Racial Confusion

[EvilAnagram]

In a recent campaign, I played the only dwarf in the party, and during conversation I said that dwarfs can only tell gender by whether or not someone has a beard. This prompted a series of, "What about me?" "Well, what about you, ma'am?" exchanges, as well as the party's realization that my character thought there were no male elves.

In the campaign I currently play in, my PC is a goliath... who thinks everyone with hair is female. In fact, dwarfs are the most effeminate creatures he's ever seen. "But I'm carrying a giant hammer!" the party dwarf protested. "Have you seen goliath women?" I countered.

It occurred to me that a lot of people play characters as humans in different shapes that basically act in accordance to the player's culture. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I think it's fun to look at the confusion that arises when people from different cultures get together.

In what other ways do you see the racial dynamic of the party creating confusion?

[Gastronomie]

Those ideas of sexuality in the races is really fun, and also a pretty interesting topic to delve into. I mean, even in real life, different cultures have different ways thinking about men and women...


Personal experience: Once, there was a human necromancer and an elf in the same party (short evil campaign I jumped into). The necromancer was striving - hard - to become a Lich, to gain immortality and eventually become the ruler of all.

The elf liked his idea, because for once he'd have a human friend who doesn't die three seconds after he gets to know him well.

[Aett_Thorn]

A Tiefling walks by a burning orphanage: "Oh, that's sad, they'll have to rebuild I guess. Why is everyone freaking out? So what if there are children in there. You mean your children aren't fire-resistant?! What is wrong with you!!!?"

Air/Water Genasai: "You guys need oxygen to breathe? Isn't that inconvenient?"

A Half-Orc that grew up in orcish society: "So that guard over there told me not to jaywalk. So I beat him up and said that now I'm the law-giver, and that jaywalking is fine. Now I'm wanted by the city guards for some reason."

Forest Gnome: "What do you mean your homes are just out in the open? Isn't that dangerous? And you're cities are even MORE conspicuous! How have you all not been killed off by now?"

[EvilAnagram]

Those ideas of sexuality in the races is really fun, and also a pretty interesting topic to delve into. I mean, even in real life, different cultures have different ways thinking about men and women...
Those were my thoughts on it, too. I mean, the hair thing is just one lens. How do Dragonborn see gender? Are they blown away when they realize that those weird chest bumps indicate gender? That people have been looking at each other and assessing genders this whole time? Who the hells talks about that stuff in public?


Personal experience: Once, there was a human necromancer and an elf in the same party (short evil campaign I jumped into). The necromancer was striving - hard - to become a Lich, to gain immortality and eventually become the ruler of all.

The elf liked his idea, because for once he'd have a human friend who doesn't die three seconds after he gets to know him well.

I like how you take the same impulse that, say, Finrod has, and rather than hanging out with your friend's descendants, you just help him become an undead abomination.


A Tiefling walks by a burning orphanage: "Oh, that's sad, they'll have to rebuild I guess. Why is everyone freaking out? So what if there are children in there. You mean your children aren't fire-resistant?! What is wrong with you!!!?"

Air/Water Genasai: "You guys need oxygen to breathe? Isn't that inconvenient?"

A Half-Orc that grew up in orcish society: "So that guard over there told me not to jaywalk. So I beat him up and said that now I'm the law-giver, and that jaywalking is fine. Now I'm wanted by the city guards for some reason."

Forest Gnome: "What do you mean your homes are just out in the open? Isn't that dangerous? And you're cities are even MORE conspicuous! How have you all not been killed off by now?"
I'm enjoying all of these, but I actually laughed out loud at the half-orc.

[Falcon X]

Kobolds and the concept of a "Fair Fight".
- To a kobold, a fair fight is when a human falls into their pit with a nasty beast at the bottom, then 6 kobolds with long spears come and start to stab you while you are fighting the beast.
- To a kobold, certain codes of honor or certain one-on-one dueling practices would be completely absurd.
- A kobold character might never strike at an enemy unless they have somehow gained Advantage on the attack. Why would you do that?

Elves and sleep.
- The party beds down for the night and starts assigning watch, accounting for people who need 8 hours of sleep. Elf goes, "Why the heck are you doing 2-hour shifts," not realizing that any more might make a human start the next day exhausted.

Mind Flayers and breeding habits.
- "Okay, I get that you pink-skins have two genders. I get that you have to mate. I also get that such a thing is pleasurable. What I can't figure out is where you put your eggs? Best I can understand is they stay inside the female, fighting for survival against the uterus that is trying to eat them."
- To clarify: Mind Flayers are asexual, not needing to mate. They all release about a thousand eggs into the pool of water their Elder Brain is in. As they grow, the elder brain occasionally feeds of of them, so there are only a handful left at the end of their tadpole stage.

[smcmike]

Funny, doesnt the dwarven gender confusion go the other way on Discworld? As in, no non-dwarf can tell the difference, since they all have beards?

Other places that races might differ:

Food. What looks appetizing to a dragonborn or an elf might bear little resemblance to human food.

Time. What does an extreme long lifespan really mean, culturally and psychologically?

[Zorku]

I've long been a fan of trying to actually play out different cultural norms in your roleplay, but in some of my more sheltered social circles the people can't really seem to wrap their head around that (the intersection of those circles and playing D&D is rather limited though.)

[Segev]

Kobolds and the concept of a "Fair Fight".
- To a kobold, a fair fight is when a human falls into their pit with a nasty beast at the bottom, then 6 kobolds with long spears come and start to stab you while you are fighting the beast.
- To a kobold, certain codes of honor or certain one-on-one dueling practices would be completely absurd.
- A kobold character might never strike at an enemy unless they have somehow gained Advantage on the attack. Why would you do that?Honestly, I've ALWAYS been confused by the notion of a "fair fight." What is a fair fight? Who defines it? Why is it "fair" for the scrawny kid to face the burly boxer in a bare-hands brawl, but not to want to fight using the rapier with which he's skilled? Why is it "fair" for the psychic to be restricted to wrestling against the muscle-bound arena champion, but unfair for him to use his psychic powers to fling the guy out of the arena entirely?

I think the kobolds here have it right: there is no such thing as a "fair fight." Just fights you know you can win, fights you aren't sure if you can win, and fights you know you'd lose.



- To clarify: Mind Flayers are asexual, not needing to mate. They all release about a thousand eggs into the pool of water their Elder Brain is in. As they grow, the elder brain occasionally feeds of of them, so there are only a handful left at the end of their tadpole stage.
They also then inject the tadpoles into the heads of humans, and the tadpoles eat the brains and begin a process of cerebromorphosis to transform the rest of the body into a mind flayer.

[smcmike]

Honestly, I've ALWAYS been confused by the notion of a "fair fight." What is a fair fight? Who defines it? Why is it "fair" for the scrawny kid to face the burly boxer in a bare-hands brawl, but not to want to fight using the rapier with which he's skilled? Why is it "fair" for the psychic to be restricted to wrestling against the muscle-bound arena champion, but unfair for him to use his psychic powers to fling the guy out of the arena entirely?

I think the kobolds here have it right: there is no such thing as a "fair fight." Just fights you know you can win, fights you aren't sure if you can win, and fights you know you'd lose.

Fair fights exist within social constructs. Those constructs can be very useful. If you want to resolve a conflict without risking death, it might be good to operate within a set of norms that include "no weapons or deadly force." Fighting within a set of norms can also achieve goals that fighting outside of those norms might not. A duel at dawn and poison in your coffee accomplish very different ends.

[Segev]

Fair fights exist within social constructs. Those constructs can be very useful.

Useful, perhaps, but in my experience the people calling for a "fair fight" have attempted to pre-define "fair" to mean "heavily weighted in my preferred side's favor."

[smcmike]

Useful, perhaps, but in my experience the people calling for a "fair fight" have attempted to pre-define "fair" to mean "heavily weighted in my preferred side's favor."

Sure, though more often they are simply operating successfully within a preexisting system.

Ideas of fairness are a good way to control violence. A society in which feuds are resolved by fistfights is not going to be a good place to be a skinny nerd, but it might be better for everyone than a society in which feuds are resolved by any means necessary.

[Sigreid]

Funny, doesnt the dwarven gender confusion go the other way on Discworld? As in, no non-dwarf can tell the difference, since they all have beards?

Other places that races might differ:

Food. What looks appetizing to a dragonborn or an elf might bear little resemblance to human food.

Time. What does an extreme long lifespan really mean, culturally and psychologically?

I think elven society would change very, very slowly. How much more firmly would our traditions be rooted if you're great, great grandparents were still young and strong when you reached adulthood?

Edit: It occurs to me that that might actually be a reason for their fondness (or at least tolerance) for humans. Humans are operating on such an absurdly short cycle that they don't get anywhere near as bogged down in tradition allowing them to change and adapt faster. Elves can then watch humans and select the innovations they want.

[Sicarius Victis]

It occurs to me that that might actually be a reason for their fondness (or at least tolerance) for humans. Humans are operating on such an absurdly short cycle that they don't get anywhere near as bogged down in tradition allowing them to change and adapt faster. Elves can then watch humans and select the innovations they want.

I see it more as the Elves being confused by, but simultaneously interested in, just how quickly the humans live their lives. Their lives are shorter, and yet far more interesting, than the Elves would normally be able to even imagine.

[Belac93]

I once played a gnome who was startled by the fact that most people couldn't speak to small animals. He was constantly wondering why they would ask the dogs questions, and not under stand the answers. It was kinda like this for him;

Person 1: "I love you!"
Person 2: "Where is the stick?"
Person 1: "I know you love me too!"
Person 2: "Here is the stick! Do you want to stick?"
Person 1: "Hey, is that a stick? I like sticks? Can you throw me the stick?"

[JAL_1138]

My current dwarf character speaks in near-monosyllabic gruff/angry grunts with an impenetrable Russian accent and never smiles, barely laughs (he might grunt "heh" occasionally), and generally seems as serious as a heart attack.

He was utterly bewildered when he found out that people thought dwarves in general (and him in particular) were humorless, dour, stern, boring types, and eventually concluded that humans and elves simply can't detect any normal vocal inflections or facial expressions, and can only pick up ones that are ludicrously, almost grotesquely exaggerated--it was like, for example, if a human were put into a society where people literally couldn't see any smile more subtle than a clown's giant painted-on grin. He thought it had been blatantly obvious the whole time that he was cheerful, fun-loving and extroverted.

[Naanomi]

Two fun fictional examples:
-Errant Story elves love human lovers because they die... elven relationships inevitably break apart after hundreds of years but love with humans is 'pure' and 'eternal'

-Warhammer Dwarves have no understanding of the idea of forgiveness; all debts and slights no matter how small need to be paid back financially or through violence, and the guilt of not doing so yourself eats you alive if you can't make things right. Many dwarves think other races are completely immoral or amazingly stoic (they hold all that guilt in so well)

Religious differences can matter as well: for example in my setting gobliniod religion assumes instant reincarnation for everyone, and thus don't fear death or understand the value others put into saving lives. Being hurt or crippled is worse than dying in their eyes

[CantigThimble]

The old RPG traveller has some very nice psychology sections for its alien races.

I remember a few like the Aslan (basically genetically modified lions who developed independantly) who had societal roles based on gender very deeply ingrained into their culture. Males were fighters, politicians and landowners and women were traders, scientists and engineers. While offences could be resolved by ritual duels within each gender (to first blood, not death) if a member of one gender insulted another it was ignored as just a misunderstanding. This was so firmly ingrained in them that males literally could not judge monetary worth without ranks in a specialized skill. When Aslan encountered other races, they couldn't comprehend that a woman would be a soldier or a man could be a merchant and just ended up referring to people by the gender that seemed appropriate for their job.

The Vargr (genetically modified wolves) were also interesting. Their society was 'organized' based on personal charisma, which was kind of like self confidence. It fluctuated in an individual's life depending on their personal success. Vargr who weren't leaders would regularly switch leaders with little warning and no consequence. Someone might be a staunch supporter of one army one day and then desert and join their enemy the next. It's not that loyalty and betrayal weren't important to the Vargr, within a leader's group loyalty would be demanded and enforced; it was just expected that Vargr would change leaders in their lifetime and trying to fight that would be unnatural.

One of my personal favorites was the hivers. They operated in groups that were just inexplicably able to cooperate. Rather than currency, each hiver just had a general sense of what individuals had contributed to the group and therefore how much stuff they could claim for themselves. They were also obsessed with manipulation. Which was a formal process in which simple indirect actions would produce a non-obvious effect with broad consequences. When successful, they would then reveal time stamped documents proving their intent and be added to the illustrious ranks of the manipulators. Once they were at war with a far more militaristic society and were losing so they decided to try a different tactic. They caused severe cultural shifts in their adversaries and then provided proof that they were the ones responsible. Their enemies called an immediate truce under the threat of further manipulation.

[Kane0]

I've often thought that tailed creatures like dragonborn and tieflings would find humans and the like to be very odd. I mean, just look at them! How do they balance? They must be teetering at any given time, a firm breeze would probably knock them over.
It would probably lead to a lot of cases where dragonborn think they are being very courteous and polite by always offering humans, elves, etc a seat or something to lean on, regardless of gender or age. It must be uncomfortable walking around so precariously all the time.

