Post/Author/DateTime	Post
justin_byrne 07-20-07, 08:12 PM	This may have been explained befoe, and i don't know i its in the right forum, but why are elves, dwarves, gnoes and other such playable races described in the monster manual but not humans. It may be that humans are though of an enemy not a monster, but then why is this not true for elves and the like?
AMGriffin 07-20-07, 08:18 PM	Maybe because humans exist here in the real world? There are also subraces of all the other PHB races that need explanation.
justin_byrne 07-20-07, 08:27 PM	Existing in the real world bears no effect in the game and so i don't see why this can be a reason for it not being in there, there could be sub-races of humans, (aside from the argument would you count half-orks as a sub race) i think if there is a dwarven sub-race for mountain and underdwelling dwarves then there should be human subraces like nomads or other human types that are different from "Normal" humans, for example differences beacause of evolution (such as darkvision for the underdwelling drow sub-race), maby there could be a sub-race of humand that have developed darkvision, or have maby aclimatized themselves to other conditions.
JolanthusTrel 07-20-07, 08:32 PM	Humans appeared in previous Monster Manuals, details for Random encounters in various terrains and the such.
Salla 07-20-07, 08:33 PM	I agree with the theory that humans weren't put in the MM because there are no human subraces needing explanations.
Qube 07-21-07, 01:00 PM	becuase humans aren't monsters, deuh :D well, I prefere 100 monster entries and no human entry against 99 monster entries and a human entry.
Morwen 07-21-07, 01:17 PM	A human monster entry is rather irrelevant, as the mechanical information is in the PHB, and the fluff information is knowledge you probably already have (unless you're not human yourself). I suspect the only reason dwarves, elves, etc are in the MM is because of the subraces. Having the statistical information for the regular versions saves printing the complete statistical information for each subrace, as they can simply refer to the one information-block and say "switch these one-to-three things".
crazy_monkey1956 07-21-07, 03:10 PM	And yet... Every time I decide to use town guards as antagonists, or human highway bandits, or human pirates, or human thieves's guild thugs, or human slavers... I really want a premade stat block to make my DMing life just a teensy bit easier.
TheDarkLord 07-21-07, 03:23 PM	becuase humans aren't monsters, deuh :D There's a strong possibility you are wrong ;).
pinkbunny 07-21-07, 03:30 PM	because there's no archetypical human, there's the drow priestess, the elven archer, the orc barbarian, but humans, per PHB, aren't specialized racially. Sure you can make up some human bandits, but the NPC section of the DMG covers this pretty well, and a human fighter/warrior takes very little time to make
CaptKillern 07-21-07, 04:03 PM	And yet... Every time I decide to use town guards as antagonists, or human highway bandits, or human pirates, or human thieves's guild thugs, or human slavers... I really want a premade stat block to make my DMing life just a teensy bit easier. Well they do have NPC's for all the PHB classes states out to level 20 in the DMG. Maybe it did belong in MM, but at least it does exist.
camthalion 08-18-07, 09:23 PM	I'm playing D&D with my 7-year-old son the other day and when I describe one of the NPCs as looking somewhat orcish, he prepares to roll initiative. "Why?" I ask somewhat surprised. "Because orcs are inherently evil". First of all, I honestly love that D&D has taught my son words like 'inherently', 'dexterity', 'augment', and 'fortitude'. LOVE IT! Second of all though, I work so hard at trying to counteract the racism he gets from the real world. I worry about it in my fantasy games. With the orcs I can understand but is it just a coincidence that 'dark' elves are evil? I'd like to see D&D more conscientious about the way it treats race. This doesn't mean that we can't have fantasy races, but that we remain concerned with how these fantasies have been born in racism. So, the half-orc NPC he came across turned out to quite friendly and became much more of a regular appearing NPC than I had planned. Now, the half-orc NPC 'Thrand' and my boy's PC 'Retep' are off together to the Pomarj to help a struggling community of half-orcs deal with bands of human settlers who want to drive them out ...
sensestaker 08-18-07, 09:41 PM	I really want a premade stat block to make my DMing life just a teensy bit easier. Here you go Str 10 Dex 10 Con 10 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha 10 :P
Einvaldurinn_mikli 08-18-07, 10:28 PM	I'm guessing it's because you don't need cultural information on humans the way you do on the other races?
Shaggy_Shaggs 08-18-07, 11:08 PM	What are you talking about? Human variants are all over the monster manual. The ghost, half-celestial, half-dragon, half-fiend, lich, all the werethingies except the dire wereboar, one of the vampires and one of the zombies are all human. ;)
Hebitsuikaza 08-18-07, 11:57 PM	Second of all though, I work so hard at trying to counteract the racism he gets from the real world. I worry about it in my fantasy games. With the orcs I can understand but is it just a coincidence that 'dark' elves are evil? How is the Orc understandable? That's not only racism, that's teaching extremely shallow perception. What makes an orc, hobgoblin or goblin different from an elf, halfling, or gnome? The earlier ones are ugly near-humans and the later ones are pretty/cute near-humans. When you have a "pretty" near-human who is supposed to be evil (dark elf, tiefling, etc.) there seem to automatically be such a gulage of "good" members of the race that it seems silly to even bother classifying them as "evil" any more. However, you can cut down hundreds of thousands of the ugly near-human races without ever worrying about a single one of them really being good... unless a player is playing it. Oh, sure, you might have your very, very rare occassional 1 goblin or 1 kobold who will join you out of intimidation and allow you to committ genecide against his hometown and all his family and friends... But, compared to the sheer bulk of "good" dark elves and material that is actively encouraging you to play a "good" dark elf... Well, the thing with dark elves seems the least strongest arguement regarding racism in D&D. However, I am sure most of us would agree that once in a while it would be nice if regular elves, dwarfs, halflings, gnomes, etc. got to play the role of the villages WITHOUT having to change skin color and excuse themself as some sort of 'subrace'.
