HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jun 5, 2013 19:08:43 GMT -8
It's a slow day at work today, so y'all are going to be subjected to some of the thoughts that are rolling around in my head. Recently, my group decided that they want to try Pathfinder. I'm going to play with them because, well, I'll play nearly anything and they're my friends, but I am decidedly un-interested in Pathfinder. I've just moved away from the rules-heavy, "we need mechanics for absolutely every possible situation" kind of systems. I'm also not a fan of the epic, save the world from evil, style games. But that's sort of beside the point. Reading the Pathfinder book (and throwing my back out by carrying that monster around) has spurred me to tinker around with a fantasy setting for one of my favorite trad games; Ubiquity. The first thing I started doing was crating some racial templates for the classic fantasy races. Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, etc. But I ran into a problem. I really have an issue with saying that an entire "race" of people are inherently better or worse than other "races". What I mean is, It rubs me the wrong way to say that all Dwarves are stronger and hardier, yet less friendly than other races. Or that all Elves are more dextrous and intelligent, but less robust. Or that all Halflings are more nimble and charismatic, but weaker. In my old Douchey DM article about demi-human diversity, I mentioned that I am bi-racial. I'm sure this is part of my hang up, as, obviously, I find the idea of one group of people being superior/inferior simply because of their "race" distasteful. Complicating the issue is the ability for all these fantasy "races" to interbreed, meaning that they are not distinct races at all, but are simply different variations of the same species. So herein lies my problem. Will Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, Gnomes, Halfelves (a name I find rather insulting, as I don't refer to myself as being "half" of anything), and other classic fantasy "races" have the proper feel if there aren't stat modifications based on race? If Elves don't have the traditional +1 Dexterity, -1 Constitution adjustments, will they still feel like Elves? Or will it be enough to distinguish each race with minor inherent abilities (such as darkvision and stealth bonuses due to size), culturally based skills and talents (such as stonecraft and longbow proficiency), and different languages? Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on Jun 5, 2013 19:54:38 GMT -8
Well, I've always seen this as a false premise.
The difference between a Human and a Dwarf is not the same as a Human of regional descent variations. To me it is closer to the difference between a Human and a Neanderthal. It is absolutely fair to say that Neanderthals stronger than humans. Of course there will be nutrient depraved or deformed Neanderthals that are weaker, but most games are talking average to average comparisons.
It differs though, and I'm not a designer on all games ever, but at least that's the intention I get from Tolkien and the earlier writers he inspired. I think I've seen games where Eastern origin Humans get a bonus to wisdom or intelligence. I know Tolkien gets some flack for seemingly his "evil" people of the world are dark skinned, but when it comes to racial tensions between Dwarves, Humans, Elves and Hobbits I think he generally tries to say something. Most blanket statements are spoken in blatant ignorance, and are also proven false by the characters in the books. I know the movies don't quite touch on it so much as the books, but Gimli in Lorien is a great example of this. His interaction with Celeborn and Galadriel at the gift giving ceremony is portrayed as a melting of their race's icy relations, and a real eye opener for both sides.
But yea, some more recent world designers in games really haven't seen it in this same light.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jun 5, 2013 20:22:30 GMT -8
Again, it's a problem with our hobby and how we co-opt words and twist their meaning and shoe horn them into someplace where they don't belong.
"Race" is probably not the proper term when distinguishing elves, dwarves, humans, halflings.
It should be species.
When you take the politically loaded word "race" out of the equation and replace it with the more accurate "species," the stigma goes away.