Similarly with races that have darkvision. What might be uncomfortably dark for humans is perfectly fine or overly bright for most other races. They must think human vision to be quite weak, never ask the human to keep watch!

Many races would probably be pretty stunned to find monolingual creatures too. The vast majority of races know at least two languages, how stupid would one have to be to only be able to speak one?
What do you mean you only speak common? Even orcs can speak better than that, you backwater rube!

[JackPhoenix]

Many races would probably be pretty stunned to find monolingual creatures too. The vast majority of races know at least two languages, how stupid would one have to be to only be able to speak one?
What do you mean you only speak common? Even orcs can speak better than that, you backwater rube!

I disagree with this one. There are no mono- or multilingual races, but mono- or multilingual individuals. First, language is learned, it's not programmed into a creature by virtue of being certain race, half-elves... or even adopted full elves... growing up amongst human may not know a word in elven, and anyone can learn as many languages as they want (and/or can afford to). Second, everyone knowing common is for PC convenience... player characters are expected to be able to communicate with each other. That doesn't mean that every random orc, elf or whatever understands common.... most beings should know only one language, regardless of what PHB says.

Honestly, languages are oversimplified as it is... no regional/cultural variants, every single elf speaks the same language, dragons, kobolds and troglodytes speak the same language despite being vastly different species living in different societies and locations...

[Regitnui]

Funny, doesnt the dwarven gender confusion go the other way on Discworld? As in, no non-dwarf can tell the difference, since they all have beards?

Worse. Gender is not a subject described in polite dwarven society, or even bawdy and dirty dwarfish society. I believe the shortest explanation was along the lines of "Dwarven courtship mostly involved finding out as discreetly as possible what gender the other dwarf in the relationship was." Of course, it is changing slowly in the cosmopolitan city of Ankh-Morpork, where Cheery Littlebottom is the first openly female dwarf and a member of the City Watch. Nobody had the guts to point out to both her and the massive (even by troll standards) Detritus behind her that she shouldn't be wearing blush and high heel boots. Towards the end of the series, there's a thriving business in dwarf women's armour. It's made out of softer metal with finer links, you see.

[Sicarius Victis]

The old RPG traveller has some very nice psychology sections for its alien races.

Yeah, Traveller has some fun ones, though I must admit I prefer the ones from Traveller 2300. Particularly the Kaefers, who IIRC basically got more intelligent through adrenaline rushes and so spent most of their time fighting each other and the other races, and the Pentapods, who almost always use living machinery that basically is just bio-engineered Pentapods.

[Socratov]

Funny, doesnt the dwarven gender confusion go the other way on Discworld? As in, no non-dwarf can tell the difference, since they all have beards?

snip

Time. What does an extreme long lifespan really mean, culturally and psychologically?

Yes, there it does.

As for time, it woudl make it evidently clear that an elf doesn't reagrd you, but also your genetic structure and who you choose to reproduce with since they don't only select friends on the basis of the originator of a falmily but their spwan as well. Which makes Elves befriending adventurers a travesty.

As for further up the thread, in the 3.5 forum someone wrote a long time and short time thesis on elves. Long time is where elves go slow and concept art and such. Short time is when they go adventuring. That is why elves act with disdain at humans and other short-lived races: those races always force the elves to operate on short time which means that they will get lots of stress and the like.

[Segev]

I imagine darkvision-gifted races might act towards those without it the way normal-hearing people tend to act towards the deaf. It's a mostly-invisible condition, and even if you know of it, it's easy to forget. How does the elf know that the perfectly-bright light he's working by is dim to the poor Halfling? His first instinct is to assume the Halfling isn't paying attention. He's looking RIGHT AT IT, how can he not SEE it?

Forgetting to turn on the lights at all while inviting the Halfling into his home might also be a thing.

[Zorku]

Honestly, I've ALWAYS been confused by the notion of a "fair fight." What is a fair fight? Who defines it? At the risk of echoing smcmike, honor culture is kind of a strange beast. I'm not really familiar with it in more liberal contexts, but my intuition is that that must happen at least sometimes.

The rules of this kind of thing are generally taken for granted, and maybe it's always a matter of tradition. I've heard a good few stories from translators operating in the middle east that play out startlingly similar to the dwarves and elves cliches. The particular one that stuck in my mind well enough to recall had a native talking about how they felt a burning need for revenge (with it's own convoluted mechanics that I'll spare you, mostly because I don't remember them clearly,) after any minor humiliation, and that not acting out the macho aggression associate with that would basically mean he was the most pathetic man on the planet. The translator tried to tap into their shared tradition with that Jesus story where he "turned the other cheek," but there was just a barrier there that stopped the native from comprehending the implied "what you did to me was so pathetic it is below my notice" meaning that's commonly understood in the English speaking world.

*Technically that Bible story actually swings a long ways back toward the middle eastern culture, but neither side had the cultural background to understand it anymore. In the story Jesus continues the instructions in a way that humiliates the aggressor with a different kind of gut punch to their honor.

Beyond all of that, it would probably be weird for the person that's disadvantaged by "a fair fight" to go calling for one. Once in awhile you see it in stories where they are in an even more dangerous situation, as kind of a rules manipulation that buys them a small amount of time before a 1v1 duel or such.


I imagine darkvision-gifted races might act towards those without it the way normal-hearing people tend to act towards the deaf. It's a mostly-invisible condition, and even if you know of it, it's easy to forget. How does the elf know that the perfectly-bright light he's working by is dim to the poor Halfling? His first instinct is to assume the Halfling isn't paying attention. He's looking RIGHT AT IT, how can he not SEE it?

Forgetting to turn on the lights at all while inviting the Halfling into his home might also be a thing.
I imagine that this would have a lot to do with how cosmopolitan their lives are. It's not too difficult to imagine city life involving perhaps 20 well enough maintained social connections with individuals that have strikingly different senses, whereas in real life I'm hard pressed to think of a third hearing impaired individual and I haven't ever had more than some passing conversation with anyone that's blind.

That said, even with a lot of exposure to people that need you to turn the lights on, this won't necessarily go away altogether, it will just be a lot less obvious as the person with extra sensory perception will know well enough what's going on with minimal reminding and has the option of acknowledging what happened with the same subtlety. In theater of mind that might as well not have happened at all unless the DM really draws attention to how barely not smooth the interaction goes with their narration.

[JAL_1138]

Yes, there it does.

As for time, it woudl make it evidently clear that an elf doesn't reagrd you, but also your genetic structure and who you choose to reproduce with since they don't only select friends on the basis of the originator of a falmily but their spwan as well. Which makes Elves befriending adventurers a travesty.

As for further up the thread, in the 3.5 forum someone wrote a long time and short time thesis on elves. Long time is where elves go slow and concept art and such. Short time is when they go adventuring. That is why elves act with disdain at humans and other short-lived races: those races always force the elves to operate on short time which means that they will get lots of stress and the like.

Sort of drawing from my dwarf character, it might be funny if the whole "elves are haughty and disdainful" thing actually just derived from their accent. Grow up speaking Elvish, and when you try to learn and speak common you'll probably sound like a snooty bastard whether you want to or not unless you spend enough time around humans or halflings to lose your accent. Many humans and elves would likely be unaware of this and instead develop racial stereotypes about each other.

It'd be even worse when dealing with dwarves, for whom elves trying to speak dwarvish would sound either insane or incredibly-hostile-and-insane, since they can't pick up the subleties of dwarven intonation despite the big pointy ears and their inflection is all over the place, going from deliriously happy to dangerously threatening in the middle of a word; and when speaking Common as a lingua franca would sound like they hated the dwarf they were talking to with murderous fury (explaining the traditional elf/dwarf animosity). Humans trying to speak dwarvish would sound totally bonkers to the dwarves, too, but at least not viciously hateful most of the time.

Carried out to a potential conclusion, dwarves wouldn't be isolationists holed up in the mountains because they're proud or secretive or standoffish, but because everyone else seems unhinged and frightening.

[Gastronomie]

I like how you take the same impulse that, say, Finrod has, and rather than hanging out with your friend's descendants, you just help him become an undead abomination.To be fair, it was an evil campaign, and the elf was a psychopath.

[Estrillian]

Playing Dragonlance a couple of years back my wife and I were married Elves. With tribute to GitP we just called each other "Elven Life Partner" and refused to go into gender (or indeed who was the birth parent of our Elven Offspring). We often tried to arrange romantic pairings for the other characters but we couldn't really grasp gender preferences (so kept ignoring them). Cross-racial romance, on the other hand, was a huge thing, since it had caused massive Elven wars.

In our current 5E game our Dwarf calls everyone "Lad" or "Laddie", because she can't really distinguish gender in non-dwarves. (The difference between Lad or Laddie is one of respect, but she never really says which is which, and switches between them depending on how mad / happy she is with a character, so I am not even sure anyone else is following the changes).

[Socratov]

Sort of drawing from my dwarf character, it might be funny if the whole "elves are haughty and disdainful" thing actually just derived from their accent. Grow up speaking Elvish, and when you try to learn and speak common you'll probably sound like a snooty bastard whether you want to or not unless you spend enough time around humans or halflings to lose your accent. Many humans and elves would likely be unaware of this and instead develop racial stereotypes about each other.

It'd be even worse when dealing with dwarves, for whom elves trying to speak dwarvish would sound either insane or incredibly-hostile-and-insane, since they can't pick up the subleties of dwarven intonation despite the big pointy ears and their inflection is all over the place, going from deliriously happy to dangerously threatening in the middle of a word; and when speaking Common as a lingua franca would sound like they hated the dwarf they were talking to with murderous fury (explaining the traditional elf/dwarf animosity). Humans trying to speak dwarvish would sound totally bonkers to the dwarves, too, but at least not viciously hateful most of the time.

Carried out to a potential conclusion, dwarves wouldn't be isolationists holed up in the mountains because they're proud or secretive or standoffish, but because everyone else seems unhinged and frightening.

I have found the thread by the way. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?258370-So-You-Want-To-Play-An-Elf-(3-5-Fluff))

Well, it's would be like English being common, Elvish being Italian (more melodical) and darvish being Japanese (atonal and more focused on inflection).

(also thjis would make the 'Buongiorno' scene with Aldo Raine from Inglorious Bastards that much more funny in DnD)

[Grytorm]

Worse. Gender is not a subject described in polite dwarven society, or even bawdy and dirty dwarfish society. I believe the shortest explanation was along the lines of "Dwarven courtship mostly involved finding out as discreetly as possible what gender the other dwarf in the relationship was." Of course, it is changing slowly in the cosmopolitan city of Ankh-Morpork, where Cheery Littlebottom is the first openly female dwarf and a member of the City Watch. Nobody had the guts to point out to both her and the massive (even by troll standards) Detritus behind her that she shouldn't be wearing blush and high heel boots. Towards the end of the series, there's a thriving business in dwarf women's armour. It's made out of softer metal with finer links, you see.

In The Fifth Elephant the main character Sam Vimes gets taken to a dwarven opera by his wife. It is an epic adventure sort of thing about the founding of the Dwarven monarchy featuring stereotypical masculine characters. Then Vimes learns near the end that it was also a romance story about the two main characters. Which he had failed to notice. (The Opera was in Dwarvish, which while he spoke the language, he didn't speak it that well).


I like the idea of Elves being quite willing to surrender and retreat from lands which are being threatened. Seemingly being quite happy about the arrangement. But in a decade or two they will have soured on the whole thing and devote massive resources into reclaiming what they lost. While still being willing to abandon their new settlements.

Nostalgia helps keep Elven communities together over centuries because they can't actually rely on holding one piece of land for that long.

[Segev]

Beyond all of that, it would probably be weird for the person that's disadvantaged by "a fair fight" to go calling for one. Once in awhile you see it in stories where they are in an even more dangerous situation, as kind of a rules manipulation that buys them a small amount of time before a 1v1 duel or such.

What usually draws my attention to it is when it's the demand to "fight fair" hurled by the obviously physically superior person to the "cheater" who is using "unfair" tactics to win. It's also implicit in a lot of fiction with some sort of non-physical superpowered character in a high school or similar situation, where the bullies are able to get away with physically harassing and even beating or restraining them, but if they use their powers in any way, they're the ones who escalated unreasonably.

Or the guile hero who can't get any respect for his consistent victories over the bully-types because he "cheats" to win. Even though the bully-types pick the fights to begin with and there are no real rules. Apparently, it's "cheating" if you don't fight exactly how the bully-type wants you to. i.e. to his advantage.

[vasharanpaladin]

Apparently, it's "cheating" if you don't fight exactly how the bully-type wants you to. i.e. to his advantage.

To the observer (or the romantic), a "fair" fight is one in which both participants agree to a time, place, and particular set of rules beforehand, and then abide by those decisions.

To the participant, a "fair" fight is one that they come out of with minimal injury, if not complete victory.

There are no "romantic" kobolds; you pick a fight with one of them, and all of them are participants. :smallwink:

[Sigreid]

What usually draws my attention to it is when it's the demand to "fight fair" hurled by the obviously physically superior person to the "cheater" who is using "unfair" tactics to win. It's also implicit in a lot of fiction with some sort of non-physical superpowered character in a high school or similar situation, where the bullies are able to get away with physically harassing and even beating or restraining them, but if they use their powers in any way, they're the ones who escalated unreasonably.