Mojo_Rat 08-19-07, 02:51 AM	To answer the previous poster. Bringing up real world race issues and comparing them to D&D is a bad argument. Orcs hobgoblins etc are depicted as the bad guys because they are nearly universily evil. this isnt a subjective argument its a 100% black and white argument with absolutely no questionable issues around it UNLESS the Dm attempts to make it one. Armies of darkness dont recruite goblinoids because they are fluffy nice people they recruit them because They have no moral compunctions bout doing evil acts it bears no comparison to ANY Rl race issues. They are intended to be bad guys. Sure there are exceptions but the exceptions are a miniscule drop in the bucket. To answer the issue of Humans not being in the monster manual They have been in previous editions of the Game usualy under types of encounters. 1st ed and 2nd ed had Entries like 'pilgrims' 'bandits' 'brigands' 'merchants' 'berserkers' Etc which were all various human related encounters. they are good encounter examples and i dont know why they are not in the more recent versions of the monster manuals. however the reason there is no raw 'human' listing is that Humans generally get described under The specifics of their campaign setting nations. Where as ITs basically assumed all Elves under a specific entry in the monster manual have exactly the same culture even if they are from different parts of the planet.
Hebitsuikaza 08-19-07, 03:32 AM	To answer the previous poster. Bringing up real world race issues and comparing them to D&D is a bad argument. Orcs hobgoblins etc are depicted as the bad guys because they are nearly universily evil. this isnt a subjective argument its a 100% black and white argument with absolutely no questionable issues around it UNLESS the Dm attempts to make it one. Armies of darkness dont recruite goblinoids because they are fluffy nice people they recruit them because They have no moral compunctions bout doing evil acts it bears no comparison to ANY Rl race issues. They are intended to be bad guys. Sure there are exceptions but the exceptions are a miniscule drop in the bucket. Oh, but you missed something here... You missed something BIG here... The theme, the game says that Orcs, hobgoblins, goblins are universally evil The storyline makes this true about them. There is nothing about goblins that makes them inherantly evil and unable to be good in any fictional setting. There are fictional settings where you have friendly goblins. Furthermore, the very origin of the word 'hobgoblin' is specifically to denote friendly, good goblins who follow the example of Puck/Robin Goodfellow. There is nothing that FORCES them to be evil beyond the way they have been written. Thus, by making near-human races that are inherantly absolutely evil is supporting and teaching the idea that races can automatically be inherantly evil. And if they are ugly to you? Well then, they are most certainly evil. What you just said about goblins, many people believe to be true about real life groups. Replace the word 'Goblin' with the word 'Arab' or 'Muslim' and the words 'Army of Darkness' with the words 'Terrorist Organizations'... Yeah, sounds kind of familiar. How about replace the word 'Goblin' in there with the word 'Jews' and 'Army of Darkness' with 'Secret Zionistic cabals'... yeah, that should sound familiar true. Fiction is a REFLECTION of real life, it abstracts and exaggerates real life. The whole idea of there being races that are inherantly, irredeemably evil was built into the fantasy based upon an English colonolistic mentality that viewed themselves as the superior races and races that did not look like them as well... exactly how you say that those races you listed are. Now, USA was built on this mentality. Native Americans were the goblins who had to be purged, everything they owned plundered for the righteous 'good' holy race to make their lives, Africans were subhuman brutes who could be put to use as labor, but had to be watched because they were ready to turn on their masters and rape all the women and canabalise the innocent townsfolk, the Chinese were sinister, slithery, dark people from an ancient mystical empire who were trecherous and evil, if not in chains they should be killed on site, Mexicans were half-breed dogs who could only have any noble traits at all thanks to their human blood, but ultimately they should be good and obey the good, holy race or be erradicated for resisting.... These were "truths" at some point in American history and European history is no less riddled with them. By having near-human races who just by the basis of looking different are ineherantly, irredeemably evil, you are saying that this "reality" is one that deserves to be dignified by being reflected, supported and encouraged, at least in a fantastical setting. Now, perhaps you still fully believe in those "realities" and you really do think that people are inherantly born evil because of their race and fantasy settings are a place where you can spew your rhetoric of hatred encouraging your race war of whatever design you feel is justified. However... many of us are aware of how dangerous these ideas are, how easily huge populations have been coerced by these types of ideas in the past and how easily a metaphoric reflected reality can begin shaping one's vision of reality. The very fact that you could write something like that, that you could post something like that and not see how you just demonstrated exactly how it teaches racist intolerance and hate proves it so. Now, once this underlining thematic problem is recognized, it can then be questioned and addressed. Can we and should we do something about the racism that is an inherant part of the D&D theme that has been carried over from Tolkien? Warcraft did a pretty good job addressing it with Warcraft 3, WarHammer seems to either exaggerate it or perhaps obfuscate it better by making all their near-human races much less near-human and also by building a theme where EVERYONE is really evil, just some are disguising it better. But... what to do about it, if anything, in regards to D&D? That's a big question and one worth takling.
Sidivan 08-19-07, 01:18 PM	I'm sorry, did you just inject logic into a completely made-up fantasy realm? Furthermore, the very origin of the word 'hobgoblin' is specifically to denote friendly, good goblins who follow the example of Puck/Robin Goodfellow. There is nothing that FORCES them to be evil beyond the way they have been written. I bolded that word because I think it's key to this discussion. While I see the parallels you're drawing to the real world and that fantasy is a reflection of reality, I don't agree with you whole-heartily on the matter. When someone makes something up, it's really their right to make it however they want. I would be curious to know how you would physically describe an evil group of beings in a fantasy novel that you were writing. Would you use features for this group of creatures such as "Pretty" and "Cute" or would they be "Ugly" and "Horned"; even "Demon-like"? Human perception plays a large role in creating what is "Evil" in fiction. The scarier something looks, the more evil our minds perceive it as. Like it or not, Unfamiliar = Scary. Our fight or flight response kicks in as a method of self-preservation when we're confronted with something as such. Now I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm simply pointing out how an animal's mind works. This isn't restricted to human perception. You might be a good guy, walk up to a badger and see what happens. The badger is unfamiliar with you and he will most like try to rip your face off.