Would you consider it "speciesist" to say that cheetahs are faster than turtles?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2013 20:36:24 GMT -8
I agree with the other posters. Some people like to play with Dwarves as just humans that drink a lot and speak in a scottish accent. Elves are just like vegan tree-hugger humans with pointy ears. Orcs are barbaric tribal humans. If that's your style, and then you went on to make some homebrew race that was a clear stand-in for a stereotypical race... lets say you create a race of "Azians" that are good at math and have a culture based on honor. Then you create another race of nomadic "Nearabs" who live in arid lands, travel by caravanserai, and are built on the ruins of ancient civilazations, and finally you make a race of bloated consumers called "Merickans".... then I'd be inclined to call it "racist". If, on the other hand, you have humans that come in all shapes, sizes, and temperments... and you have other species like Dwarves and Elves that are as alien to humans as say dogs and dolphins... then you are much less likely to be considered racist. I have a preference for games in which dwarves, elves, and humans cannot cross-breed, and they do not occupy the same position in the ecosystem (and thus are not necessarily competitors). Dwarves live underground, elves live in dense forests, and humans live on coasts or rivers. A human wouldn't want to live underground any more than a dwarf would want to live in a forest or an elf would want to live on a shore.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jun 5, 2013 21:48:41 GMT -8
The difference between a Human and a Dwarf is not the same as a Human of regional descent variations. To me it is closer to the difference between a Human and a Neanderthal. It is absolutely fair to say that Neanderthals stronger than humans. Of course there will be nutrient depraved or deformed Neanderthals that are weaker, but most games are talking average to average comparisons. Absolutely. I usually think about this in terms of the animal kingdom. I'm not going to argue that all mammals should have stats within the same range. A horse, a lion, and a pig are all going to have different ability score ranges as they are all different species. There will be variations between individuals within that species of course. But as they are usually presented, Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, Orcs, Ogres, and a whole lot of other humanoid creatures are all the same species, as "species" is often defined as "a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring". I know in the Dark Sun setting the Muls (human-Dwarf hybrids) are sterile, leading me to conclude that, at least in the Dark Sun setting, humans and Dwarves are in fact two distinct species. Racial tension is something that does not have to be based on species. As shown by the real world, humans will gladly slaughter each other for minor differences. Anyway, I guess there are three solutions to my problem: - Create racial templates, complete with ability adjustments because, that's just how it's usually done.
- Make the humanoid races truly separate species, and make them incapable of interbreeding.
- Restrict racial templates to skills and minor inherent abilities, based more on culture than on "race".
Choices 2 and 3 are my preferred options right now. However, I think a setting where the different "races" are well and truly separate species could be, well, not problematic. But it may feel very different from the "traditional fantasy" of D&D. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Conversely, making "milder" racial templates based only on cultural and regional differences may not feel different enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2013 21:57:52 GMT -8
The difference between a Human and a Dwarf is not the same as a Human of regional descent variations. To me it is closer to the difference between a Human and a Neanderthal. It is absolutely fair to say that Neanderthals stronger than humans. Quite true for Tolkien's Dwarves, and a nice way to put it--they're different species. However, Nitpick Lad offers the following observations: In a letter JRR himself said that the half-elven show that biologically Elves and Humans must be the same species. So the superiority (and undoubtedly they are superior in Middle Earth) of Elves vis-a-vis humans really is superiority within a single species. (Most fantasy settings probably claim that their Elves are a separate species--but most still have half-Elven, and so Tolkien's observation about the logical consequence of the existence of fertile hybrids would apply to them as well as it does to his own work.) The superiority of the Elves is apparently an essentially preternatural quality, not a biological one (though perhaps it's better to just not use the categories of modern science for a work consciously imitating the tropes of Northern European legend). In any event, strength is probably not the best attribute to use for this point. It would be difficult to claim that, say, the Dinka are not stronger than the Efe, and equally difficult to argue that they are not both human. For that matter, Great Danes are biologically the same species as poodles. Genetic isolation doesn't tend to produce equality on all points. I would argue that Gimli's friendship with Legolas is the stronger example, as they are peers. While Gimli's Courtly Love-like devotion to Galadriel is certainly exceptional, it surely must be mixed with the kind of awe he would feel for the inherently great of any species. IIRC, the Dwarves and Elves got along well in the distant past (probably First Age), so Gimli's elf-friend status is in some sense a restoration, not an innovation (even if it seems that way to everyone in the Third Age). In any event, if the game is to defend Tolkien against charges of racism (a pointless exercise, as those bringing the charge will do so regardless), the best evidence is probably his acerbic reply to a (Nazi-era, obviously) German publisher's inquiry about whether he was a Jew. JRR could be rather testy at times....