Or the guile hero who can't get any respect for his consistent victories over the bully-types because he "cheats" to win. Even though the bully-types pick the fights to begin with and there are no real rules. Apparently, it's "cheating" if you don't fight exactly how the bully-type wants you to. i.e. to his advantage.

Well, when I was in school fight fair generally just meant no friends to help, no groin shots, no biting and no hair pulling. Anything else was "fair".

In general though, I think "fight fair" is generally meant to reduce the chance of serious injury and limit damage to bruises, cut lips, bloody noses and black eyes. Fighting fair is also generally reserved for fairly minor disputes and not expected when the other guy is intending to seriously injure or kill you. Even in most duels when they were in fashion the duel usually was to first wound and it was considered bad form and often criminal to seriously injure or kill your opponent.

[CantigThimble]

What usually draws my attention to it is when it's the demand to "fight fair" hurled by the obviously physically superior person to the "cheater" who is using "unfair" tactics to win. It's also implicit in a lot of fiction with some sort of non-physical superpowered character in a high school or similar situation, where the bullies are able to get away with physically harassing and even beating or restraining them, but if they use their powers in any way, they're the ones who escalated unreasonably.

Or the guile hero who can't get any respect for his consistent victories over the bully-types because he "cheats" to win. Even though the bully-types pick the fights to begin with and there are no real rules. Apparently, it's "cheating" if you don't fight exactly how the bully-type wants you to. i.e. to his advantage.

I think the 'fair fight' is founded in the idea that combat isn't just a struggle to see who can beat their opponent, it's a test of skill in the culturally established means of resolving conflict. For example a duel in the 17th century was a test to see who was better at unarmored swordfighting. Whoever was better at parrying, thrusting and feinting would be the victor because those were the skills that were considered important by the culture. Doing someting like pulling a dagger out of your sleeve and throwing it into your opponent's thigh might prevent them from beating you in swordplay but it also meant that the winner might not have been the best fencer. Fair doesn't mean that both sides have an equal chance, just that both sides are adhering to the established rules. If a chess grandmaster and a novice play a game do both players have equal odds of winning? No, of course not but does that mean it's fair for the novice to move pieces around when the grandmaster isn't looking to win? No, it just means that in a fair fight the grandmaster will win and the novice can only win if he disregards the established rules of engagement.

In modern times we've done away with most of the rules of engagement but we still retain a few, which are dictated by the geneva convention.

[smcmike]

What usually draws my attention to it is when it's the demand to "fight fair" hurled by the obviously physically superior person to the "cheater" who is using "unfair" tactics to win. It's also implicit in a lot of fiction with some sort of non-physical superpowered character in a high school or similar situation, where the bullies are able to get away with physically harassing and even beating or restraining them, but if they use their powers in any way, they're the ones who escalated unreasonably.

Or the guile hero who can't get any respect for his consistent victories over the bully-types because he "cheats" to win. Even though the bully-types pick the fights to begin with and there are no real rules. Apparently, it's "cheating" if you don't fight exactly how the bully-type wants you to. i.e. to his advantage.

It seems like you are citing fictional examples in which the hero is the one who is fighting "dirty" by doing something unconventional. Yes, that's a common theme, because we sympathize with the character that flouts repressive social norms. A good example of this is Bron's duel during Tyrion's trial.

On the other hand, is your sympathy also with Johnny Lawrence when he sweeps the leg in Karate Kid? Fighting "fair" is simply following the expected social norms for the conflict. It doesn't have to be good or bad.

Also, bullies never fight fair. If they fought fair, they wouldn't be bullies. Usually fictional heroes are teamed up on by a bully and his henchmen.
.........

In terms of elf longevity, I can't help but think that the dominant theme of elf society would be ennui, and their reputation for frivolity is earned by their need to fill the endless hours with distractions. Imagine having habits that are longer-lived than most countries. Yikes. For the most part, I also imagine them to be non-literate. The can read, sure, but they are likely to outlive any book, and so will have first or second hand oral sources that go back really far, plus plenty of time to memorize the songs of their history.

[Socratov]

Well, when I was in school fight fair generally just meant no friends to help, no groin shots, no biting and no hair pulling. Anything else was "fair".

In general though, I think "fight fair" is generally meant to reduce the chance of serious injury and limit damage to bruises, cut lips, bloody noses and black eyes. Fighting fair is also generally reserved for fairly minor disputes and not expected when the other guy is intending to seriously injure or kill you. Even in most duels when they were in fashion the duel usually was to first wound and it was considered bad form and often criminal to seriously injure or kill your opponent.

Indeed, in one of hte Brosnan bond films the BBEG challenges Bond to a duel accordinghte old club rules: first blood from torso. So whomever first draws blood fro mteh other man's torso wins the duel. The fact that hte duel excalates from Epees to shortswords, sabres and whatnot only accentuates what is fair and what is not. the rules are agreed upon beforehand and those are kept. Mind you, often a back-door was built in for the coward: one could, when feeling disadvantaged enough one could acquiesce and admit defeat, though it rarely happened since it rarely gained respect form the audience and branded one to be a coward.

[Beleriphon]

Worse. Gender is not a subject described in polite dwarven society, or even bawdy and dirty dwarfish society. I believe the shortest explanation was along the lines of "Dwarven courtship mostly involved finding out as discreetly as possible what gender the other dwarf in the relationship was." Of course, it is changing slowly in the cosmopolitan city of Ankh-Morpork, where Cheery Littlebottom is the first openly female dwarf and a member of the City Watch. Nobody had the guts to point out to both her and the massive (even by troll standards) Detritus behind her that she shouldn't be wearing blush and high heel boots. Towards the end of the series, there's a thriving business in dwarf women's armour. It's made out of softer metal with finer links, you see.

It also turns out the Low King is actually the Low Queen.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

My thoughts on this, from the thread in the RP forum on racial age and it's impact on relations.

I imagine elves would view humans in much the same way humans view chimpanzees or even shorter-lived apes and monkeys. Chimps come to sexual maturity around 8 years old or so (approximately half the age a human reaches sexual maturity), and live to be about 35 (around half a human's average lifespan). A lot of smaller monkeys live even shorter lives.

Plus, to an elf, humans are primitive, dirty, creatures running more on instinct than rational thought. Yeah, they have aspects of some social "culture," and even underdeveloped use of language and tools. I hear some of them can even be trained to make art, if you want to call it that. But really, let's not xoticomorphize them too much; we may share an evolutionary history, but we're a long way from rolling around on the ground.
2nd paragraph is spot on.
The First paragraph is not, however your error bolsters your argument.

Consider. Arranged marriages were common in the US & the rest of the western world until very recently. The age of Consent, was once much younger. Even today, federally, the Age of consent is 12, however many people get prosecuted for receiving a photo (age 18), or some other law. In my Commonwealth, age of Consent is 16, but there is a "within" four years of age clause. So a 13 y/o can consent to a 17 year old. However, the parents can revoke that consent, even after the fact. If you're under 18, the best plan is abstinence is best.

Even today, California has no minimum marriage age with parental consent. Massachusetts also has no law, with Common law of 12 for girls & 14 for boys being in effect. in NH it is 13/14 with parental consent, with 5 other States using 15 has the age of marriage, with nearly all of the rest saying 16 as age of marriage with parental consent. Only two States require an age above 18 to marry without parental consent.

In Rome, woman had to be 12, and could not marry without parental approval until 25, however the catholic church recognized women over 12 and men over 14, even if married in secret. In 13th Century England, the age was set at 7.

The first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years. In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, the Statute of Westminster 1275, made it a misdemeanour to "ravish" a "maiden within age", whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years.[13] In the 12th century, the jurist Gratian, an influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted the age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14, but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. Some authorities claimed that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, and the marriage had not already been consummated. Gratian noted that "If one over the age of seven takes a prepubescent wife of less than seven and transfers her to his house, such a contract gives rise to the impediment of public propriety"
Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) made it clear that "the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only four years old.
.

Thus, if we are playing in a world anything other than modern or future, a human with an age of 30 should have adult children (age 16) likely with grand children, pelor willing.

What then, would a Elf, with and age of consent of 50 (women), 70 (men) think? When a 70 year old man might be standing at the head of five generations.

It also puts into perspective the historical voting age in the English Speaking world. 21. Absent of any other sensible restriction (military service, property) a person 21 years of age likely not only has children, but has had them several years. Their perspective is not their own needs, but that of their progeny, with throughout human existence had remained a Truth - until baby-boomers & keynesian economics. The requirement for the PotUS to be 35, now seen as "young" then meant he was a grandfather, or that his peers were.

How would a Dwarf, with their strong family ties, look upon a human race, with the exception of the most studious of noble families (House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, in the UK known as Windsor, The Starks, the Targaryen) 25% of the English Population can trace their bloodline to the House of Plantagenet, with most of those being the sub-branches of Lancaster and York. 531 years. What Dwarf would have no knowledge of their grandfather, his grandfathers his brothers & sisters? Yet few humans, even today, could find out who their relatives six centuries ago were, and almost nothing could be said about their lives, absolutely nothing about who they actually where, their hopes, dreams, fears, or personality.

It is true the current Royal Family COULD trace their decent from the House of Wessex & Alferd the great in 849 anno Domini, but that is only five Dwarven generations, & in all the world, they are the only people that could make such a claim without modern genetics. Thirty Nine Generations (by my count, which may be off a few due to how twisted the tree is) of human monarchs, ruling England, Long and Well, in the life time of 5 Dwarfs.

It put a lot of things in perspective as I thought through this.

**

Also this post*

I've wondered if they, or any other human like long lived race is presented correctly. Time still passes at the same rate, a day is still a day, and what can be accomplished in a day, month, or year is still the same. Only experience (knowledge and skills) gained with age changes.

Imagine a reasonable well off working class (businessmen) human, who had been born in 1700 and was still alive & functional (not near death) today.

They might know any number of terms, which have long fallen to disuse. Imagine Prohibition was in effect - they could literally be the only person in America to have been a cooper , and have any knowledge of that profession. Think of the nautical terms, once so commonplace that 170 years after the Age of Sail, many nautical terms are still common parlance in the English lexicon, without scant few knowing their origins.

Imagine the perspective of such a person on Mob rule - that is to say democracy. A Person who lived as a British subject, saw the lawful King, who ruled so many, so well, overthrown, and a Republic founded. A person who kept abreast on the democracy, in France, In Hati, In Mexico, In Columbia. A Person who kept abreast of Political theory, as all literate persons once did.

The perspective of the German republican monarchy nearly win against all challengers until the (then perhaps still a ) Republic of the United States broke with Century & a half of Tradition & became involved in foreign wars. The perspective of someone that can clearly trace that to Germany democracy — mob rule — which leads directly to Hitler.

The Person who saw the Tsar — and Russia, Fall to the dictatorship of communism.

What would such a persons thoughts on government be? Certainly not democracy — not one man, one vote, one time — which is what democracy . Perhaps a Monarchy with a Parliament & hereditary House of Lords - Such as England in Victoran Age. Perhaps a like the German Empire, with it's four kingdoms, six grand duchies, six duchies (five after 1876), seven principalities, three free Hanseatic cities, and one imperial territory. . Perhaps a Republican system as America was founded, however the dozens of failed countries after us would show how dangerous an idea that would be, & certainly there would be great fear of our slide to mob rule & general lawlessness.

Likewise, I believe their would be some concern for nature - but not nearly what is presented. In the end, the world heals. Short of Snarl. One can only wonder if they would support Louis Alfonso's claim to the French Throne. Certainly nothing in French History since the beheading of Louis XVI King of the French suggests they ought to be allowed freedom from Monarchy.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502345-Lifespan-disparity-amongst-fantasy-races/page2

[JAL_1138]

As humans age, time seems to get shorter/go by faster. We wonder where the hours go, then where the days go, then the weeks, months, and years. It's been 16 years since 2000 and I still think of it as recent, a couple years back, not long enough for a child to be born, grow up, and get a learner's permit. Octogenarians think of 'Nam as recent memory, and the years begin to blur past. It's not like they're in slow motion and the world is time-lapsed; reaction time doesn't necessarily take a hit; it's just that, say, an hour doesn't feel as long as it used to.

Elves and dwarves might not experience time the way humans do. A month might seem like a day, an hour like a second. "Why is the castle gone!? It was right here! What do you mean Lord Montague is dead, I just spoke to him a little...while...ago...damn. This is why we stay away."

[EvilAnagram]

It also turns out the snip.

That's about as big a spoiler as you could possibly drop in a thread. It's not just a major plot point at the end of the book, it's a punchline to a slowly building joke. Not cool.

[Naanomi]

Elder scrolls is pretty good about this as well; take the Sload:

"The Sload frown upon recklessness, and view mindfulness as a trait of the greatest value. All known heroes in Sload myth spend their time contemplating for years on end until they finally act, in which they always succeed; villains, on the other hand, are always quick thinking, brash, and doomed to fail. The Sload are so adamant in this demeanor that in their language, the best known translation for the word 'adventure' means 'tragic disaster'."