camthalion 08-19-07, 02:39 PM	We have many examples in fantasy of where writers have tried to write in a way that challenged racism too -- Drizzt Do'Urden being a recent one. I'm not suggesting that we could eliminate 'racism' from our fantasy play. At least with fantasy, we are actually speaking of different races unlike in reality where race has been revoked as a scientific concept. Fourth Edition should at least keep up with our fantasy literature and separate 'race' from 'culture'. It's a small step and not a difficult one. In the racial descriptions, they could avoid ascribing personalities to races. Also, things like use of a longbow or ability to speak Elvish are cultural not racial and should be available as feats. All characters, human or otherwise, should have access to a certain number of 'regional' or 'cultural' feats depending on where and how they were raised. Will it be abused? Sure but it will force you to think carefully about your character's backstory at least. ... It's not too hard and it is what fantasy writers are doing these days. Cheers.
Hebitsuikaza 08-19-07, 05:12 PM	I bolded that word because I think it's key to this discussion. While I see the parallels you're drawing to the real world and that fantasy is a reflection of reality, I don't agree with you whole-heartily on the matter. When someone makes something up, it's really their right to make it however they want. I would be curious to know how you would physically describe an evil group of beings in a fantasy novel that you were writing. Would you use features for this group of creatures such as "Pretty" and "Cute" or would they be "Ugly" and "Horned"; even "Demon-like"? C.S. Lewis' books were Christian alagories, which means they were abstractions of something that was considered by him to be historical. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings was an alagory about the Industrial Revolution, at least that is what he claimed. All fantasy writers have based their ideas entrenched in reality and put real life ideas, lessons, motivations and events into a fantastic realm which allows it to become more objective and digestable than if it had been given straight out. It would be impossible to not do this to some extent and any writer who did their best to avoid any signifigant parallels or themes regarding the relationship of humans to each other or humans to nature or humans to god, made a very grave error and almost certainly wouldn't have done well. As for how to potray the bad guys... what would be wrong with showing evil through action rather than appearance. To base it on culture or position rather than by race? Or even by crafting the world in such a way where despite thinking they were on the side of right, the bad guys are working with a motivation that is equally honorable from their side. In fact, overall, it wouldn't be too hard to keep the PCs guessing about who is really on the evil side and if they are really fighting for the right thing. Play with and churn their prejudices on them in order to craft a suspenseful story. Also, even in terms of monsters, there is a big difference, I think, between something that is directly relatable to a human-- orcs for instance are not any less human in appearance than gnomes-- and something such as the undead, a giant insect with razor sharp arms, a giant badger, a huge fire-spitting lizard and so forth... things that don't directly support the concept of their being evil races who mass genecide against is a completely good and righteous act. As for Drizzt... no, he isn't a good example of fighting racism. They took the pretties bad guy group, in fact took a group that only existed to support the idea that a 'good' race could still have bad members, and made them good. So, he his books aren't about combating racism, they are about supporting it. They say that only bad members of good races are redeemable.
camthalion 08-19-07, 06:28 PM	As for how to potray the bad guys... what would be wrong with showing evil through action rather than appearance. To base it on culture or position rather than by race? Or even by crafting the world in such a way where despite thinking they were on the side of right, the bad guys are working with a motivation that is equally honorable from their side. ... As for Drizzt... no, he isn't a good example of fighting racism. They took the pretties bad guy group, in fact took a group that only existed to support the idea that a 'good' race could still have bad members, and made them good. So, he his books aren't about combating racism, they are about supporting it. They say that only bad members of good races are redeemable. When I play with Greyhawk, I try not to present countries to my players in terms of 'alignment' but rather 'interests'. I also appreciate complex characters who challenge traditional alignment. I think that at least in terms of campaign worlds this is a more exciting thing to do. As for Drizzt, perhaps I'm being generous. I do think that the desire to create good guys from evil races shows an interest in challenging the racism of fantasy. It's a small start.
The_Shaman 08-19-07, 07:32 PM	Drizzt was designed, iirc, by R.A. Salvatore. A novelist creating an interesting dark hero archetype - is that new? Drow were popular almost from the start I suppose, which is why Drizzt was a dark elf and not a gnoll. That, and he looks better, so it was easier to make a fanbase or sell plushies. Fantasy novelists need to eat too, you know. IMO the problem lies partially with the perception of the alignments. All 9 alignments are imo viable and existing modes of thought, which can be exemplified by real people. Sure, someone CE would probably be comparable to a heartless golddigger or a skinhead hooligan, but it is feasible. And yes, as camthalion says, their motivations will make perfect sense to them, and probably to others too. Perhaps that CE brigand rationalizes his actions along the lines of Social Darwinism - survival for the fittest. Perhaps the LN/E tyrant thinks that without order, all life will be nasty, brutish and short - so anything is an improvement over that. Races tend to keep close together in a multiracial environment, so they tend to feature more members of certain cultures and thus, alignments. However, there are exceptions, both on individual and on group basis. I don't know much about Greyhawk or Eberron, but in FR there is a region - near Thesk - where orcs are the main body of soldiers for many of the human towns and their notables are LN and TN in alignment. Remember, only outsiders are really chained to their alignments - and even those chains can bend and break.
