The Campaign Builder's Guild

Right now, I'm making chainmail for conventions, so I haven't had much time to work on my gaming projects. But, that doesn't stop me from the occasional day dream. I've also been watching Star Trek as my "wind-down and go to bed" show. Inevitably, this has seeded in me a desire to make a Star Trek-esque game. But it's also been helping me to focus on the portrayal of different races.

Without dealing with a specific setting, or even a specific system, my thoughts have turned to the question "what is a human?". Many settings and games flub this in one way or another. D&DNext at the moment gives humans +2 to one stat and +1 to the others, while every other race gets +1 to one stat; is this a human? But more than mechanics, what does it mean to be a human psychologically? How would the other races describe humans? How can we describe our own species from a different perspective?

We like to call ourselves diverse and adaptable, but is this any different than other intelligent, emotional life would be? How does a human differ from an elf, a dwarf, or a halfling? Would it simply be easy to describe the other races culturally, and discard the idea of racial personality types? Would it be easier for a dwarf who grows up amongst humans to act like a human?

Worf, from Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, is a classic example of another race raised by humans, while Spok has to deal with his half-blooded nature. Discarding the idea of racial predispositions would remove our ability to explore these character types. I think it would be best to come up with a human norm. What are your thoughts on what makes humans human?

I'm no philosopher or anything, but in my opinion it's the capacity to empathize. I mean think about it. Most predators just kill and eat. We however are the only known species capable of wondering how our prey feel.... We raise our own prey, give it a cozy place to sleep. play with it, talk to it, give them names, and then we kill them as quickly and as painlessly as possible. Will for the most part anyway, but I think you get my point.

All of the most horrifying monsters in our literature and our fantasies are always the ones that are completely indifferent. Vampires and werewolves just run around killing people without any sympathy for their victims. Frankenstien on the other hand comes across as a scared and unknowing creature of ill fate. He kills his creator and runs around in a rampage, because he just doesn't know how to interact with the world. When the mobs chase after the monster, we feel for the monster because he's empathetic and it seems really mean to chase him down and kill him.

This is my best shot anyway.

So, what does our empathy mean when compared to other humanoid species? Would we be more capable of empathy than elves, dwarves, halflings, klingons, vulcans, whatever?

This does give me an idea of something that could be uniquely human; we personify inanimate objects and animals. We project our traits upon them, for better or for worse? Could this be something other humanoid races don't do?

Quote from: Xeviat
So, what does our empathy mean when compared to other humanoid species? Would we be more capable of empathy than elves, dwarves, halflings, klingons, vulcans, whatever?

This does give me an idea of something that could be uniquely human; we personify inanimate objects and animals. We project our traits upon them, for better or for worse? Could this be something other humanoid races don't do?

You know I was going to say something similar to your last point their. We really do see ourselves in everything (which is what makes caricaturing so interesting to me).

As to everything else, I've always viewed all of the races as minor aspects of human nature taken to an extreme. Elves are the personification of grace, Gnomes are invention, Dwarves are laborous, and so on. I don't even view the standard races as their own things, I just tend to view them as offshoots of humanity or something. Humans encompass all of the races in one. That's my viewing anyway.

Quote from: DecomentalistAs to everything else, I've always viewed all of the races as minor aspects of human nature taken to an extreme. Elves are the personification of grace, Gnomes are invention, Dwarves are laborous, and so on. I don't even view the standard races as their own things, I just tend to view them as offshoots of humanity or something. Humans encompass all of the races in one. That's my viewing anyway.

That's pretty much how D&D does it, too. All of the races are caricatures with their own unique "racial culture" or whatever, whereas humans are "versatile" and can be whatever-- because, you know, humans in the real world are all kinds of "whatever" things.

Personally, I hate it. I think stereotyping a whole race as being a certain way is kind of dumb anyway (and vaguely offensive when it's obviously supposed to a stereotype of a real human race, like it often ends up working out to be) but if that's going to be how it works, I think humans should be put in there with it and get "stereotypical personality" as well, rather than just saying "versatile."

Otherwise, in my opinion, the better approach is to not use these stereotypical personalities. Cultures can be assigned to nations and such, so maybe there are dwarves that traditionally like to drink beer and be loud and forge things and whatever, but that's because that's what their culture is like, not because they're dwarves. Humans who grow up in areas influenced by those traditions would act the same way.