I could see that view extended to other long lived or immortal races: risk assessment just looks difference when you have thousands of years to suffer for poor decision making

[Sigreid]

Snip -

Interesting read. Summed up quite well in an Adventure Time episode where the vampire king asks Marciline what she has observed and she replies that the same things keep happening over and over again but nobody notices, as if no one lives long enough to see the pattern.

[90sMusic]

It depends on the game world I suppose.

Typically, races are fairly aware of each other and their cultures. You don't have to be a dwarf or live near a dwarf city to know a lot about dwarves for instance.

Word gets around. Information spreads. Some of it might be wrong like stereotyping and things of that nature, but all races who have any degree of contact with one another would be fairly versed in each other just like people in the real world have general ideas about the approximate racial characteristics of people from certain other countries as well as a vague, generalized idea of their cultures.

The only way you could get away with that level of ignorance would be coming from a people that have absolutely ZERO contact with anyone else. Living extremely isolated and with no trade with anyone. At that point, you wouldn't even know what a dwarf or an elf IS, because even knowing the most basic information about them like the name of their people and what they look like, you'd already be past the point where you realize what hair does or doesn't mean. It would be a really tough sell to say you confuse their genders, especially when every race has essentially identical physical sexual characteristics.

Now if you have an insect race or something along those lines, then yeah, you might not realize it's gender or get it confused or something. Just seems very unlikely you get genders confused. You might think it's weird for a man or woman to have a beard, but there is enough there to easily identify them as male and female with or without the hair. Or maybe if they dress in very thick layers of clothing, have sort of unisex styles of clothing and all of them have very feminine faces or very masculine faces, maybe at that point it could get confusing but the physical characteristics are plainly there when they aren't covered up.

The only times race becomes a bigger part of character interaction is when you're playing something rare or unusual or if the world you're playing in has very weird custom setting rules. I played a mermaid once and anyone I told about it was fascinated by it and asked all sorts of questions because they were so rare they were believed to be myths. I also used to lie to people and say I could grant wishes if they performed some service for me and those guys didn't know any better.

[Bohandas]

The requirement for the PotUS to be 35, now seen as "young" then meant he was a grandfather, or that his peers were.

I disagree with it being "young". It's still old enough to be dangerously out of touch.

[Demonslayer666]

Bearded female dwarves are a common joke at our table.

"My dwarf does not have a beard!"

"That's because she shaved."

[smcmike]

I imagine elves would view humans in much the same way humans view chimpanzees or even shorter-lived apes and monkeys. Chimps come to sexual maturity around 8 years old or so (approximately half the age a human reaches sexual maturity), and live to be about 35 (around half a human's average lifespan). A lot of smaller monkeys live even shorter lives.

Plus, to an elf, humans are primitive, dirty, creatures running more on instinct than rational thought. Yeah, they have aspects of some social "culture," and even underdeveloped use of language and tools. I hear some of them can even be trained to make art, if you want to call it that. But really, let's not xoticomorphize them too much; we may share an evolutionary history, but we're a long way from rolling around on the ground.
2nd paragraph is spot on.

Humans don't view chimps and monkeys as different because of their short lifespans. I doubt the average person would have the first clue as to the average lifespan of a chimp. We view them as different because they don't have language. This is not similar to humans and elves.

Also, I don't assume that there is such thing as an "evolutionary history" in a fantasy world, nor do I assume that humans are more "primitive" than elves. With their long lifespans, I'd actually assume that elves are far more set in their ways, and may seem out of touch with modernity to a human.



Thus, if we are playing in a world anything other than modern or future, a human with an age of 30 should have adult children (age 16) likely with grand children, pelor willing.

This does not follow from age of consent laws. You have to look at the ages at which people are actually having kids. Also, in many societies, there's big disparity between the sexes in terms of age at marriage. Older men marry younger women. A 30 year old man may be a newlywed.



The requirement for the PotUS to be 35, now seen as "young" then meant he was a grandfather, or that his peers were.

Again, this is nonsense. If you actually bother to look at when the early Presidents started having kids, it's around 30.

The reason for the 35 age requirement is to prevent nepotism and dynastic succession. This actually wouldn't work very well if you assume childbearing at 16.



Imagine a reasonable well off working class (businessmen) human, who had been born in 1700 and was still alive & functional (not near death) today.

They might know any number of terms, which have long fallen to disuse. Imagine Prohibition was in effect - they could literally be the only person in America to have been a cooper , and have any knowledge of that profession. Think of the nautical terms, once so commonplace that 170 years after the Age of Sail, many nautical terms are still common parlance in the English lexicon, without scant few knowing their origins.

Imagine the perspective of such a person on Mob rule - that is to say democracy. A Person who lived as a British subject, saw the lawful King, who ruled so many, so well, overthrown, and a Republic founded. A person who kept abreast on the democracy, in France, In Hati, In Mexico, In Columbia. A Person who kept abreast of Political theory, as all literate persons once did.

The perspective of the German republican monarchy nearly win against all challengers until the (then perhaps still a ) Republic of the United States broke with Century & a half of Tradition & became involved in foreign wars. The perspective of someone that can clearly trace that to Germany democracy — mob rule — which leads directly to Hitler.

The Person who saw the Tsar — and Russia, Fall to the dictatorship of communism.

What would such a persons thoughts on government be? Certainly not democracy — not one man, one vote, one time — which is what democracy . Perhaps a Monarchy with a Parliament & hereditary House of Lords - Such as England in Victoran Age. Perhaps a like the German Empire, with it's four kingdoms, six grand duchies, six duchies (five after 1876), seven principalities, three free Hanseatic cities, and one imperial territory. . Perhaps a Republican system as America was founded, however the dozens of failed countries after us would show how dangerous an idea that would be, & certainly there would be great fear of our slide to mob rule & general lawlessness.

Likewise, I believe their would be some concern for nature - but not nearly what is presented. In the end, the world heals. Short of Snarl. One can only wonder if they would support Louis Alfonso's claim to the French Throne. Certainly nothing in French History since the beheading of Louis XVI King of the French suggests they ought to be allowed freedom from Monarchy.

This is interesting, but problematic, because few fantasy settings have experienced the sort of unprecedentedworld-wide change that we have over the last 400 years.

Also, I expect effects of environmental degradation would absolutely horrify a 400-year-old man. The world most certainly has not healed.

[Sigreid]

This is interesting, but problematic, because few fantasy settings have experienced the sort of unprecedentedworld-wide change that we have over the last 400 years.

Also, I expect effects of environmental degradation would absolutely horrify a 400-year-old man. The world most certainly has not healed.

Thinking about it I could see the longer lived races and their being locked in to a mindset by having exposure to many generations of their forefathers as being one of the reasons that the D&D fantasy worlds don't progress. "We do it this way because this is the way it is done."

[Regitnui]

Bearded female dwarves are a common joke at our table.

"My dwarf does not have a beard!"

"That's because she shaved."

My players joke that Dwarven maidens are ugly. I usually fire back with a reminder that our half-orc monk finds them gorgeous compared to his sisters.


Thinking about it I could see the longer lived races and their being locked in to a mindset by having exposure to many generations of their forefathers as being one of the reasons that the D&D fantasy worlds don't progress. "We do it this way because this is the way it is done."

That's explicitly the culture of most elves in the world of Eberron, especially the Aereni culture.

[smcmike]

Thinking about it I could see the longer lived races and their being locked in to a mindset by having exposure to many generations of their forefathers as being one of the reasons that the D&D fantasy worlds don't progress. "We do it this way because this is the way it is done."

Right. I also assume that elves have a way of life that works really, really well, and that changing it seems a bit pointless to them. Their arts and crafts require centuries to master and are exquisite in a way that human crafts are not, but also hidebound and maybe a bit old-fashioned. Why mess with what works?

Dwarves I imagine as a bit more willing to develop their technology and crafts, but constrained by secrecy and greed.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

Humans don't view chimps and monkeys as different because of their short lifespans. I doubt the average person would have the first clue as to the average lifespan of a chimp. We view them as different because they don't have language. This is not similar to humans and elves.

Also, I don't assume that there is such thing as an "evolutionary history" in a fantasy world, nor do I assume that humans are more "primitive" than elves. With their long lifespans, I'd actually assume that elves are far more set in their ways, and may seem out of touch with modernity to a human.



That wasn't my argument, but that of another person whom I was quoting. I see that was very unclear however.





This does not follow from age of consent laws. You have to look at the ages at which people are actually having kids. Also, in many societies, there's big disparity between the sexes in terms of age at marriage. Older men marry younger women. A 30 year old man may be a newlywed.




Again, this is nonsense. If you actually bother to look at when the early Presidents started having kids, it's around 30.


Although this is a valid point I think it must be observed that although man may wait to be older to have children, woman usually did not. And the increase in male age was more often (I believe) in men of means, where as the peasant had far less reason to wait. There are of course, always exceptions. Catherine of Aragon for example.

Again with the "when" your point is valid, however the presidents were once mean of means, education & culture. It was not uncommon, as you pointed out, for men to wait to marry, establish themselves, and marry a younger woman. It does not change the fact that they are two generations into adulthood by the time they are allowed to run for high office.

I tried to find "age of first pregnancy" by my google fu failed me past more than a few decades.



The reason for the 35 age requirement is to prevent nepotism and dynastic succession. This actually wouldn't work very well if you assume childbearing at 16.


In Part, yes.


This is interesting, but problematic, because few fantasy settings have experienced the sort of unprecedentedworld-wide change that we have over the last 400 years.

Also, I expect effects of environmental degradation would absolutely horrify a 400-year-old man. The world most certainly has not healed.[/QUOTE]

Much of that change is due to the rapid change in tech. In D&D, magic would have provided most of it mayhap.

These last 400 years would be very different from any other time in our worlds history.

You could take the Army of Attila, and even up to the Napoleonic War it could have been effective, even won.

To be fair when talking about life experience. perspective, ages, we really should omit the last 400 years, you are right.

It doesn't change the memory of dynastic lines much, most had to much turn over....

[smcmike]

Again with the "when" your point is valid, however the presidents were once mean of means, education & culture. It was not uncommon, as you pointed out, for men to wait to marry, establish themselves, and marry a younger woman. It does not change the fact that they are two generations into adulthood by the time they are allowed to run for high office.

I tried to find "age of first pregnancy" by my google fu failed me past more than a few decades.


If the fact that someone, somewhere is a grandparent at 35 means two generations have passed, nothing has changed in that regard.

I don't have any links handy, but there has been a fair amount of research on family dynamics in various places and periods. If I recall correctly, the trend in Western Europe in the late Middle Ages and early modern period was childbirth after 18 or 20 for the mother, whereas in other societies (Eastern Europe) it was earlier, and the disparity in ages between spouses was often much greater. Age of consent laws don't really give a good picture of social norms.

One thing that drives me a bit nuts is the idea that 35 was "old" once upon a time, based purely upon life expectancy at birth (this isn't your argument, but it is a common one). There are two huge problems with this - first, we really don't have a good way of calculating life expectancy at birth before the early modern period. You can look at grave markers, but they are really hard to interpret. The second problem is that people misuse life expectancy at birth - the fact that many many people died in childhood doesn't really mean much for those who made it out of childhood. This isn't to say that a 35-year-old in the past would have the same life expectancy as one today, but the odds would favor him living for several more decades (if he were a she, the odds would worse, until the end of childbearing years).

[Ruslan]

- A kobold character might never strike at an enemy unless they have somehow gained Advantage on the attack.
All my PCs are secretly Kobolds?

[Sigreid]

If the fact that someone, somewhere is a grandparent at 35 means two generations have passed, nothing has changed in that regard.

I don't have any links handy, but there has been a fair amount of research on family dynamics in various places and periods. If I recall correctly, the trend in Western Europe in the late Middle Ages and early modern period was childbirth after 18 or 20 for the mother, whereas in other societies (Eastern Europe) it was earlier, and the disparity in ages between spouses was often much greater. Age of consent laws don't really give a good picture of social norms.

One thing that drives me a bit nuts is the idea that 35 was "old" once upon a time, based purely upon life expectancy at birth (this isn't your argument, but it is a common one). There are two huge problems with this - first, we really don't have a good way of calculating life expectancy at birth before the early modern period. You can look at grave markers, but they are really hard to interpret. The second problem is that people misuse life expectancy at birth - the fact that many many people died in childhood doesn't really mean much for those who made it out of childhood. This isn't to say that a 35-year-old in the past would have the same life expectancy as one today, but the odds would favor him living for several more decades (if he were a she, the odds would worse, until the end of childbearing years).

Well, an indicator we do have is that the initial Social Security age was set under the assumption that the vast majority of Americans would be dead before they ever collected a penny, and the rest would be out within a few years.

[smcmike]

Well, an indicator we do have is that the initial Social Security age was set under the assumption that the vast majority of Americans would be dead before they ever collected a penny, and the rest would be out within a few years.

Yes, this is the specious argument that I was referring to. For this one, I do have a link:

https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

[Zorku]

What usually draws my attention to it is when it's the demand to "fight fair" hurled by the obviously physically superior person to the "cheater" who is using "unfair" tactics to win. It's also implicit in a lot of fiction with some sort of non-physical superpowered character in a high school or similar situation, where the bullies are able to get away with physically harassing and even beating or restraining them, but if they use their powers in any way, they're the ones who escalated unreasonably.