asurademon 08-20-07, 01:32 AM	As far as any debate over whether personalities/behaviors should be ascribed to fantasy races... I like it when to some extent they are. Just look at the animal kingdom, just as many species have certain ways of behaving that are similar, they also have ways of behaving which are different, and differences in behavior are to some extent intrinsic. I think to carry this over into fantasy and have a fantasy race have a tendency to develop certain personality traits, and behave in a certain way, and have ways of thinking which set them apart from humans can make things much more interesting, though races which are too alien in behavior and thought process can be really hard (or impossible) to role play. A tiger is not of the same nature as a human, which is not of the same nature as a sparrow; goblins and gnolls and orcs aren't human either (well unless in your game they are a human subspecies) so why should they be of the same nature as a human being? If you want them to be in your game that's fine, sometimes that's enjoyable, but I also like it when the natures of different fantasy races are different. In D&D different races look different from humans (to varying degrees), but they don't really act and think that differently (not in the Forgotten Realms setting anyhow), elves are basically humans with pointy ears. I think the races in D&D where designed this way because more human a race is the easier it is to play, after all how possible is it to really get into the mindset of an alien being? There has to be some degree of humaness, but I think sometimes that D&D makes certain races too human (though yes, this is a matter of taste), and I'd love to see how they are different emphasized a bit more (Though I prefer D&D, I have to give White Wolf credit for (among other things) making their creatures in WOD, while still quite human in how they think and behave, just alien enough to make it clear that there are ways that they think and act which are going to set them apart from the vast majority, if not all of humanity). As far as racism in D&D, racism is a big theme yes, it's a big theme in a lot of Fantasy. Racism is an ugly part of humanity, but it exists, and it can be an interesting theme to deal with in fantasy. Also I think there's no harm in having a world in which there are beings which are inherently good or evil, so long as you don't start carrying the idea that there are good and evil races in fantasy worlds over to real life.
Mojo_Rat 08-20-07, 01:39 AM	Oh, but you missed something here... You missed something BIG here... The theme, the game says that Orcs, hobgoblins, goblins are universally evil The storyline makes this true about them. There is nothing about goblins that makes them inherantly evil and unable to be good in any fictional setting. There are fictional settings where you have friendly goblins. Furthermore, the very origin of the word 'hobgoblin' is specifically to denote friendly, good goblins who follow the example of Puck/Robin Goodfellow. There is nothing that FORCES them to be evil beyond the way they have been written. Thus, by making near-human races that are inherantly absolutely evil is supporting and teaching the idea that races can automatically be inherantly evil. And if they are ugly to you? Well then, they are most certainly evil. What you just said about goblins, many people believe to be true about real life groups. Replace the word 'Goblin' with the word 'Arab' or 'Muslim' and the words 'Army of Darkness' with the words 'Terrorist Organizations'... Yeah, sounds kind of familiar. How about replace the word 'Goblin' in there with the word 'Jews' and 'Army of Darkness' with 'Secret Zionistic cabals'... yeah, that should sound familiar true. Fiction is a REFLECTION of real life, it abstracts and exaggerates real life. The whole idea of there being races that are inherantly, irredeemably evil was built into the fantasy based upon an English colonolistic mentality that viewed themselves as the superior races and races that did not look like them as well... exactly how you say that those races you listed are. Now, USA was built on this mentality. Native Americans were the goblins who had to be purged, everything they owned plundered for the righteous 'good' holy race to make their lives, Africans were subhuman brutes who could be put to use as labor, but had to be watched because they were ready to turn on their masters and rape all the women and canabalise the innocent townsfolk, the Chinese were sinister, slithery, dark people from an ancient mystical empire who were trecherous and evil, if not in chains they should be killed on site, Mexicans were half-breed dogs who could only have any noble traits at all thanks to their human blood, but ultimately they should be good and obey the good, holy race or be erradicated for resisting.... These were "truths" at some point in American history and European history is no less riddled with them. By having near-human races who just by the basis of looking different are ineherantly, irredeemably evil, you are saying that this "reality" is one that deserves to be dignified by being reflected, supported and encouraged, at least in a fantastical setting. Now, perhaps you still fully believe in those "realities" and you really do think that people are inherantly born evil because of their race and fantasy settings are a place where you can spew your rhetoric of hatred encouraging your race war of whatever design you feel is justified. However... many of us are aware of how dangerous these ideas are, how easily huge populations have been coerced by these types of ideas in the past and how easily a metaphoric reflected reality can begin shaping one's vision of reality. The very fact that you could write something like that, that you could post something like that and not see how you just demonstrated exactly how it teaches racist intolerance and hate proves it so. Now, once this underlining thematic problem is recognized, it can then be questioned and addressed. Can we and should we do something about the racism that is an inherant part of the D&D theme that has been carried over from Tolkien? Warcraft did a pretty good job addressing it with Warcraft 3, WarHammer seems to either exaggerate it or perhaps obfuscate it better by making all their near-human races much less near-human and also by building a theme where EVERYONE is really evil, just some are disguising it better. But... what to do about it, if anything, in regards to D&D? That's a big question and one worth takling. I should make a clarification in my previous post. I dont have an issue with encounterin Non evil goblins or orcs or whatever. In the games i Play when we encounter goblins or orcs we dont initially call for initiative if its fiable well look at whats going on or even parlay (subject to individual characters and so on) However the way the game is designed orcs and goblins are there to be bad guys unless a Dm is deliberately trying to create a moral quandry or blur the lines or morality it basically is black and white in D&D the majority of the time. Do you expect your characters to worry about Say Owl Bears Or Wargs? Is there something particular in a humanoid monster that makes it less a monster?. Thing is somone in one of the previous posts refered to Drizzt well DRZZT IS AN EXCEPTION NOT THE RULE.. this is really important. The question is where does alignment start off and culture or religon end?. Are gobloids in fact all neutral but just have a culture which says killing and eating sentient creatures for fun or profit is okay? And does it in the end really matter?. And as I said in my first example drawing paralels to Rl racism does not work. Unlike Rl in a Game you can draw absolutes while in Rl you cant draw absolutes and generalities without indescribably being wrong. in a Game Stereotype can in be true. Unless a Dm or player is deliberately trying to show it false.