|
|
jpk
Apprentice Douchebag
Posts: 58
|
Post by jpk on Jun 5, 2013 23:55:35 GMT -8
Or will it be enough to distinguish each race with minor inherent abilities (such as darkvision and stealth bonuses due to size), culturally based skills and talents (such as stonecraft and longbow proficiency), and different languages? Culturally-based skills are an option I tend to dislike. For the most part, unless there is an actual instinctual talent, skills and experiences are the least "racially"-linked things about a PC. After all, a dwarf raised by elves (or "tree-coyotes," as I believe most dwarves think of them) would still be short, still have a pace modifier, but might never see stonework in his lifetime before adventuring. Would an elf/tree-coyote born with one arm actually have a longbow proficiency? But I suppose it's all a matter of the conventions of the world in which you're telling a story. Maybe the "racial" instinct is so strong that a completely limbless tree-coyote (or "elf" if you must) can still fire a longbow with his teeth and some incredibly arched eyebrows!
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jun 6, 2013 1:29:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by muntjack on Jun 6, 2013 5:42:42 GMT -8
If you check out Paizo's Advanced Race Guide, you'll find the way that Pathfinder deals with these stereotyped rules for each race. The next time I run Pathfinder I plan on using this book. It basically offers a ton of alternate starting racial abilities so every dwarf or every elf isn't the same. Worth checking out. You can get the pdf for $10 on Paizo's site, and it's really worth it.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Jun 6, 2013 7:45:27 GMT -8
Anyway, I guess there are three solutions to my problem: - Create racial templates, complete with ability adjustments because, that's just how it's usually done.
- Make the humanoid races truly separate species, and make them incapable of interbreeding.
- Restrict racial templates to skills and minor inherent abilities, based more on culture than on "race".
Choices 2 and 3 are my preferred options right now. However, I think a setting where the different "races" are well and truly separate species could be, well, not problematic. But it may feel very different from the "traditional fantasy" of D&D. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Conversely, making "milder" racial templates based only on cultural and regional differences may not feel different enough. TEMPLATES!?! This sounds very unhippy-like and waaaaay to rules lawyery sir! Certainly not what I have come to expect from our resident New Age Gamer Guru...you've been lugging that Pathfinder Core book around too much, its bringing you down man! Couldn't your gaming group agree that as each character is a unique individual of a certain species/race/ethnicity/geographic location ? As such each character will have various abilities. Some could be set to have some biologically inherent component but others are a result of environment ? I'll agree with you that coming from a planet where we only have one dominant bipedal species (my dog is the one that truly is in charge...and don't get me started on the fucking dolphins!) we can easily slip into a prejudiced/racist mode for the way in which we treat our RPG's various different races/species. But, at the same time such fucked up modes of thinking exist in our world. It certainly can create incredible opportunities for drama in our games to include such modes and see how they play how out. Similarly with RPGs being so often a male prevalent hobby dealing with concepts of sexism in game can be interesting and engaging if done with a level of respect for all those at the table. Just look at your past mentioned monsterhearts game...I talked to my wife about the game in general and she mentioned how many of her female friends would be put off by a game which mechanically is designed to take it in directions of abuse and rape...but thats a thread for another day... My pathfinder game has a world that involves just three major dominant bipedal species. Humans (northerners appear similar to RW asians; southerners appear similar to RW african/middle eastern, easterners appear caucasian). Within the humans are various religious/class divisions. Dwarves (northern dwarves appear more Tolkien bearded nordic; southern dwarves are more like dark sun being hairless and darker skinned). Elves (eastern elves are plains barbarians being influenced by mongols and lakota sioux; southern elves are a weird planes hopping self superior group with creepy eldarin eyes that nobody likes but everybody has to listen to). Having set some of that basic world setting I have now begun to constantly fuck with my players developed expectations. "Gah! The elves are all creepy...except for that nice desert rider we met last week..." "Damn southern dwarves are all religious militants! But this guy has a wife and two kids and is just trying to run an inn..." None of the three species can interbreed. But there are numerous adoptions and examples of cross cultural/species pollination. Take your annoyance with confining rules regarding race in Pathfinder and slap a little Apocalypse World on it. Ask each player "Why does your character think (or not think) she/he is just like every other dwarf, elf, dolphin in the world ?" I will agree that Pathfinder's giant Core book and often heavy handed tone regarding its 'rules' can be a bit daunting. But, our group has managed to keep it interesting and engaging although I think we will definitely set it aside after they are around 10-12 level...yikes! the MATHS! But its the number one selling RPG out there. They make beautiful really quality products. I run a Pathfinder Beginner Box game at the wife's bookstore and it has been a great game for introducing noobs to RPGs. But I often find my self house ruling the shit out of it...I'll just agree that it definitely could benefit from a little hippy gamer karma love... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jun 6, 2013 7:57:08 GMT -8