Or the guile hero who can't get any respect for his consistent victories over the bully-types because he "cheats" to win. Even though the bully-types pick the fights to begin with and there are no real rules. Apparently, it's "cheating" if you don't fight exactly how the bully-type wants you to. i.e. to his advantage.

I'll try to avoid retreading ground that others covered:

Generally there are three combat pairings to look at. The first is weak vs strong, and assume traditional strength. It doesn't do much good for the weak combatant to call for a fair fight here. At best it means less severe injuries, but if the strong opponent isn't fighting fair you already know that they are aiming not just to win, but to severely injure or kill their opponent.

In the other direction it makes sense for a couple of reasons. Firstly, if the strong combatant isn't interested in causing serious injury or death, then it may be a signal of good restraint (or simple recognition of the consequences they may face after the fight, situationally,) not immediately resorting to the same kind of unregulated combat that the weaker combatant has employed. The third option is that of situational advantages, and is exactly what you've been describing as the only way you ever see this called out.

This one is over employed quite a bit in stories because it effectively establishes a lot of details about a particular kind of protagonist, and because there's a long tradition of telling stories this way. You see the other two very rarely, because they're less engaging in general and the consequences don't lend themselves to the typical heroic arc (or your weaker protagonist can just up and fix their own broken spine somehow, but that's obviously going to be the exception in stories that care about "fighting fair" in the first place.)

You other pairings are weak-weak and strong-strong. When there's not an obvious favorite in a fight then there's little motivation for one party to break the rules of engagement, purely to avoid an imminent loss. When they have other motivations, like a deep seated grudge or some sort of greedy goal, it's much more obvious that they're breaking the rules because they want the fight to be dangerous. If they do this without striking the first blow or otherwise with some significant circumstantial advantage, then the other person doesn't have to worry about showing restraint the same way they do in fights with an obvious favorite- they simply act to defend themselves from a serious threat and if, when the dust settles, their opponent is crippled or dead, that's widely viewed as the fault of the one that escalated the fight first.

You may say that the same should be true of the other pairing, but just like you've been saying, one person has an obvious advantage there. This kind of violence is generally sanctioned (or close enough to it,) by whatever power structure is in place, because it doesn't get people killed. Two beefy football players in the same school may injure a lot of scrawny Poindexters, but killing each other is at least a rare enough thing that people are shocked when it happens.

When I think of all of this stuff it's easiest for me to look at the mating competition of non-sentient animals, in this case deer. They generally have a forceful clash and grapple to determine who is stronger, and the loser limps away a bit sore but without any flesh wounds. This is far from universal though, and depending on a lot of life factors, there is a fairly clear cunning behind when one buck will decide to "fight dirty." It's kind of a desperate move when they know they aren't the stronger one, especially if they know they probably won't ever be stronger, but their options for dirty and dangerous fighting don't really include any trump cards. They gain a slight advantage in the moment that they attack, in a way that shouldn't have been part of the trial, and thus in a way that their opponent probably didn't expect, but if that attack doesn't deal a decisive blow then they now face an angry buck that is stronger than them and very interested in killing them.

The formal display without consequences that the victor will take all that seriously covers pretty much all of the shows of power you would expect to see in a high school setting, but human culture gets pretty weird, so you see a lot of the same things playing out in actually deadly situations, like when armed forces clash, particularly when there are formalized rules and the competition is vaguely viewed as a show of strength between two monarchs...



One thing that drives me a bit nuts is the idea that 35 was "old" once upon a time, based purely upon life expectancy at birth (this isn't your argument, but it is a common one).
Just to expand on that a bit: infant mortality rates can drag the average lifetime in a population down dramatically. If you look at the average lifetime for fish and bugs, particularly the ones that lay a thousand eggs all at once then bugger off without ever doing anything else for their offspring, they'd look like they must be having kids only a fraction of the way to sexual maturity.

Steven Pinker has been involved in a fair deal of research that's relevant to what it meant to die of old age throughout history, and I think he presents some of it in the TED Talk version of a lecture that I was able to attend in person. For anybody without enough time to go watch a TED talk, the gist of this relevant bit is that we seem to have always* pretty easily lived into our 50s or 60s, which is about the age you need to reach in order to help your children raise children of their own.

*Always, as in, as long as we've been human. The talk goes into some detail about why and how that's useful for our species, though I'm not sure how much of this is present in the TED video.

[JumboWheat01]

These are funny! I have a large tendency to play halflings and never really thought about how confusing other races may be. I'm generally more interested in not getting stepped on, accidentally punted, or how far I can be thrown for my group's signature attack.

[Breaklance]

i had a tiefling monk who grew up in a monastary of other tieflings and didn't understand why everyone thought he was a demon.

He also was a "way of the closed fist" philosophy style guy from the Xbox original game Jade Empire so he thought people were just misinformed about his lifestyle.

[Segev]

Good and interesting points on the "fair fight," but I am going t obow out of it in this thread as I realize I'd derailed it. For that, I offer apologies.


I disagree with it being "young". It's still old enough to be dangerously out of touch.

Technically, age has little to do with how in or out of touch somebody is. That's cultural. And subcultural. It has to do with who you hang out with and in what circles you travel.

[Grey Watcher]

The campaign fell apart only two or three sessions in, but I had a character who was somewhat gender-blind.

Basically, as a dragonborn, Blackfang found mammals' obsession with other people's reproductive organs really, really weird. Didn't see the point in worrying much about the subject except perhaps for those people you were specifically trying to mate with.

(Blackfang was also kinda clueless about mammalian features in general: upon reuniting with a party member who has been magically aged during a split-the-party situation, Blackfang's only comment was "Did you dye your hair?")

[Naanomi]

Another good one to play with is personal space... goblins or kobolds or other 'warren' creatures might be right up in your face, even frequently touching you when they interact with you, because of how tight quarters they live in at home. Alternatively, an Elf might demand you stand ten feet away at all times because any closer is 'in their personal bubble', or may even imply sexual interest (especially awkward in the latter case when the whole party insists on staying close together)

Food is another good angle... what animals are appropriate to eat, what good table manners look like...

[RickAllison]

Another good one to play with is personal space... goblins or kobolds or other 'warren' creatures might be right up in your face, even frequently touching you when they interact with you, because of how tight quarters they live in at home. Alternatively, an Elf might demand you stand ten feet away at all times because any closer is 'in their personal bubble', or may even imply sexual interest (especially awkward in the latter case when the whole party insists on staying close together)

Food is another good angle... what animals are appropriate to eat, what good table manners look like...

"I'm just watching your back, friend!"
"I am aware of that fact, and my eyes are up here."
"Why would you think I would be looking there?"
"You are a bard."
"That's..... A very fair statement."

[JackPhoenix]

Plus, to an elf, humans are primitive, dirty, creatures running more on instinct than rational thought. Yeah, they have aspects of some social "culture," and even underdeveloped use of language and tools. I hear some of them can even be trained to make art, if you want to call it that. But really, let's not xoticomorphize them too much; we may share an evolutionary history, but we're a long way from rolling around on the ground.

Funny, then that the average human is just as intelligent as the average elf (both have +1 Int), but is also stronger, tougher, wiser and more charismatic than the average elf (+1 to all other stats). Elves are more graceful (+2 Dex compared to human's +1) and have keener senses. Human technology is generally more advanced than what elves have, despite their civilisation being younger, though elves have edge in wizardry. Elves have an advantage of longer lives, though, given that it takes the elf over a century to learn the same skills human can get in barely two decades... what was that about intelligence? By the time an elf wizard ends his apprenticeship, human could've reached archmage level of power and either died from the old age or turn into a lich, or search for other means of immortality.

Sucks to be born with pointy ears, doesn't it? No wonder elves try to act superior all the time... it's all they have, and they know it.

In other words, while thinking about something else, I've realised that while +1 to all stats may not be so great mechanically, it makes humans a little better at everything except each race's unique gimmick.

[Naanomi]

An in game example: once (in a non-dnd fantasy system) we had a Minotaur paladin, a rat-man summoner, a pixie archer, and a human (cleric/wizard kind of)

-The Minotaur insisted he was the leader, because he was in front leading the battles
-The rat-man insisted he was the leader, because everyone stood in front of him and protected him
-The human (me) insisted we were all equal and should vote on decisions democratically
-The pixie (an immortal race) claimed we weren't anything or even a group, that we just happened to be doing the same stuff in the same place for a while; and everyone should just do what they wanted

[Kane0]

i had a tiefling monk who grew up in a monastary of other tieflings and didn't understand why everyone thought he was a demon.

He also was a "way of the closed fist" philosophy style guy from the Xbox original game Jade Empire so he thought people were just misinformed about his lifestyle.

Ahh, good game. I too have played quite a few characters by way of the Closed Fist mentality (well the philosophy part moreso than the morality bar aspect, Bioware should've stuck to their guns on that).

Oh, another one!
- Goliaths must be completely weirded out by everyone's apparent weakness. Even half orcs that get the same STR bonus as they do cannot carry nearly as much. They probably wouldn't use beasts of burden that much either, so that would be something rather foreign to them.

[RickAllison]

Some other fun race-characteristics that can cause trouble:

Goliaths, like their larger giant kin, are fiercely competitive; they may actually be more competitive as achieving greater goals is drilled into Goliath values and self-worth. When a Goliath lists off his achievements, it may appear as bragging to other races when it is his equivalent of saying he is a respected hunter.

Minotaurs of Krynn believe that the strong must rise to the top and lead in a way they can use their talents (so the smartest may be the archmage, the wisest is the high priest, the strongest is the leader of the stormstrropers) through challenging others. When these minotaurs challenge someone from another race, it is far from personal and simply means the Minotaur genuinely believes it would be better if the best were in charge.

Both cultures exhibit off-putting behavior for other races, but it comes from a relatively innocent frame of mind.

[Segev]

Funny, then that the average human is just as intelligent as the average elf (both have +1 Int), but is also stronger, tougher, wiser and more charismatic than the average elf (+1 to all other stats). Elves are more graceful (+2 Dex compared to human's +1) and have keener senses. Human technology is generally more advanced than what elves have, despite their civilisation being younger, though elves have edge in wizardry. Elves have an advantage of longer lives, though, given that it takes the elf over a century to learn the same skills human can get in barely two decades... what was that about intelligence? By the time an elf wizard ends his apprenticeship, human could've reached archmage level of power and either died from the old age or turn into a lich, or search for other means of immortality.

Sucks to be born with pointy ears, doesn't it? No wonder elves try to act superior all the time... it's all they have, and they know it.

In other words, while thinking about something else, I've realised that while +1 to all stats may not be so great mechanically, it makes humans a little better at everything except each race's unique gimmick.

So Elves are Old Money who are living off the grandeur of their past, and look down their noses at the New Money (humans) despite the fact that the New Money may actually be wealthier (more capable) than they are?

[Socratov]

So Elves are Old Money who are living off the grandeur of their past, and look down their noses at the New Money (humans) despite the fact that the New Money may actually be wealthier (more capable) than they are?

Well, assuming similar corssection of geniuses, consider that genius elves live lifetimes of about 5-10 humans, and thus have a reputation for being a genius that is 5-10 times better for achieving about 5-10 times as much. that;s what superiority is about: in teh eyes of elves humans are like flashes: once they finally get going they need to go die and leave the place in shambles. If that is not foolish and primitive then I don't know. Coupled with the stuff in the thread I linked: elven psychopaths die sooner since they burn out faster, but geniuses live longer as they spend more time in long-time. Elves feel superior beucase they wee dout their psychopaths sooner and keep their geniuses around longer to be, well, superior.

[smcmike]

Well, assuming similar corssection of geniuses, consider that genius elves live lifetimes of about 5-10 humans, and thus have a reputation for being a genius that is 5-10 times better for achieving about 5-10 times as much. that;s what superiority is about: in teh eyes of elves humans are like flashes: once they finally get going they need to go die and leave the place in shambles. If that is not foolish and primitive then I don't know. Coupled with the stuff in the thread I linked: elven psychopaths die sooner since they burn out faster, but geniuses live longer as they spend more time in long-time. Elves feel superior beucase they wee dout their psychopaths sooner and keep their geniuses around longer to be, well, superior.

This assumes that elven genius is the same as human genius, only longer-lasting, and also that genius is something that continues to produce over centuries.

I imagine an elven genius going far, far deeper into a specific problem or project than a human genius would have time to do, but with far less urgency. If you've got centuries, instead of decades, there's no need to be hasty.

So, yeah, I imagine that the epic poetry of a genius elven bard is not something that a human could produce: who has time to listen to a recital that lasts a fortnight, anyways? The human bard, though, wrote 45 plays in the time it took the elven to write that poem.

[Socratov]

This assumes that elven genius is the same as human genius, only longer-lasting, and also that genius is something that continues to produce over centuries.

I imagine an elven genius going far, far deeper into a specific problem or project than a human genius would have time to do, but with far less urgency. If you've got centuries, instead of decades, there's no need to be hasty.

So, yeah, I imagine that the epic poetry of a genius elven bard is not something that a human could produce: who has time to listen to a recital that lasts a fortnight, anyways? The human bard, though, wrote 45 plays in the time it took the elven to write that poem.