StruckingFuggle 08-20-07, 02:28 AM	I'm guessing it's because you don't need cultural information on humans the way you do on the other races? Which is its own sort of racism. Every other race, more or less, cannonically, has ONE culture. And then subraces, with their own ONE culture. Which is utter crap.
asurademon 08-20-07, 02:35 AM	Which is its own sort of racism. Every other race, more or less, cannonically, has ONE culture. And then subraces, with their own ONE culture. Which is utter crap. However in D&D the great cultural diversity of humans is something that sets them apart from other races. There is at least some diversity to certain races due to different subraces having different cultures (though since you've all ready mention that it's still just one culture for each subrace you clearly still want more. However if you look hard enough you'll find at least some subraces have smaller cultures that deviate from the main one, drow are one that immediately comes to mind, there are followers of a good goddess of drow (can't recall her name) whom live above ground). Anyways I think if you want many of the other races to be very culturally diverse in your games that's fine, but it seems to me that will end up taking away one of the things that makes humans different from most others. Anyways if we make all the races the same in their way of thinking, and in behavior, and if we go even further and make them even more culturally like humans than they all ready are, than at a certain point there becomes so little distinction between humans, and other races that the only difference is they look different, and have different stats, and I like races to be much more than just an excuse to have a weird skin color, and get a +2 to constitution or whatever. I usually want role playing an elf to be different than role playing a human, and I want role playing either of those to be different than role playing an orc.
StruckingFuggle 08-20-07, 03:25 AM	However in D&D the great cultural diversity of humans is something that sets them apart from other races. I know. But I still think it's both utter crap, and really makes little to no sense. I usually want role playing an elf to be different than role playing a human, and I want role playing either of those to be different than role playing an orc. And just how would there being multiple elf cultures and multiple orc cultures detract from that? o.O...; In fact, I have a hard time believing that you're serious about this whole "cultural diversity is a staple of humans being uniquely human!"... I mean, seriously, mate. The hell?
asurademon 08-20-07, 04:05 AM	I know. But I still think it's both utter crap, and really makes little to no sense. And just how would there being multiple elf cultures and multiple orc cultures detract from that? o.O...; In fact, I have a hard time believing that you're serious about this whole "cultural diversity is a staple of humans being uniquely human!"... I mean, seriously, mate. The hell? Giving humans a defining characteristic of having great cultural diversity, and not giving that quality to other races is one additional thing that makes playing a human different from playing, for example elves whom are far more unified culturally. This is not the only way to accomplish making humans distinctive from other races, but it is a valid way, and it is one of the few ways it's accomplished in D&D. If you're going to give that quality to other races, then keep in mind it's one fewer thing that humans have different from other races. If you don't care that's fine, otherwise you might want to find a way to add a little bit more distinctiveness to the other races and give humans something else uniquely human, or at least something uncommon outside of humans. That said cultural diversity is a staple of being human IN D&D! At least in the official campaign worlds I'm familiar with (in the core D&D books, and correct me if I'm wrong because I haven't read up on the setting for a while, but for example Forgotten Realms). That's just how they are officially, of course this doesn't mean that has to be the case in your game, there's nothing stopping you from saying otherwise in your own game if that's what is appealing to you, (and there's plenty of things I would like to do differently in my own games too). Your practically flaming me for going by how humans are described in the books, and liking it because at least it's one thing that makes humans different is not warranted (I don't know if that's how you meant to come across, but it is how you came across to me). In so many words you are essentially saying I'm being ridiculous for pointing out something which is a part of the game, and for my opinion of it. EDIT In fact I could decide in my game that the great cultural diversity of humans is a very important element of the game, and races like elves which are very unified, might find the lack of cultural unity among humans to be fascinating. Furthermore as a result humans are always seeming to be conflicting because of their cultural divisions, while elves, being so unified almost never have conflicts within their own race, not on sort of scale that would constitute a war anyhow. If I were playing an elf character in such a game then certainly the cultural unity of my race would affect my character, and the disunity and diversity of humans would affect my view of them. Maybe my elf character would find the diversity of humans to be beautiful, or maybe she'd just be frustrated that they always seem to be fighting, and can't just settle their differences, perhaps she'd struggle to understand how humanity could become so divided, while elves have remained united, at least for the most part within their own subraces. Just imagine growing up as a member of a species without all humanity's cultural divisions (well, relatively fewer at least), and then seeing for better or for worse just how divided we are. But apparently such a concept would just be so silly that I shouldn't even be taking it seriously enough to apply it to a game.
