as a whole are drawn to younger races? As Segev mentioned, it makes more sense that most elves would be attracted to other elves, for all manner of reasons, and I never had a sense that any but a few elves looked twice at humans.

Again, "most" and "tendency" are not synonyms. I agree that most elves shack up with other elves. But there are enough that don't to make half-elves fairly routine.


Glancing through the 3.0 FRCS, even in Waterdeep and the High Forest half-elves are only 5% of the population, and in many regions they're so rare a percentage isn't even given. There are rare exceptions such as Aglarond, which is called out for its unique concentration of half-elves, but otherwise half-elves are generally thin on the ground.

But not so thin that they would be considered too exotic for core, right?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
You mean besides the fact that they're a core race?

"Playable option" isn't synonymous with "sheer prevalence," either. :smalltongue:

Half-elves are part of the core ensemble because, like halflings and half-orcs, they were drawn from Tolkien's work. That by itself doesn't say anything about their prevalence in any given campaign world. In Middle-Earth the half-elven (the Peredhil) were evidently quite rare.


Originally Posted by Extra Anchovies
...but LotR also carries the blame for establishing that trend in modern fantasy so I'd call it a draw.

You can't really blame Tolkien for this, since he wasn't writing to establish any trends in fantasy, much less in fantasy games.

I don't see a reason for blame at all, really. But I haven't read this evidently infamous 2E supplement.


Originally Posted by Zaydos
Tolkien is also where the 'oh yeah the PHB doesn't say so, but elves are unaffected by temperatures within the range of Endure Elements' in the same book came from.

--Wait, what?

Where in Tolkien is that mentioned?

[Zaydos]

--Wait, what?

Where in Tolkien is that mentioned?

When they get snowed in while crossing the mountains before giving up and heading into Moria it's noted that Gandalf and Legolas just shrugged off the cold which was getting even Aragorn down and threatening to kill the rest of the group.

Also showed elves can walk on snow without leaving foot prints.

[2D8HP]

Well this certainly seems like a thread that's bringing out the best most progressive perspectives.

That's the accepted sarcasm color, right?

:biggrin:

Priceless!

I hope someone sigs this!

[Segev]

As for endure elements, I'd just assume that Legolas had either Ranger levels, or dipped Wizard (being an Elf and all) to get the spell. Gandalf's expressly a wizard, so he of course has the spell.

[Psyren]

"Playable option" isn't synonymous with "sheer prevalence," either. :smalltongue:

Half-elves are part of the core ensemble because, like halflings and half-orcs, they were drawn from Tolkien's work. That by itself doesn't say anything about their prevalence in any given campaign world. In Middle-Earth the half-elven (the Peredhil) were evidently quite rare.

Treants come from Tolkien's work too, that doesn't make them core races. Half-elves are ubiquitous enough to be part of every major setting. Thus they have a tendency (there's that word again) to be propagated. It doesn't matter that most Elves go for other Elves - enough want to bang humans that Half-Elves will always be a familiar sight.

[CharonsHelper]

Treants come from Tolkien's work too, that doesn't make them core races. Half-elves are ubiquitous enough to be part of every major setting. Thus they have a tendency (there's that word again) to be propagated. It doesn't matter that most Elves go for other Elves - enough want to bang humans that Half-Elves will always be a familiar sight.

I always got the impression that they were much rarer in the general population as a % than they are amongst adventurer types. I know I've read fluff which talked about their mixed heritage combined with social pressures of never fitting in leads a rather high % of them into adventuring. (probably the same with half-orcs)

[Name1]

I always got the impression that they were much rarer in the general population as a % than they are amongst adventurer types. I know I've read fluff which talked about their mixed heritage combined with social pressures of never fitting in leads a rather high % of them into adventuring. (probably the same with half-orcs)

Huh... I guess that means that there are very few of them, 'cause last time I checked half-elves suck... Then again, someone has to be in those adventuring parties that run into a disproportionately high CR-encounter to keep adventurings reputation for being dangerous. And dying violently IS something they are good at...

Maybe there are a lot of half-elves after all.

[CharonsHelper]

Huh... I guess that means that there are very few of them, 'cause last time I checked half-elves suck...

In 3.5 - yes. They're nearly always a solid choice in Pathfinder.

[Psyren]

I always got the impression that they were much rarer in the general population as a % than they are amongst adventurer types. I know I've read fluff which talked about their mixed heritage combined with social pressures of never fitting in leads a rather high % of them into adventuring. (probably the same with half-orcs)

What I'm saying is that, random Joe Commoner may not have heard of or seen a treant, but just about everyone in every major setting knows at least one half-elf, just like they'd know a dwarf. They're ubiquitous enough to be a known quantity, moreso than things like Dhampirs or Planetouched or Skinwalkers. This wouldn't be the case if human-elf pairings were, say, 1 per generation or something.

[Name1]

In 3.5 - yes. They're nearly always a solid choice in Pathfinder.

Ah... I play 3.5, rarely 3.PF, so I don't know too much about pathfinder... so yeah, I was assuming the 3.5 race.