It's not about how prolific an artist is or how much a genius does, it's about production in general: as long as you are producing you are adding value, no matter how slow. In the elves' opinion they are just more careful about slinging stuff into the world instead of pumpig out stuff like there is no tomorrow.

[Grey Watcher]

Another good one to play with is personal space... goblins or kobolds or other 'warren' creatures might be right up in your face, even frequently touching you when they interact with you, because of how tight quarters they live in at home. Alternatively, an Elf might demand you stand ten feet away at all times because any closer is 'in their personal bubble', or may even imply sexual interest (especially awkward in the latter case when the whole party insists on staying close together)

Food is another good angle... what animals are appropriate to eat, what good table manners look like...

Heh, reminds me of "the UN Dance": people from cultures with different ideas about how close you stand to someone during a conversation end up moving around as each one attempts to "correct" the distance based on what the other one just did.

[CantigThimble]

This assumes that elven genius is the same as human genius, only longer-lasting, and also that genius is something that continues to produce over centuries.

I imagine an elven genius going far, far deeper into a specific problem or project than a human genius would have time to do, but with far less urgency. If you've got centuries, instead of decades, there's no need to be hasty.

So, yeah, I imagine that the epic poetry of a genius elven bard is not something that a human could produce: who has time to listen to a recital that lasts a fortnight, anyways? The human bard, though, wrote 45 plays in the time it took the elven to write that poem.

You could also go the route of the Eldar from 40k. They switch professions as they go through life. At certain points when one path ceases to serve them they abandon that life, completely cutting themselves off from all the routines and skills associated with it, and take up a new path to pursue with all their being. An eldar poet might experience some great disillusionment and take up the path of the warrior to release his anger, or he might have a humbling experience and take up the path of service to restore his humility. Sometimes eldar find themselves trapped in a path, unable to go through the process of abandoning that life. While they become undisputed masters and teachers in that field given enough time, it is considered a great tragedy for someone to lose that capacity for change.

So a poet might go a few decades and produce many works of great quality but when someone goes to meet him and find out what his next work will be they find that he's turned to gardening and doesn't really care that much about all those silly poems he wrote all that time ago.

[smcmike]

It's not about how prolific an artist is or how much a genius does, it's about production in general: as long as you are producing you are adding value, no matter how slow. In the elves' opinion they are just more careful about slinging stuff into the world instead of pumpig out stuff like there is no tomorrow.

Right, and from a human perspective the elves have some Great Masters, who are living legends but may also be woefully behind the times.

The elves have Copernicus. The humans all look up to him, and go and visit his observatory as a sort of living museum. Maybe they ask him about what it was like to get to meet both Newton and Einstein.

[Sigreid]

So, extrapolating from what someone said earlier about time seeming to go faster as you pick up years (no joke on that one). I could see young elves and dwarves, basically the equivalent of teenagers and early 20 somethings being the ones that most likely befriend humans and other shorter lived peoples because at that point they have essentially lived life on a similar enough scale. However as the longer lived race person ages, time keeps speeding up. Decades seem to fly by the way weeks and years used to. About say, 2-300 years in is when it really would seem that befriending a human is masochistic as you blink and your friend is long gone. And given how rapidly humans change their society there is no guarantee that their decedents will be anything like the friend you held dear.

Similarly, human civilizations emerge, do good or harm, decay and are replaced with terrifying speed.

I could see elves generally keeping their distance not because they feel themselves superior or don't respect humans, but because humans are a perpetually unknown factor. The world is always a new and wondrous thing to humans. Like it was to an elf just a century old. 6 or 7 centuries in, you could even find yourself envying that much as a 70 year old might envy a 20 year old with their whole life and endless possibilities in front of them.

[Bohandas]

Regarding gender cues not being picked up

http://www.elfwood.com/u/andersson2/image/05754910-2710-11e4-9ecf-d547aae57bd2/the-bard-she-s-a-he

the first comment



Artist said the mistake goes both ways. That means the elf couldn't couldn't keep human genders strait either. The elf thought the bard was a woman! Makes sense if you think abut how limited sexual dimorphism appears to be among elves in this world. If you grow up in a place where the only gender queues that matter are subtle ones you probably wouldn't see the big ones. The elf isn't bothered because this has probably happened to him alot, going both ways. he has probably accidentally hit on a lot of human men by accident too, if he even cares. It is entirely possible that when it comes to sex elves in general don't care one way or the other (ex. Cap'n Jack). The really funny thing is that the artist said the Mistake goes both ways. So, what ever the gender markers are that scream "female!" to elves are, the bard has them!!!! To elves the bard looks extremely effeminate. What the fact that the ranger clearly has a thing for him means about her character I'll leave to your imagination

[Nostri]

That's about as big a spoiler as you could possibly drop in a thread. It's not just a major plot point at the end of the book, it's a punchline to a slowly building joke. Not cool.

The book's 17 years old at this point. Talking about the plot of a book that old hardly counts as a spoiler.

[Segev]

Regarding the bard and elf ranger girl in andersson's work, it's probable that she's been amongst non-elves long enough to pick up the other ways of telling. She may like the Bard for his loveable rogue-ness, or something. Clearly he has the Charisma of his class, given his...accomplishments. She might like him in spite of herself, and in spite of any elven-cultural-femininity-associations. (Guys can like fairly manly women without being gay, and nothing says a yoai fangirl who likes her girly bishonen is gay.)

[EvilAnagram]

The book's 17 years old at this point. Talking about the plot of a book that old hardly counts as a spoiler.

A Game of Thrones had been out for a comparable amount of time when the show began. Does that mean it would have been fine to tell everyone what happens to Ned Stark?

You're suggesting that it's perfectly fine to spoil a hilarious surprise ending for a classic, but comparatively unknown fantasy novel on a forum that attracts fantasy readers. Do you really think that The Fifth Elephant is so widely read that all, or even a majority of the participants on this forum have read it? I sincerely doubt that to be the case. Perhaps you think that no one picks up these books years after their published? Well, that's just silly. I started The Colour of Magic twenty-six years after it was first published. It was a full decade after The Fifth Elephant came out when I first read it, and having that ending surprise me was fantastic, especially because the ending derives its effectiveness entirely from its surprise.

[Socratov]

A Game of Thrones had been out for a comparable amount of time when the show began. Does that mean it would have been fine to tell everyone what happens to Ned Stark?

You're suggesting that it's perfectly fine to spoil a hilarious surprise ending for a classic, but comparatively unknown fantasy novel on a forum that attracts fantasy readers. Do you really think that The Fifth Elephant is so widely read that all, or even a majority of the participants on this forum have read it? I sincerely doubt that to be the case. Perhaps you think that no one picks up these books years after their published? Well, that's just silly. I started The Colour of Magic twenty-six years after it was first published. It was a full decade after The Fifth Elephant came out when I first read it, and having that ending surprise me was fantastic, especially because the ending derives its effectiveness entirely from its surprise.

I think that unless there is a reason that the work has seen a lot of new attention (like the serialisation of A song of Ice and Fire), that there is a limit on how long you can consider something a spoiler. Otherwise the discussion of any work of fiction should be barred and prohibited on account of someone not having read the work in question, no matter the date of its publication. I consider 12 years without a resurgence in attention a decent enough period of time to consider the stature of spoilerage to be dropped.

[EvilAnagram]

I think that unless there is a reason that the work has seen a lot of new attention (like the serialisation of A song of Ice and Fire), that there is a limit on how long you can consider something a spoiler. Otherwise the discussion of any work of fiction should be barred and prohibited on account of someone not having read the work in question, no matter the date of its publication. I consider 12 years without a resurgence in attention a decent enough period of time to consider the stature of spoilerage to be dropped.

I take the reverse position: only after a work of fiction achieves a large degree of cultural notoriety should we stop worrying about spoilers (eg: Vader's relationship to Luke or the ending of Casablanca). If this were, say, a Pratchett fan forum I would think it less objectionable to spoil the surprise ending of that book, but it is not.

[Socratov]

I take the reverse positiom: only after a work of fiction achieves a large degree of cultural notoriety should we stop worrying about spoilers (eg: Vader's relationship to Luke or the ending of Casablanca). If this were, say, a Pratchett fan forum I would think it less objectionable to spoil the surprise ending of that book, but it is not.

(haven't seen casablanca)

I think that if you make a Veen diagram of Prathcett readers and TTRPG players that you'll end up with a surprising large overlap. I don't think a spoiler is as damaging after the book has been out exceeding 10 years and hasn't had a recent resurgence in attention. By then everyone who was planning on reading it and would be invested in follow the plot and/or storylines will have read it. Sure some latecomers will have only recently discovered the works, but the risk of spoiling the book for a lot of people has passed. Once a work has passed into the realm of classic odds are people don't read it for the plot, but for completing the series (be they a list like IMDB's top 250 or a series of books by a prolific author who writes fantasy with a serious connection to our everyday world) or any number of reasons really. And even though I agree that the spoiler in question is not just a spoiler but an improitant and impacting sideplot point in a whole series of books, it is rather not that important to the main storyline (i.e. it does not have a lasting effect on the main characters but is more used as a punchline). I would not rate the spoiler in question on the same level as the heritage and destiny of one of Carrot Ironfoundersson (one of hte main characters) which has a greater effect on the following books in the series then the spoiled punchline. And this is just a fact that is given away at the start of the series and does not have serious impact until later in the series. Spoiling that detail (and its significance) woudl ruin the whole series instead of just the one book, including much more recent works.

[Zalabim]

It was a full decade after The Fifth Elephant came out when I first read it, and having that ending surprise me was fantastic, especially because the ending derives its effectiveness entirely from its surprise.
I read the Fifth Elephant shortly after it was published and I literally haven't the slightest idea that what you're talking about was important, funny, or if it even came up in the book at all. I thought that information was from a much later book.

I take the reverse positiom: only after a work of fiction achieves a large degree of cultural notoriety should we stop worrying about spoilers (eg: Vader's relationship to Luke or the ending of Casablanca).
And I'm not sure I know how Casablanca ends. I mean, I only know of one scene that I know is from Casablance because I've been told so, but I don't know if that's from the ending or what it means.

Just to offer some perspective.

[RickAllison]

Heathens! How have you not seen Casablanca? It is a cinematic classic. Also, I may be biased because I have a great love for that film.

[Sigreid]

Heathens! How have you not seen Casablanca? It is a cinematic classic. Also, I may be biased because I have a great love for that film.

Never made it all the way through the film without getting bored. It was even shown in a theater arts class I had and I couldn't tell you anything about the movie.

[smcmike]

Heathens! How have you not seen Casablanca? It is a cinematic classic. Also, I may be biased because I have a great love for that film.

Yeah. I'm not even a classic movie lover - many are too slow for me, and the humor often doesn't land. But Casablanca is amazing.

[EvilAnagram]

I promise you, every one of you have seen the ending to Casablanca. You might have only seen it as a clip or only seen it quoted by another work, but you've all seen it, and several times. It is completely inescapable. You cannot live in America workout seeing it. Quotes from it are burned into your mind, completely divorced from context, regardless of whether or not you've ever watched the movie. It is simply that pervasive.



If you don't get on that plane you'll regret it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life.

We'll always have Paris.

Here's lookin' at you, kid.

Edit: In fact, those quotes essentially hit the final beats of the film. If I can summarize the ending of the film with three quotes you know by heart, can you really claim you don't know the ending?

That's the difference between Casablanca and a somewhat popular book. One is burned into the mind of every single person who interacts in any way with Western media, and the other is somewhat popular.

No one can watch the ending of Casablanca without tremendous deja vu. The dark airstrip, Bogart staring his beautiful costar in the face, both of them rocking trench coats and fantastic hats in all their monochromatic glory. It doesn't matter if you never watched it before in your life, you've seen it dozens of times. Every word is a line you've heard a thousand times, almost as though it's growing out of you. Just as you know Achilles without ever reading Homer, you know this scene. It is etched into your core.

[Segev]

Yeah, but who knows the significance of those lines well enough to realize they spoil something?

Even reading them, I don't know what twist the spoil.

[Zorku]

My 2 cp: I don't think that an offhand comment that spoils an old book is particularly damaging, so much as a page of argument over how important it is spoils a book. In this case I think most people would have read over that the way they read over words they don't know, and forget about it long before they ever got around to reading the book.

It seems to more important question is not so much who will read the book eventually, but who has currently read far enough into the book to have any context for what they just heard. In the case of popular film/tv adaptations a Snape and a Dumbledore have some meaning to pretty much everyone whether they were following the series or not, whereas what turns out snip is just not going to have much meaning to anyone without some working knowledge of Discworld.

Thanks to all this commotion I could easily see people paying more attention than that and creating some framework to hang the idea on. Much as I dread succumbing to the smug "I don't prescribe to either side here because you're all stupid" and "I win because I've found the middle ground" attitude of every snobby little internet intellectual, this does really seem to be a counter productive argument to be having. Maybe consider private messages for this kind of thing in the future?

[Segev]

On-topic anecdote: In a game I ran in college, one of my friends played an elf who had a running gag of not being able to properly mentally convert between chronological and equivalent physical ages. At least once, in trying to figure out how old a 12-year-old human is in "elven terms," he muttered "That's nine divided by five plus 32...?" to himself.