Paul_profession_baker 08-20-07, 09:26 AM	There is nothing about goblins that makes them inherantly evil and unable to be good in any fictional setting. There are fictional settings where you have friendly goblins. I agree up to a point. Firstly, there is something that can make an entire race evil, good, or neutral. This something is the patron deity: the divine creator and guide to the race. So, I agree that the alignement of an individual remains a question of freedom of thoughts and beliefs. But, in a world where gods trully exists and interferes constantly in the affairs of mortals, the influence of the alignement of their god surely sway most of it's mortal infants. A perfect exemple is again the orcs: Gruumsh is an evil waring deity. The orcs, born from is blood, will surely reflect this. A minority will not follow is teachings, but it will be a minority. Furthermore, the very origin of the word 'hobgoblin' is specifically to denote friendly, good goblins who follow the example of Puck/Robin Goodfellow. There is nothing that FORCES them to be evil beyond the way they have been written. I don't agree with you. The meaning of the word 'hobgoblin' in our folklore as nothing to do with the meaning it takes in the D&D world. For Mialee, an hobgoblin is a medium humanoid with a strong martial heritage, legacy from the strong empire and codes this race as constructed. Sure, some will not share this heritage, but most will. You're conception of hobgoblins, coming from medieval culture or Shakespearian folklore, is not necessarily the correct one. Each DM should feel free to adapt the races to fit their worlds. Thus, by making near-human races that are inherantly absolutely evil is supporting and teaching the idea that races can automatically be inherantly evil. And if they are ugly to you? Well then, they are most certainly evil. I still don't agree with that. Many races are butt ugly but still good or neutral. Look at the Gyth (Neutral) or the Lillend (Good). They are not even close to beauty by human standards. What you just said about goblins, many people believe to be true about real life groups. Replace the word 'Goblin' with the word 'Arab' or 'Muslim' and the words 'Army of Darkness' with the words 'Terrorist Organizations'... Yeah, sounds kind of familiar. How about replace the word 'Goblin' in there with the word 'Jews' and 'Army of Darkness' with 'Secret Zionistic cabals'... yeah, that should sound familiar true. You actually make a good point. That is exactly why I inject some racisme in my campaign world: realism. Let's be objective, in a world frought with huge racial differences, racism is bound to appear and thrive. In some realms, being human can be a big problem. In others, being a gnome is source a pain and anguish. Incorporating such things in an adventure can seriously make the players think (paladins mostly) and helps lift disbelief. [/QUOTE] These were "truths" at some point in American history and European history is no less riddled with them. By having near-human races who just by the basis of looking different are ineherantly, irredeemably evil, you are saying that this "reality" is one that deserves to be dignified by being reflected, supported and encouraged, at least in a fantastical setting. Now, perhaps you still fully believe in those "realities" and you really do think that people are inherantly born evil because of their race and fantasy settings are a place where you can spew your rhetoric of hatred encouraging your race war of whatever design you feel is justified. However... many of us are aware of how dangerous these ideas are, how easily huge populations have been coerced by these types of ideas in the past and how easily a metaphoric reflected reality can begin shaping one's vision of reality. The very fact that you could write something like that, that you could post something like that and not see how you just demonstrated exactly how it teaches racist intolerance and hate proves it so. Now, what to think of this. It's part flaming, part zealous and mostly intolerant. Come on, playing a bad guy in a RPG or believing orcs are evil does not make one "spew a rhetoric of hate" or encourage a personal race war. Such a strong speech only shows the dangerous simplicity of your views. All is not black and white, like you make it sound. Someone can believe that in D&D almost all orcs are evil, because they obey to the whims of Gruumsh, and still be a tolerant peace loving environnementalist. I'm living proof. I'm completly non-violent and I still play huge half-orc warriors that wields greatswords for there master's cause. Hell, D&D is violent. I don't see you complaining about it?? Maybe you agree with violence, war, vigilanties and capital punishments?? Maybe we should find a way to make D&D non violent?? More seriously, ignoring completly the problem is not a cure. Not speaking about racism does not make it go away. Banning it from all the books, games, fantasies, alternate worlds, will not solve the problem. Heck, it can even make it worse. Ignorance is the mother of all problems. Maturely presenting the problem in a campaign world can even be a learning experience (or more likely just an opportunity to think about it and dicuss it with friends). That's a big question and one worth takling. Well, for my part, I believe that all the material published by WotC is just a fonctionnal basis to jump start the creativity of the DM. So, the "problem" of racism is up to him. So, my conclusion, stop burning the books you don't agree with and start reading them more critically.
camthalion 08-20-07, 10:33 AM	Thank you all very much for this discussion. I agree that racism will continue to exist in fantasy. Alignment will persist into 4e. My question is this: What could WOTC do to make 'race' a more complex phenomenon at a time in which the game wants to 'make race matter more' as they have said? How could they give this game a sense in which biological difference and personality were unhooked for all races as they are for humans? Something to think about: Humans are to the 'fantasy' world what 'white people' are to the 'real' world. FANTASY: Humans are described as having great cultural diversity while 'others' are characterized by their differences from humans and their internal homogeneity. REALITY: Since Edward Said's book 'Orientalism' this type of thing, when done by European scholars regarding 'whites' and 'orientals', has been referred to as 'orientalism' or 'othering'. FANTASY: Humans are described complex motives for their bad behaviour, while 'others' are given a fixed alignment, an inherent nature that explains their behaviour. REALITY: This type of 'othering' has a long history but the recent resurgence of Islamophobia is an example of this. FANTASY: Humans are the default option, barely thought of as a race. 'Others' have racial traits and characteristics. Others are described by their difference from humans. REALITY: 'Whites' have been treated as the norm against which racialized others have been compared and contrasted. 'Others' are understood as different from their race. FANTASY: The world has been largely named by humans. The political boundaries are generally defined by humans. Others exist in marginal areas outside of the human world. (At least for Greyhawk, ... I'm not that familiar with other settings) REALITY: Change 'whites' to humans. ... FANTASY: Humans were in earlier editions a race apart, unable to breed with non-humans except in rare cases. REALITY: Several hundred years ago some scientists believe white people would be unable to breed with non-white people due to their genetic difference. ... The list could just go on and on ...
Paul_profession_baker 08-20-07, 11:17 AM	Something to think about: Humans are to the 'fantasy' world what 'white people' are to the 'real' world. I don't agree. Of course, every culture is going to mesure the 'others' by their standards. I mean, chinese people of the old empire considered mongols barbarians when compared to the chinese culture. To think is to compare. You can only compare to what you know. You only know what you are or what your immediat surrounding is. Hence, you compare everything to what you are and what your country his and culture his. The only thing we can conclude is the Rulebooks are written by humans. Honestly, one could write the rulebooks while putting one self in the mind frame of an elf (difficult because of the long lifetime). But that would only yield a game in which the 'elf' are to the 'fantasy' world what 'white people' are to the 'real' world as percieved by a 'white people'. Now, one could try being completly objective. But that would bring alot of problems. For one, so much different races, with enormous difference in there power levels, will yield a complex ecology and kingdoms. The scope of which will take more then 200 pages. The present philosphy is that the race is a minority, they are weak or lives in a far away land. If it was not the case, they would squish the human (or standard race) kingdoms. Another one, each time a new race is invented, their ecology will intersect with another one. Hence, one would need to modify the place of the intersecting race. I think that opting for an human point of view is not that bad. It helps the player get a feeling of what these other races are all about. I mean, being human, I can only compare to what I know: humans and animals. If we take the animals out, not a ' playable race', we are left with humans.
baby_kamikaize_kobold 08-20-07, 01:40 PM	I am posting here because I am curious. Why do so many people want to inject real life into their games? I mean that is perfectly fine. But to me fantasy is an escape from the real world in the same way that TV, video games, and the internet are. This game is flexible and allows for all kinds of play but I want to know why inherent evil is bad in this game. I mean personally I have never asked to roll initiative when I see an orc but when I see an orc with an ax running at me I ask to. When Wotc made this game they built you a house and it is up to you the DM to furnish said house. If you want the orcish end table to hate you dwarven sofa its fine. but getting back to my main question why do we all have to play in a world where everybody gets along and the only difference between the orc and the dwarf is the height and looks? why shouldn't a fantasy setting not have stereotypes? A stereotype is usually given for a reason.