Just to be scientific a species isn't defined as a group capable of interbreeding. It's the final differentiation of the differences between an organisms as a final step in the process of classification. Different species can interbreed with caveats. Eg: liger, tigon, mule (which is always sterile). Not all species within a family can interbreed and the ability to interbreed isn't consistent - its a property of genetic comparability and foetal viability. Treated a species then you can easily rule that half elves exist but half dwarves don't as a function generic comparability. We may share 99% of DNA with other Demi humans but that 1% makes the difference between species and generic comparability Aaron
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2013 10:50:52 GMT -8
Just to be scientific a species isn't defined as a group capable of interbreeding. I'm aware of that--but Tolkien apparently knew, and used, only the older definition that is known in popular culture, and I don't generally assume random people on internet boards want to talk about science. And that's the only one your players will know unless they have some scientific background (I've played games where all the players were Caltech grad students, but most people don't do that). So if you want to keep things simple and not give a short science lesson, that's the one you have to use to explain what you're doing (or just do the science lesson and let the players suck it up if it's more than they wanted to know, if you're willing to accept the severe social limitations that go with that kind of bloody-mindedness). The simplest sort-of-OK explanation that does what I suspect you want is to draw the line between populations that don't normally (and that means it can happen as long as it is sufficiently rare to create distinct gene pools in a natural setting) interbreed even in the same range, which is true in some settings for Elves and Humans, even if it is genetically possible. Better would be to just give specific examples if someone is actually confused (analogies are easier for most non-technical people than definitions). One analogy might be the subspecies of Ursus arctos. In extreme cases U. arctos populations can range in mass over most of an order of magnitude (based a great deal on diet), and horribilis is much smaller than, say, middendorffi. Ursus maritimus is also interesting as it is fully interfertile with U. arctos, but is classified as a separate species and has a different appearance and completely different habits, diet, and range. Together that gives you a reasonable model for Tolkien's world that is easy to explain to players; the variability of U. arctos resembles the variability of Tolkien's humans, from Numenorians to the Southrons and the wild men, and possibly the elves as well if you take into account distance between the Noldor and the fading Teleri. The relationship of U. arctos and U. maritimus works well enough for Elves and Humans. Or use the Canis species--I think at least C. lupus, aureus, and latrans at least are all completely interfertile with each other and with C. l. familiaris, and probably the rest as well. With both Ursus and Canis, you have species/subspecies which are interfertile but do not normally interbreed, which are manifestly *not* equal in physical capability (and according to a biologist's book I have on hand, C. lupus is a much better problem solver than any C. l. familiaris, so for Canis probably not in mental capabilities either). Further afield, look at the variablity of Brassica oleracea! Those examples are close enough to justify most things you might want to do with the "races" in your world. Which is really the point--make your world as you want it to be, with consistent enough rules to convince your players. As for calling it racist, that gets rather subtle if you think about it long enough. To start with, do you mean internally in the story or externally in the game? Nobody thinks it is racist to say that American blacks should preferentially get tested for sickle-cell anemia, or that Tay-Sachs is a particular problem for Jews (at least Ashkenazim) (and also French Canadians and Cajuns). Insane definitions of racism aside (such as the normal American definition of "you're racist if you don't vote for my party"), racism denotes judgment without or against evidence ("you can't make the freedmen citizens because they aren't able to exercise the duties of citizenship", or the "Jews are inherently cowards" meme which seems to persist in the middle East regardless of the success of the IDF) or