[Bohandas]

Can you imagine if someone in the D&D world held a contest intended for children? It's be a real fiasco trying to figure out who qualifies.

[Aett_Thorn]

On-topic anecdote: In a game I ran in college, one of my friends played an elf who had a running gag of not being able to properly mentally convert between chronological and equivalent physical ages. At least once, in trying to figure out how old a 12-year-old human is in "elven terms," he muttered "That's nine divided by five plus 32...?" to himself.

I would think that it would be similar to how we try to figure out how long things would be "in dog years", and done in probably similar tones of voice. "Oh, this will take us a month? But that's like 7 months in human years!"




On a different subject, I would think that more rare races would be even more confused by the way PC races handle things. Imagine an NPC that was raised in a werewolf pack. They'd probably be aghast that PC races don't EAT the weak.

A Kobold that has been serving a dragon as its master might be very confused as to why the PCs willingly follow the rules set up by someone that can't even breathe fire or fly. I mean, how weak of a ruler can you get?

[Segev]

Can you imagine if someone in the D&D world held a contest intended for children? It's be a real fiasco trying to figure out who qualifies.

I don't think so; assuming you know the races' cultural ages of maturity, you'd just spell it out by race and age.

[JumboWheat01]

And considering how in 5th edition, everything PHYSICALLY matures at pretty much the same rate, there's even less confusion. Sure, they're not considered an adult yet in their own society, but biologically they are.

[Sigreid]

And considering how in 5th edition, everything PHYSICALLY matures at pretty much the same rate, there's even less confusion. Sure, they're not considered an adult yet in their own society, but biologically they are.

Toddlers with their hormones running wild. There should be a lot more elves in the world. :smallbiggrin:

[Grey Watcher]

I think that unless there is a reason that the work has seen a lot of new attention (like the serialisation of A song of Ice and Fire), that there is a limit on how long you can consider something a spoiler. Otherwise the discussion of any work of fiction should be barred and prohibited on account of someone not having read the work in question, no matter the date of its publication. I consider 12 years without a resurgence in attention a decent enough period of time to consider the stature of spoilerage to be dropped.

Nobody tell me how Julius Caesar ends! :smallwink:

And yes, I'm aware that a whole, relatively serious discussion happened about the specific case of Casablanca, but I still wanted to make that joke.

[Regitnui]

Toddlers with their hormones running wild. There should be a lot more elves in the world. :smallbiggrin:

Where did you think half-elves came from? An elf in their high-emotion teenage years behaves an awful lot like a human. It's only after their first century or so that they calm down into the stoic, "wise" stereotype.

[Socratov]

Where did you think half-elves came from? An elf in their high-emotion teenage years behaves an awful lot like a human. It's only after their first century or so that they calm down into the stoic, "wise" stereotype.
This fits even better then expected, it explains why half-elves exist, it explains why half-elves are not exactly fully accepted in elf society. Now all we need is to link Bardic college with a way for people to essentially make a bastard go away and not be a shame on the family. And finally it explains why they make such great diplomats for elves: they are expendable when sent out, but when recieved they know one of them might e responisble for this specific specimen.

[Aett_Thorn]

This fits even better then expected, it explains why half-elves exist, it explains why half-elves are not exactly fully accepted in elf society. Now all we need is to link Bardic college with a way for people to essentially make a bastard go away and not be a shame on the family. And finally it explains why they make such great diplomats for elves: they are expendable when sent out, but when recieved they know one of them might e responisble for this specific specimen.

Stop making so much sense!

[Socratov]

Stop making so much sense!

Neverrrrr!

Any, imagine this conversation:

"How is Aelas doing, I haven't seen him around for a while"

"Aelas, oh he is doing fine. He has reecntly found himself at Bard College and doing juuuuust fine. He really wants to travel and see the world and all and thought college would be the very thing..."

years later:

"Hi, I am Aelas, emissiary for the city of Volantis. I was hoping I could see the councillor of what used to be my hometown for a diplomatic matter."

[darkrose50]

Honestly, I've ALWAYS been confused by the notion of a "fair fight." What is a fair fight? Who defines it? Why is it "fair" for the scrawny kid to face the burly boxer in a bare-hands brawl, but not to want to fight using the rapier with which he's skilled? Why is it "fair" for the psychic to be restricted to wrestling against the muscle-bound arena champion, but unfair for him to use his psychic powers to fling the guy out of the arena entirely?

I think that historically a medieval fair fight was restricted to the knighted gentry on the field. They had money, power, were valuable to ransom, and basically thought they were better than everyone. Their training and armor gave them a distinct advantage over the commoners, and everyone not a knight was a lot less challenging. Also being better than others in the eyes of the law made them create different rules on how to treat each other. At some point the war would end and the knights would need to deal with the families of the knights they defeated. Defeating an enemy nicely would help.

[Bohandas]

And considering how in 5th edition, everything PHYSICALLY matures at pretty much the same rate, there's even less confusion. Sure, they're not considered an adult yet in their own society, but biologically they are.

The fact that people keep buying new editions surprises me more and more

[DizzyWood]

The fact that people keep buying new editions surprises me more and more

Well gee sorry we offended you by buying and enjoying something. I will try really hard to never do that again. :smallconfused:

[CantigThimble]

Well gee sorry we offended you by buying and enjoying something. I will try really hard to never do that again. :smallconfused:

Don't be silly, everyone knows that the correct fantasy universe was created 40 years ago and every change since then has just been introducing new flaws.

[Oramac]

In a recent campaign, I played the only dwarf in the party, and during conversation I said that dwarfs can only tell gender by whether or not someone has a beard. This prompted a series of, "What about me?" "Well, what about you, ma'am?" exchanges, as well as the party's realization that my character thought there were no male elves.

Do you play at Game Nite in St Louis? Because seriously, one guy I play with did the exact same thing a couple weeks ago.

Probably not, but still it's hilarious to me that the same subject came up so quickly.

[DizzyWood]

Don't be silly, everyone knows that the correct fantasy universe was created 40 years ago and every change since then has just been introducing new flaws.

Ohh thank you for correcting me I had wrongfully assumed Bohandas was a troll. Glad we cleared this up!

[Sicarius Victis]

What is a fair fight?

Every goliath knows that a fair fight is when the odds are stacked against you!

And every kobold knows that's stupid, and a fair fight is when the advantages are on your side.

It's only cheating when the enemies do it!

[Sigreid]

What is a fair fight?

Every goliath knows that a fair fight is when the odds are stacked against you!

And every kobold knows that's stupid, and a fair fight is when the advantages are on your side.

It's only cheating when the enemies do it!

Kobold Motto: "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying."

[smcmike]

Racial ideas of a fair fight:

Goliath: a wrestling match, governed by a set of simple but strict rules, followed by a handshake and a hug.

Orc: armed battle to the death, followed by trophy taking. No rules, but anything other than a big melee weapon is a sign of cowardice.

Elf: A fencing duel, by traditions set forth 4,000 years ago. Use of magic is expected.

Human: A Joust!

Goblin: You go in pit now, we poke you with spears. Very funny!

Halfling: a rousing battle of hide-and-seek, followed by brunch.

[JumboWheat01]

Racial ideas of a fair fight:

Goliath: a wrestling match, governed by a set of simple but strict rules, followed by a handshake and a hug.

Orc: armed battle to the death, followed by trophy taking. No rules, but anything other than a big melee weapon is a sign of cowardice.

Elf: A fencing duel, by traditions set forth 4,000 years ago. Use of magic is expected.

Human: A Joust!

Goblin: You go in pit now, we poke you with spears. Very funny!

Halfling: a rousing battle of hide-and-seek, followed by brunch.

Dwarf: A two-part event, first a drinking party, then a good ol' fist fight. Loser pays for the drinks.

[2D8HP]

Don't be silly, everyone knows that the correct fantasy universe was created 40 years ago and every change since then has just been introducing new flaws.No! No! No!

:furious:

That is absolutely false!

It wasn't perfected until 38 years ago (there was still some fine tuning to do '74 to '78).

:annoyed:

Please be sure to get that right!

[Zorku]

This fits even better then expected, it explains why half-elves exist, it explains why half-elves are not exactly fully accepted in elf society. Now all we need is to link Bardic college with a way for people to essentially make a bastard go away and not be a shame on the family. And finally it explains why they make such great diplomats for elves: they are expendable when sent out, but when recieved they know one of them might e responisble for this specific specimen.

This fits really nicely into the framework I'd like to use, but all of the real world examples I can think of where people (men) were mixing their blood with with people they considered to be something distinctly inferior didn't really seem to evoke much behavior of the "I made that one" variety. Thankfully elves work a little bit differently than humans, but I don't know that I'd take this one for granted.

Looking at it a little more closely on a numbers angle, an important elf won't so much have any confusion about what half elf is their child, as those youthful mistakes only look adult for about a century and a half (notable because that is the period where their age is the least bit ambiguous,) but as a young adult you've got to spend most of that time proving that you're competent enough at a basic job for anybody to eventually trust you with anything so volatile as politics. Even a century after all of those pseudo-elves have perished you're only starting to come in your own in terms of the clout it takes to have any real sway, for you to be the kind of elf that the diplomat needs to talk to in the first place.

So no, as an elf you're not the least bit confused about if this is your child, but you're side glances at your kids or grandkids to try and ascertain if this is one of theirs. By the time you're coming up on your 7th century you just assume every halfy can trace their family tree back to you. You probably weren't actually that promiscuous, but it's just so much easier to not actually figure it out by that point.

[Bohandas]

Don't be silly, everyone knows that the correct fantasy universe was created 40 years ago and every change since then has just been introducing new flaws.

The old stuff is an even bigger problem. I've heard that they went back to half-assing monster stats like they did back in 2e. I don't know if that's true, but that's what I've heard.

[CantigThimble]

The old stuff is an even bigger problem. I've heard that they went back to half-assing monster stats like they did back in 2e. I don't know if that's true, but that's what I've heard.

So you're saying you haven't even played 5e or read the SRD?

[Bohandas]

Ok. That's a fair criticism. I haven't actually read the SRD.

(I did actually try to find it last night but had trouble due to excessive drowsiness)

[RickAllison]

Ok. That's a fair criticism. I haven't actually read the SRD.

(I did actually try to find it last night but had trouble due to excessive drowsiness)

So you are on a 5e sub-forum, critiquing the 5e system, all without having any clue about how the system works?

Admittedly this is a topic that could well be on the general RPG forum and so could be gone through without realizing it is about a system you don't know, but how did you even come across it? Unless someone linked to this from another sub/forum or it came up in a Google or site search, the only way it would be found is through accessing the 5e-specific portion of the site...

Welcome, but I am quite perplexed. And yes, 5e does have less-intricate monster stat-blocks compared to 3.X and closer to older editions. This is because it is meant to call back to the early editions and to encourage DMing without the restrictions of the well-defined that filled 3.X and 4e. It has enough information to run them in combat and the general alignment of the creatures, but the focus is on the freedom of the DM to define them in his/her own way with separate text talking about how those creatures function in the Forgotten Realms.

[Kane0]

Every goliath knows that a fair fight is when the odds are stacked against you!

And every kobold knows that's stupid, and a fair fight is when the advantages are on your side.


So 1 goliath vs a pack of tuckers kobolds is considered fair by all involved? What are we waiting for then, grab the popcorn and lets get started!

[Bohandas]

So you are on a 5e sub-forum, critiquing the 5e system, all without having any clue about how the system works?

:smallredface: I actually found this thread in through the "New Posts" search and forgot to check which subforum it was in. I just assumed it was in the general Roleplaying Games section.

I apologize.

[RickAllison]

:smallredface: I actually found this thread in through the "New Posts" search and forgot to check which subforum it was in. I just assumed it was in the general Roleplaying Games section.

I apologize.

Ahhhh, no need to apologize!

[Ghost Nappa]

On-topic anecdote: In a game I ran in college, one of my friends played an elf who had a running gag of not being able to properly mentally convert between chronological and equivalent physical ages. At least once, in trying to figure out how old a 12-year-old human is in "elven terms," he muttered "That's nine divided by five plus 32...?" to himself.

I've never tried converting ages like temperatures, but I supposed I could give it a shot.

(The equation doesn't really work at all mind you, the result is ~38, which is kind of wrong. If a human adult is at minimum 16-18 and an adult elf is at least ~100 years old, then a 12 year old human child is looking closer to 75-80 years old as an elf, if maturity is understood to be a linear ratio, or ....12 if going be biological standards.)


Actually...uh...that's pretty bizarre. The reason puberty works the way it does is that it prioritizes the growth and development of the brain before the body. Your pubic growth spurt doesn't start until ~12 minimum, because almost all of the energy and effort your body is expending is going to pump up your brain. If most races physically develop at the same rate as humans that means one of three things:


Elven, Dwarven, and Gnomish children require tons more food than other races in order to accomplish this. (This would exacerbate their population growths relative to human to even lower levels: not only are humans reproducing more often and sooner, they also require less food and effort to reach maturity.)

Elven, Dwarven, and Gnomish children actually develop their bodies before their brains. I don't know what this looks like as an effect on physiological development but if it sounds totally backwards, that's because it kind of is.