In fantasy literature, Humans are the following:

- Prolific, they can be found every where.
- Leaders of men and uniters of different races
- Inspirational
- Adaptable
- Express the full range of Human emotions
- Either do not have a mololithic culture
- Empire Builders

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: DecomentalistAs to everything else, I've always viewed all of the races as minor aspects of human nature taken to an extreme. Elves are the personification of grace, Gnomes are invention, Dwarves are laborous, and so on. I don't even view the standard races as their own things, I just tend to view them as offshoots of humanity or something. Humans encompass all of the races in one. That's my viewing anyway.

That's pretty much how D&D does it, too. All of the races are caricatures with their own unique "racial culture" or whatever, whereas humans are "versatile" and can be whatever-- because, you know, humans in the real world are all kinds of "whatever" things.

Personally, I hate it. I think stereotyping a whole race as being a certain way is kind of dumb anyway (and vaguely offensive when it's obviously supposed to a stereotype of a real human race, like it often ends up working out to be) but if that's going to be how it works, I think humans should be put in there with it and get "stereotypical personality" as well, rather than just saying "versatile."

Otherwise, in my opinion, the better approach is to not use these stereotypical personalities. Cultures can be assigned to nations and such, so maybe there are dwarves that traditionally like to drink beer and be loud and forge things and whatever, but that's because that's what their culture is like, not because they're dwarves. Humans who grow up in areas influenced by those traditions would act the same way.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Very specifically, I tried to create the setting, setting history, and the races to ft wthin that, and often this has turned the tropes on their heads.  And while for many games, it is useful to have new players be able to identify familiar elements from standard fantasy, I think turning these on their heads enriches the setting.  And in an old setting, and I mean an old world with lots of history, culture starts trumping race.  Many of my racial varients are actually partially mixed bloods, for instance Red Hobyts are actually hobyts with lots of mixed klaxik (dwarven) blood.

Isn't this question a big part behind over a thousand years of Philosophical thought?  I'm not sure what you want me to do with this thread.  I guess I could dish up some quasi-intellectiual quotage from philosophers that touched on the subject.

If you're talking about in games, it generally means you act like any one of the other races without having the mechanics specifically spellt out so that you are one of the other races.  Most D&D(etc) races are just a human facet cranked up to 11.  This is why they tend to be pretty unbelievable.

M.

It totally depends on what kind of other intelligent species are present in the fiction.

If all/most of the other species are significantly more patient compared to humanity, then a valid stereotype for mankind is impatience.

If all/most of the other species are significantly shorted lived compared to humanity, then a valid stereotype for mankind is longevity.

If all/most of the other species are herbivorous, then a valid stereotype for mankind is meat-eating.

If all/most of the other species are nocturnal, then a valid stereotype for mankind is day-walking.

Quote from: sparkletwist
All of the races are caricatures with their own unique "racial culture" or whatever, whereas humans are "versatile" and can be whatever-- because, you know, humans in the real world are all kinds of "whatever" things.

Pretty much any intelligent race is likely to be 'all kinds of "whatever" things' and 'versatile' when seen through it's own point of view. Anyway, it'd be nice and refreshing to see a race that's explicitly more versatile than humanity.

Quote from: sparkletwist
Otherwise, in my opinion, the better approach is to not use these stereotypical personalities. Cultures can be assigned to nations and such, so maybe there are dwarves that traditionally like to drink beer and be loud and forge things and whatever, but that's because that's what their culture is like, not because they're dwarves. Humans who grow up in areas influenced by those traditions would act the same way.

There can be more to racial personality traits than could be explained as mere culture though. A species/race could very well be naturally born as very aggressive (for example), to the point where no amount of environmental influence can hope to suppress this trait. This is even more the case in fantasy, where inheritance does not have to work the same way it does IRW. In fantasy, things like sins, taboos and virtues could be literally bred in bone, if the author of the fiction decides this to be so.

I basically agree with Ghostman. I think if I ever make a multi-race setting again I will be sure to have humans as a niche-race rather than the baseline. Maybe all the other races will be extremely fragile, so the humans will be the big brute type race, or maybe humans will be physically weaker than most other races but faster/cleverer/whatever. In a way I almost feel that this would help define the other races - we know, very roughly, what a human is, because we are humans. So knowing that in this world humans are scrawny little tricksters compared to the other races, roughly, helps us to form more of an idea of what those other races are like as their own thing in a way that treating humans as normal and then saying "so orcs are like that, but ugly, stupid and violent" doesn't. Maybe, I dunno until I try it :)

Quote from: GhostmanThere can be more to racial personality traits than could be explained as mere culture though. A species/race could very well be naturally born as very aggressive (for example), to the point where no amount of environmental influence can hope to suppress this trait. This is even more the case in fantasy, where inheritance does not have to work the same way it does IRW. In fantasy, things like sins, taboos and virtues could be literally bred in bone, if the author of the fiction decides this to be so.