metaphysical judgment ("all men are created equal" was always understood to mean *morally* and metaphysically equal, not the absurd idea that everyone has the same measurable abilities--contrariwise, it meant equal metaphysical worth *in spite of* measurable personal differences). It *has* to, because, for example, not advising someone that they are measurably at greater risk for some disease is itself racism--denying evidence that implies denying someone the ability to make rational choices. So internally, if you write a template that gives Elves +2 Int, or Dwarves -1" of movement, *those differences are measurable reality in your game world*. Racism would come into play in how the characters in your world react to that physical reality. If Dwarves are at a disadvantage in court or commerce because they're viewed as stumpy-legged trash, that's racism. The template itself isn't racist any more than a racial template in a modern game for an Efe character would be racist because it would specify a lower size and strength. If by contrast you mean externally ("it's racist of the GM to make this physical reality in his game"), it gets more subtle. Logically that also revolves around reasonable evidence--it has to do with being *wrong*, or absurdly unlikely. It's absurd to suggest that writing an Efe template with small size is racist, because that's the evidence. A Tibetan template with partial life-support for low oxygen isn't either. Writing a Jewish template with cowardice is, because the hypothesis has failed the obvious real-world tests (and in cultures where cowardice is a moral flaw is really a deduction based on a racist metaphysical judgment anyway). But *Elves and Dwarves don't exist*! There is no evidence to be disregarded. That means that accusations of racism for fantasy-race templates are actually up a meta-level--they involve an assumption (probably implicit, but it doesn't have to be) that your fantasy races are codes for some real-world group, and you're taking out your dislike on fictional symbols. The problem with that accusation is that it's an abstract assumption about information that is typically invisible and inaccessible. I guess I can't say anything about what might or might not be a code in your mind. I'd personally regard anyone who wanted to make a big deal about it as themselves being racist for seeing racism behind every rock and tree without having any evidence for it (assuming that this is true--if the GM has a shrine with a copy of Mein Kampf, then perhaps we aren't making assumptions about the invisible), but YMMV. But I'd suggest at least trying not to beat yourself up over symbolic phantasms. That worry amounts to staying awake at night worrying about whether you are yourself a secret racist. It doesn't help, and people that do that aren't likely to be racist in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jun 6, 2013 11:39:34 GMT -8
It all really depends on the trope your world uses to explain the different races . . . if you use Tolkien then Elves and Men are both created by Iluvatar, Orcs are a corruption of Elves therefore Men are capable of interbreeding with both species but Elves and Orcs cannot interbreed because of the corruption of the base strain. Dwarves cannot interbreed with anyone else because they were a separate creation by one of Iluvatar's children in imitation of Iluvatar's creation - originally Iluvatar was going to destroy these beings but was moved by compassion on seeing them and allowed them to remain. BUT if one preferred the Terry Brooks explaination then things get very confusing . . . Elves and the Fey are separate beings that have always existed and can interbreed with men. Dwarves and trolls etc are mutated men . . . the same species evolved because of the pressures of the local environments and random mutation from radioactive fallout following the Great War that ended the previous age of technology (giving birth to the second cycle of magic and the return of the fey). But the point seems to be the same . . . and we seem to be coming from the same perspective. I don't think it's racist to have racial templates for fantasy 'races'. It's really a problem of language and the modern world . . . the fact that the standard 'fantasy' trope uses the term 'race'and that that term has developed overtime to refer more specifically to contemporary socio-political concerns. 'Species' would be more appropriate but due to the conventions adopted over it's alternate usage 'race' remains the term of choice - I'd imagine that if one released a game replacing 'race' with 'species' there would be modicum of nerd-rage in response . . . simply because of the disconnect that would result from introducing modern scientific terms into a traditionally anachronistic genre . . . that's not say it shouldn't be done.ie: Who uses the term moron, imbecile etc to formally describe the cognitively challenged (for want of a better term) these days? . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Jun 6, 2013 11:40:46 GMT -8
I don't think that racial templates are inherently racist. I don't see them as saying that an elf is more valuable than a dwarf (though I'm sure many elves think so) rather it's saying that statistically speaking elves tend to be x and dwarves tend to be y though there is a lot of room for variation.