It's just a cultural thing and "young adulthood" takes up a lot more time. Maybe Elvish colleges charge by the decade?

[Sigreid]

I've never tried converting ages like temperatures, but I supposed I could give it a shot.

(The equation doesn't really work at all mind you, the result is ~38, which is kind of wrong. If a human adult is at minimum 16-18 and an adult elf is at least ~100 years old, then a 12 year old human child is looking closer to 75-80 years old as an elf, if maturity is understood to be a linear ratio, or ....12 if going be biological standards.)


Actually...uh...that's pretty bizarre. The reason puberty works the way it does is that it prioritizes the growth and development of the brain before the body. Your pubic growth spurt doesn't start until ~12 minimum, because almost all of the energy and effort your body is expending is going to pump up your brain. If most races physically develop at the same rate as humans that means one of three things:


Elven, Dwarven, and Gnomish children require tons more food than other races in order to accomplish this. (This would exacerbate their population growths relative to human to even lower levels: not only are humans reproducing more often and sooner, they also require less food and effort to reach maturity.)

Elven, Dwarven, and Gnomish children actually develop their bodies before their brains. I don't know what this looks like as an effect on physiological development but if it sounds totally backwards, that's because it kind of is.

It's just a cultural thing and "young adulthood" takes up a lot more time. Maybe Elvish colleges charge by the decade?


I think it would be a cultural thing. Previous generations are often slow to acknowledge that following generations are in fact capable, and I think that would be even worse in a race that is going to live to see potentially 6 or 7 generations born before they die.

Again, that could easily lead to younger elves and dwarves associating with humans (much to their parents chagrin) because where other elves will see a wet behind the years welp, humans will see a peer.

[Grytorm]

Nobody tell me how Julius Caesar ends! :smallwink:

And yes, I'm aware that a whole, relatively serious discussion happened about the specific case of Casablanca, but I still wanted to make that joke.

Et, tu Brute?

[Regitnui]

I think it would be a cultural thing. Previous generations are often slow to acknowledge that following generations are in fact capable, and I think that would be even worse in a race that is going to live to see potentially 6 or 7 generations born before they die.

Again, that could easily lead to younger elves and dwarves associating with humans (much to their parents chagrin) because where other elves will see a wet behind the years welp, humans will see a peer.

Pretty much this, or at least in my perception of Eberron. A young elf (century old) has just been started to be regarded as an adult. For about eighty years, they've had to put up with what millenials are putting up with today; the momentum of the previous generation defining the rules of the world they're wanting to build. This means they act out a little. Since these humans are more likely to treat me as an adult and some of them aren't that bad looking... Poof, half-elves.

[JumboWheat01]

I think it would be a cultural thing. Previous generations are often slow to acknowledge that following generations are in fact capable, and I think that would be even worse in a race that is going to live to see potentially 6 or 7 generations born before they die.

Again, that could easily lead to younger elves and dwarves associating with humans (much to their parents chagrin) because where other elves will see a wet behind the years welp, humans will see a peer.

An elf might associate with the younger races much more than a dwarf, thanks to their greater chaotic bent while dwarven culture has a much more lawful one. Tradition may be important to both races, but how they go about it is really different.

As for gnomes, well, who really knows when it comes to gnomes. They may reach breeding age but I highly doubt they ever "grow up."

[Segev]

While it isn't true for dwarves, elves are often portrayed as "smarter" than humans. Maybe they really do need longer/more food/whatever to grow those mystically awesome brains.

Note that the version I espouse does have them growing up entirely at the slowed rate. So "develop brains first, then puberty for physical maturity" is followed exactly as well as it is in humans.

Notably, however, human brains aren't FULLY mature until their mid-20s, by most research I've seen. They're volatile and prone to instability (not in the "insane" sense, but in the sense that long-term planning is much harder for them to prioritize over immediate stimulus-response). It really isn't purely cultural that teens are more prone to break out into fights than 25+-year-olds. They value the immediate response to threat or offense higher than the critical thinking to consider long-term results, sometimes so strongly that they will project a fantasy of consequences to justify immediately-desired behaviors.

Or so I'm told. Anecdotally, I was always the weird one who couldn't bring himself to be impulsive because I was always over-considering long-term consequences. I'm a fairly boring person. (I sometimes wonder if this is why I've never had that "crush" thing happen to me, and certainly never been "in love." Whether real or the teen-obsession Romeo & Juliet kind.)

[DizzyWood]

Racial ideas of a fair fight:

Goliath: a wrestling match, governed by a set of simple but strict rules, followed by a handshake and a hug.

Orc: armed battle to the death, followed by trophy taking. No rules, but anything other than a big melee weapon is a sign of cowardice.

Elf: A fencing duel, by traditions set forth 4,000 years ago. Use of magic is expected.

Human: A Joust!

Goblin: You go in pit now, we poke you with spears. Very funny!

Halfling: a rousing battle of hide-and-seek, followed by brunch.

Halfling: alternately if it is to cold out for hide-and-seek a pie eating contest is acceptable, followed by brunch.

Off topic do you think they have Mimosas in FR?

[smcmike]

Halfling: alternately if it is to cold out for hide-and-seek a pie eating contest is acceptable, followed by brunch.

Off topic do you think they have Mimosas in FR?

Indeed. They would also enjoy a friendly bake-off, like the Great British Bake Off. Or, a contest to see who can grow the largest pumpkin.

[DizzyWood]

:smallredface: I actually found this thread in through the "New Posts" search and forgot to check which subforum it was in. I just assumed it was in the general Roleplaying Games section.

I apologize.

Welcome!!! Come play 5e and let us know what you think

Come to 5e we have bound accuracy and cookies!

[2D8HP]

Welcome!!! Come to 5e we have bound accuracy and cookies!That's what got me to switch BTW (Mmmm cookies yum!).

[Sigreid]

While it isn't true for dwarves, elves are often portrayed as "smarter" than humans. Maybe they really do need longer/more food/whatever to grow those mystically awesome brains.

Note that the version I espouse does have them growing up entirely at the slowed rate. So "develop brains first, then puberty for physical maturity" is followed exactly as well as it is in humans.

Notably, however, human brains aren't FULLY mature until their mid-20s, by most research I've seen. They're volatile and prone to instability (not in the "insane" sense, but in the sense that long-term planning is much harder for them to prioritize over immediate stimulus-response). It really isn't purely cultural that teens are more prone to break out into fights than 25+-year-olds. They value the immediate response to threat or offense higher than the critical thinking to consider long-term results, sometimes so strongly that they will project a fantasy of consequences to justify immediately-desired behaviors.

Or so I'm told. Anecdotally, I was always the weird one who couldn't bring himself to be impulsive because I was always over-considering long-term consequences. I'm a fairly boring person. (I sometimes wonder if this is why I've never had that "crush" thing happen to me, and certainly never been "in love." Whether real or the teen-obsession Romeo & Juliet kind.)

This is all very true. My pet theory is that the slow development of the consequences part of the brain is that it is an evolutionary advantage. Many things that are required or beneficial to primitive survival are also very dangerous, especially as you are learning how. So dangerous that if you develop an understanding of the risk before you master the how, you may not ever try it.

[Ghost Nappa]

While it isn't true for dwarves, elves are often portrayed as "smarter" than humans. Maybe they really do need longer/more food/whatever to grow those mystically awesome brains.

Note that the version I espouse does have them growing up entirely at the slowed rate. So "develop brains first, then puberty for physical maturity" is followed exactly as well as it is in humans.

Notably, however, human brains aren't FULLY mature until their mid-20s, by most research I've seen. They're volatile and prone to instability (not in the "insane" sense, but in the sense that long-term planning is much harder for them to prioritize over immediate stimulus-response). It really isn't purely cultural that teens are more prone to break out into fights than 25+-year-olds. They value the immediate response to threat or offense higher than the critical thinking to consider long-term results, sometimes so strongly that they will project a fantasy of consequences to justify immediately-desired behaviors.

Or so I'm told. Anecdotally, I was always the weird one who couldn't bring himself to be impulsive because I was always over-considering long-term consequences. I'm a fairly boring person. (I sometimes wonder if this is why I've never had that "crush" thing happen to me, and certainly never been "in love." Whether real or the teen-obsession Romeo & Juliet kind.)

There's also the fact that humans as a species prefer the "quality > quantity" approach to rearing young meaning that there's more time and resources invested in singular children. In comparison, other creatures like some insects and marine life prioritize having thousands of children and hoping that a couple dozen or so survive to adulthood. Those species tend to be "simpler" in the sense that they need to be able to hit the ground running in order to survive, and thus there's no time for them to learn more abstract information. On the other hand, they're less likely to live long enough to take advantage of it, so doing so would just waste the parents' time and endanger everyone involved.

[Sigreid]

There's also the fact that humans as a species prefer the "quality > quantity" approach to rearing young meaning that there's more time and resources invested in singular children. In comparison, other creatures like some insects and marine life prioritize having thousands of children and hoping that a couple dozen or so survive to adulthood. Those species tend to be "simpler" in the sense that they need to be able to hit the ground running in order to survive, and thus there's no time for them to learn more abstract information. On the other hand, they're less likely to live long enough to take advantage of it, so doing so would just waste the parents' time and endanger everyone involved.

This is highly culturally subjective when it comes to humans and number of offspring. In westernized cultures yes, fewer kids is the norm. In more agrarian and/or primitive cultures where more kids = more people to defend and work the family farm and there's a high child and adolescent mortality rate mothers and fathers are often judged by the number of their offspring. In some cultures the woman is basically expected to have kids until she dies in child birth, or her eggs run out.

[Naanomi]

Caring for offspring and infant mortality is an interesting question... if your lizardman comes from a species that lays big clutches of eggs and expects most to die, he may be confused when your warm-blooded allies are so attached to their offspring (you only consider them to be really 'alive' once they reach some culturally arbitrary point of adulthood). Expect folks to be shocked that you casually kill some child in your way. "What, it wasn't even close to grown yet, who cares!?!"

[smcmike]

Caring for offspring and infant mortality is an interesting question... if your lizardman comes from a species that lays big clutches of eggs and expects most to die, he may be confused when your warm-blooded allies are so attached to their offspring (you only consider them to be really 'alive' once they reach some culturally arbitrary point of adulthood). Expect folks to be shocked that you casually kill some child in your way. "What, it wasn't even close to grown yet, who cares!?!"

Reminds me of a sci-fi book - A Darkling Sea - set on a planet where sentient life evolved around warm water ducts on the sea bottom of an ice-covered ocean planet. There's a sort of a crustacean-like species, and the young are basically just wild animals, which are caught and tamed to bring them into the fold of civilization.

[Zorku]

This is highly culturally subjective when it comes to humans and number of offspring. In westernized cultures yes, fewer kids is the norm. In more agrarian and/or primitive cultures where more kids = more people to defend and work the family farm and there's a high child and adolescent mortality rate mothers and fathers are often judged by the number of their offspring. In some cultures the woman is basically expected to have kids until she dies in child birth, or her eggs run out.

"Quality > quantity" is still very much applicable in comparison to other species, and because attention during development is a very large factor in how humans turn out you particularly see huge numbers of children among those that can afford them. For your more 'constantly covered in filth' class of people a single couple will go through something like 14 pregnancies, but mostly because they don't have any idea how many will be still born or die of the measles, or from small pox, or diptheria, or...

In that rough and unpredictable life it's nice to have 8 small farmers to help out with harvest, but those people are still aiming for something like 2.5 children. If you end up with less than 2 you've failed to replace yourself in the next generation, and if you end up with statistically fewer productive ones than your peers you're still on a slow treadmill toward having your genes kicked out of the population.

Regardless of how many young any particular species has, if they're not constantly spreading into new territory, they're probably only managing to create 2-4 new adults in the next generation. These numbers start to swing a little more wildly if their species actively makes sure that a lot of viable adults don't mate at all (think some king of the hill contest when one male mates with literally all of the females in some small region,) but unless there's suddenly a new source of food then there just isn't going to be any way to feed an ever growing population. Made eight kids but 6 of them starved to death? Congratulations, you have a net value of 2 kids that were relatively deprived of attention while they watched 6 siblings die under your care.

Getting out of biology and into anthropology, this stuff is one of the big appeals of slavery/serfdom. (Do note that pre-American slavery is much less... industrial in its approach.) You get an adult strength pair of hands to do the least desirable work, didn't have to invest resources in their development on the first cycle, and don't have to invest much on the cycles after that (depends on how easily you can get a new slave- if it's cheaper to buy one than to feed a growing one and lose out on productivity as your other slaves raise it, then you probably won't encourage them to set up families,) and if there's famine then you and yours are certainly not going to be the first ones to starve to death. Meanwhile, your own children are unbound by the toil of farming or such, and can get a lot of attention during their development as you steer them towards better things, like large scale combat tactics and strategy, high society, and whatever passes for science in your day. Mostly the favorite child is going to inherit your home and slaves though, so they end up with the equivalent of a business degree.

There are lots of ways to upset all of this, but generally the majority of the populace only has to really start dealing with having 3 or more children survive into adulthood (and the inheritance issues that creates over the relatively stable disease and starvation population limits,) when agriculture makes sudden leaps and bounds.