Sidivan 08-20-07, 04:43 PM	This is a good discussion. It's interesting to see all of the different points of view on the subject. And it's remained civil, which surprises me to no end. I just have one question for those who think stereotypes shouldn't exist in the source books. Let's say you have a new player that you're teaching the game to. You say to him, "Ok, what type of charactor do you want to be?" and he says, "Well, what difference does race make?" How are you going to answer? By your own definitions, you can't say, "Well, Elves are generally a unified culture and a proud people" or "Dwarves live underground and have a deep understanding of mining and stonework." I think stereotypes are necessary to highlight the general differences in culture.
Mojo_Rat 08-20-07, 05:26 PM	thing is i Like the steotypes. Many of he non human races in their cultural Unification essentialy represent Ideals Or (whats the oposite of ideals?). This is the stuff of which fantasy literature is built on as a foundation. If you Try to inject Rl into a game it stops being a game. I dont want to think about the Struggle for orcish independance and theirr bare bones of surifval against over all human agression. When my Character cuts down a bandit i dont think 'hey his bother beat him as a child' Its a Game and Rl shoould stay out of it. The biggest part that i dont get is why it is so selective? What about the poor cuddly baby owl bears? I mean do people expect PCs encountering a Owl bear want to bonder a deep philosphical connection with it and wonder if the creature is misunderstood? Or do they just kill it then hunt down its cubs and do the same and get hailed as heroes. And why is the owlbear any different from the orc?
asurademon 08-20-07, 06:26 PM	Injecting real life into games can make them interesting though, in fact I think more interesting than if one tried really hard to avoid real life issues. Besides fantasy has been an outlet for authors to address real life issues, such as imperialism in Star Wars for example, and the idea that power corrupts in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Racism (and cultural conflict which is usually connected to racism) is one issue that can be explored through fantasy, moral issues are another thing which can be explored through fantasy. Games can be a form of escapism yes, but elements of the real world are going to creep in, even if a lot of effort is put into avoiding real life issues, this is in part because the real world is simply what we know. Anyway I think that exploring deeper issues and ideas makes a fantasy world richer.
StruckingFuggle 08-20-07, 07:31 PM	I just have one question for those who think stereotypes shouldn't exist in the source books. Let's say you have a new player that you're teaching the game to. You say to him, "Ok, what type of charactor do you want to be?" and he says, "Well, what difference does race make?" How are you going to answer? By your own definitions, you can't say, "Well, Elves are generally a unified culture and a proud people" or "Dwarves live underground and have a deep understanding of mining and stonework." "Dwarves are suited to living underground and generally tend to, and while slow don't suffer maneuverability penalties for slower armor. They're gruff, generally not too personable, but they're stout, hard to poison, and superb stoneworkers; Elves meanwhile all know how to wield basic martial weapons and don't sleep, are resistant to certain charm magic, and they're not too hardy, though they're more nimble and can sense secret doors". Simple enough. The differences Race makes in every game are mechanical ones, which are easy to explain.
Rustmonster 08-20-07, 08:18 PM	Just my two cents, but I personally hate how a ton of the "racial abilities" in the PHB are based on the race living in only one way. Example: Elves. They ALL, regardless of anything, start with MARTIAL WEAPON PROFICIENCIES. What if in MY elf culture, they didn't teach everyone to use weapons? Example: Dwarves. They ALL, regardless of anything, start with the amazing POWER TO NOTICE STONEWORK. What if MY dwarf culture isn't the underground dwelling race that is perpetuated throughout fantasy? "Racial abilities" should be things that are RACIAL, not SOCIETAL. This is one problem in D&D; racial is assumed sociatal. The race always has the same society. If they have a different society? They are a subrace, with different "racial abilities", which are also more based on society. It's just another restriction added to the pile of restrictions which is D&D. Also, for 4th edition, I hope, I PRAY that they remove the "alighnment" sticker from EVERY creature. Alighnments are useless anyway, only seving to limit creativity, and I am very happy that they said they are making them less mechanical.
Hebitsuikaza 08-20-07, 08:59 PM	I dont want to think about the Struggle for orcish independance and theirr bare bones of surifval against over all human agression. When my Character cuts down a bandit i dont think 'hey his bother beat him as a child' Nor does a soldier or even a country at war often want to see the admirable aspects of the people they are at war with. Going and checking out some U.S.-produced WWII propaganda and then looking up photos of the remains of hiroshima and nagasaki after the bombing will show you what comes of it. And the police don't want to give a damn about the reasons criminals committ crimes. You can look up any number of police brutality videos in order to see the result of this mentality. You haven't escaped the issue here, you have merely attempted to justify it. Just my two cents, but I personally hate how a ton of the "racial abilities" in the PHB are based on the race living in only one way. This is something I certainly agree with. There are some traits that are perfectly fair, for instance the Dwarf moving 20' and getting a bonus to balance checks and the ability to more easily carry heavier armor... However, ALL elves automatically getting to use the best, most common martial weapons entirely free is just stupid and unjustified no matter how you turn it. There is nothing about the physical characteristics of an elf that would make them more likely to use a sword and bow or less likely to use a staff than a human would be.