I see what you're saying, and I agree with the idea that, yes, this thing could exist, but this is actually pretty much the very thing I was complaining about. Perhaps it's my experience as a human (the only experience I've got, so yeah) biasing me, but I see this kind of thing as extremely one-dimensional and does nothing but turn fantasy races into crude stereotypes.

Basing one's races on crude stereotypes makes the fiction less interesting. Also, I think that it's all too easy to (usually subconsciously) go between arbitrary crude stereotypes and crude stereotypes of actual human races and groups. There are many reasons why the Star Wars prequels sucked, but the crude and obnoxious depiction of various alien species as just a one-dimensional stereotype was certainly one of them. This is not a model to aspire to.

I was talking about things from a game/fiction stand point, not a philosophical point strictly. I seem to be against the majority here in that I like racial personality types, in so far as they are actual physiologically derived. Klingons, for example, have aggression issues when compared to humans; this is enhanced by their culture, but Worf was raised among humans and he had to work through his issues; Spock's half-blooded nature made him more susceptible to giving into his emotions.

For my own setting, I've tried to separate what is race and what is culture, and have tried to make racial traits be influenced by their physiology. But of course, we're talking about racial norms, not saying that everyone from a race should be a certain way. We can probably make some broad sweeping generalizations about humans when you ignore the outlying members.

On our prolific nature: We have spread to cover our entire planet, even so far as changing our surroundings to suit us. Most animals don't do this, but some do: many animals that have spread around the world, though, have done so on the back of us, like rats, pigeons, and our farm animals. But sharks, whales, and other aquatic animals have spread out across the world too, though they're staying in the same biome typically. Could our propensity towards changing our environments be uniquely human, or would any tool using intelligent race do the same?

I'm really thinking our tendency to personify things may be a direction to explore. It may also be useful to think of what actually separates us from animals, outside of our use of tools and language (and even there, we have seen more animal tool use, and are starting to see more animal language).

Quote from: Xeviat
On our prolific nature: We have spread to cover our entire planet, even so far as changing our surroundings to suit us. Most animals don't do this, but some do: many animals that have spread around the world, though, have done so on the back of us, like rats, pigeons, and our farm animals. But sharks, whales, and other aquatic animals have spread out across the world too, though they're staying in the same biome typically. Could our propensity towards changing our environments be uniquely human, or would any tool using intelligent race do the same?

On the note of Whales, our modern engine-powered boats have really destroyed Whale communication. Their songs and our engines resonate at the same frequency, so we are literally blanketing the seas with noise. Whales used to be able to communicate for thousands of miles, now just a handful.

Humans change and alter every environment they enter to suit themselves. I think that could be a racial trait. Most races build within or intermixed within nature's confines (like Elves, Orcs, beast races, etc.) or carve out entirely new domains (Dwarves). Humans just plop themselves down and spread like a blight across the landscape.

Now, I'm not a misanthrope, but compared to other fantasy races humans are basically pests. I think the key differences between races lie in reproductive/life cycles, biological faculties and inherited social structure. We are social animals and fast breeders. And we die quickly. This leads to a greater focus on short-term goals, rash behaviour, and a host of other (possible) consequences.   
Culture is just spice on the biological framework.

On a related note, the problem with elves and co. isn't that they have a stereotypical culture - it's that they only have one of them! Races are often presented as having no cultural variety.
If races are portrayed as being crude human stereotypes I think that is a failure on part of the writer/player, not the underlying lore. There is plenty of room to make "realistic" elves if one felt disposed to do so.

Elves get sub-types out the nose.  Occasionally Dwarfs will get one, maybe two.

Xeviat:  H. S. Neandertalis was intelligent and tool using.  However, they did not appear to significantly change the world to their use.  Other related, earlier, species didn't appear to, either.

From my cursory studies in Anthropologie, it appears that the "hat" of our subspecies is to change methodology / approach frequently.  One of our potential "hats" anyways.

A very basic extrapolation applied to a fantasy race could be as such:

If an Elf tries something with some method/technique and it does not work, then that something cannot be done.
If a Hume tries something with some method/technique and it does not work, then he will find another way.

M.