The question I would ask is when taken in aggregate do the templates fundamentally match up in terms of value. As a simple illustration let's use attribute dice in Savage Worlds. (used because it's easy to illustrate what I'm trying to say.) Note, these are not the official values from the book I'm doing this to make a point.
Humans are the "norm" and start with a d4 in everything Strength, Agility, Smarts, Spirit and Vigor
Elves are nimble and somewhat frail d4 in Strength, Smarts and Spirit and a d6 in Agility. They also actually start with a d4 in Vigor but it's going to cost them so instead of the usual 5 points to spend on attributes they only get 4.
Dwarves are hearty and tough, but not so spiritually attuned to the cosmos so, d4 in Strength, Agility and Smarts. A d6 in Vigor. They also actually start with a d4 in Spirit but like the elves it's going to cost them in the same way.
Orcs are Strong, but not overly bright. So we'll do the same juggling act and end up with a d6 in Strength and d4 in Agility, Smarts, Spirit and Vigor but like the others only 4 points to spend on attributes.
Halflings are nimble but their diminutive stature impacts their strength, so d4 in Strength, Smarts, Spirit and Vigor and a d6 in Agility but with the same 4 points the others get for attributes.
Taken in aggregate if each +1 to an attribute die is a value of +1 and each penalty is a -1 then all of the races end up at 0 and are essentially even.
These are not the only penalties or bonuses that one could do but this should be enough to make sense of what I'm actually asking.
So, if the templates are essentially equal in terms of their value then I don't see a problem.
JiB
|
|
|
Post by Forresst on Jun 6, 2013 11:51:47 GMT -8
I figure, templates don't so much tell the world "this guy is more nimble because HE'S AN ELF!" as they say "elves spend all their time balancing in trees. Elves who can't do this, fall out of their trees and die, usually before they're adults." It sort of boils down to why each person thinks the "race" gets the bonus they get. Going into D&D and pathfinder-type tropes, let's compare a dwarf with an elf, just like jpk sort of did up there.
Dwarves, generally speaking, seem to like it underground. They also tend to like to dig. If I was to spend my whole life digging all day long, I fully expect I'd end up with some serious upper body strength. I probably wouldn't be too worried about balancing on shifting ground because I'm surrounded by stone and dirt all the time.
Elves, on the other hand, live in trees. They wander around on branches and things. The most strength they're going to need to tend to their hobbies would be enough to pull themselves up if they fell out of their tree. But they tend to be quicker on their feet because hey, they don't walk on the ground.
I don't see that as a racist thing. And frankly, if as in jpk's example, a dwarf got lost and raised by tree-coyotes, it would make sense to use the elf template for the dwarf regardless of the dwarf's birth origin because he didn't spend his whole life diggin' all day long, he spent it jumping around all nimbly-pimbly from tree to tree.
Meow.
|
|