Thane26425 08-20-07, 09:04 PM	This is all being over thought. The original set of monsters in D&D were based largely on myth and legend from around the world. Almost invariably, the evil creatures were ugly, mishapen and scary. Now, that applies to brutish monsters like the goblins and orcs: they are ugly and scary because they are also violent and brutal. On the other hand, most cultures also have legends about another kind of monster, let's call that the temptor. The temptors appeared as humans, usually very attractrive females. They would lure their targets in by appearing to be weak and harmless, even sexaully inviting, to get their prey off guard before attacking. So, saying that all monsters need be ugly doesn't fit. Some also appeared as desirable creatures, like the Celtic, can't think of the name, but it appeared as a fine horse and if someone jumped on its back to tame it, they got stuck, at which point the creature ran into the water and drowned the victim before eating them. As for the Dark Elves, there's no racism there. When humans speak of evil, they invariably refer to darkness, shadow, and so forth. They never refer to evil in terms of bright sunshine and verdant meadows. It is deep in our psyche: we don't even notice the bump on a bright and sunny day that in the dead of night would fill us with dread. By the same token, humanity sees ugly as evil and beauty as good. Not always the case, but there it is. We also see things things more like us as less threatening while the more different, the more scary. Again, not always the case but there it is. Since the monsters were drawn from myths around world, we can see this holds up pretty universally amongst humans.
camthalion 08-20-07, 10:02 PM	Just my two cents, but I personally hate how a ton of the "racial abilities" in the PHB are based on the race living in only one way. Example: Elves. They ALL, regardless of anything, start with MARTIAL WEAPON PROFICIENCIES. What if in MY elf culture, they didn't teach everyone to use weapons? ... "Racial abilities" should be things that are RACIAL, not SOCIETAL. This is one problem in D&D; racial is assumed sociatal. That's what I'm thinking! 4e should distinguish between 'racial' and 'cultural' feats. Using a longsword is cultural. Low-light vision is racial. Is it so hard to imagine disconnecting these two things? 'Regional' feats have been a part of the game for sometime. Descriptions of character can reference a number of 'stereotypes' about dwarves but stress variety and the possibility of playing things differently. It would also really, really work well for WOTC. They want to maintain the customizability of the characters because that's what customers want. (That's what has driven a lot of the changes since 1e and Basic D&D. We want to play half-orc palladins and they've let us.) At the same time, they want to avoid clunky mechanics that slow down play. Feats are usually written so as not to slow down play. Instead of the 'bonus feat for humans' give every character a 'regional feat' including humans. Simple and really cool.
Thane26425 08-20-07, 11:18 PM	That's what I'm thinking! 4e should distinguish between 'racial' and 'cultural' feats. Using a longsword is cultural. Low-light vision is racial. Is it so hard to imagine disconnecting these two things? 'Regional' feats have been a part of the game for sometime. Descriptions of character can reference a number of 'stereotypes' about dwarves but stress variety and the possibility of playing things differently. It would also really, really work well for WOTC. They want to maintain the customizability of the characters because that's what customers want. (That's what has driven a lot of the changes since 1e and Basic D&D. We want to play half-orc palladins and they've let us.) At the same time, they want to avoid clunky mechanics that slow down play. Feats are usually written so as not to slow down play. Instead of the 'bonus feat for humans' give every character a 'regional feat' including humans. Simple and really cool. 2nd edition had a variety of different racial subtypes that were more cultural than genetic. For example, they had "hill dwarves" that didn't have the stonework options but had some other things. I will usually allow certain modifications, within reason. Helf-elves in previous editions were outcasts from both races, but in 3.5 it is just the opposite. So, I usually allow half-elves living amongst humans to drop the skill bonuses and such in favor of humanlike bonus feat and points at first level. That tends to work well. Never had trouble with the others though, mostly because players were OK with them as written.
StruckingFuggle 08-20-07, 11:19 PM	I'm thinking, personally, of not waiting for 4e. Sometime when I have time I'll rework on my site (that's got my house rules) the races to strip out the "social" benefits, and make them fall under [cultural] feats - kinda like [regional] feats in FR, and everyone starts off with a [cultural] feat at 1st level. Easy peasie, 3e compatable. :) This is all being over thought. The original set of monsters in D&D were based largely on myth and legend from around the world. Almost invariably, the evil creatures were ugly, mishapen and scary. Now, that applies to brutish monsters like the goblins and orcs: they are ugly and scary because they are also violent and brutal. On the other hand, most cultures also have legends about another kind of monster, let's call that the temptor. The temptors appeared as humans, usually very attractrive females. They would lure their targets in by appearing to be weak and harmless, even sexaully inviting, to get their prey off guard before attacking. So, saying that all monsters need be ugly doesn't fit. Some also appeared as desirable creatures, like the Celtic, can't think of the name, but it appeared as a fine horse and if someone jumped on its back to tame it, they got stuck, at which point the creature ran into the water and drowned the victim before eating them. As for the Dark Elves, there's no racism there. When humans speak of evil, they invariably refer to darkness, shadow, and so forth. They never refer to evil in terms of bright sunshine and verdant meadows. It is deep in our psyche: we don't even notice the bump on a bright and sunny day that in the dead of night would fill us with dread. By the same token, humanity sees ugly as evil and beauty as good. Not always the case, but there it is. We also see things things more like us as less threatening while the more different, the more scary. Again, not always the case but there it is. Since the monsters were drawn from myths around world, we can see this holds up pretty universally amongst humans. Yes, but there's no reason to make it hold true in the game world. I don't think anyone doesn't see why they did it that way - we're just bemoaning the simplicity (which I at least consider boring) inherent in that approach and wishing the game would support both ways of doing things. (On that note: <3 Eberron.)
LazyNinja 08-21-07, 10:14 AM	As for the Dark Elves, there's no racism there. When humans speak of evil, they invariably refer to darkness, shadow, and so forth. They never refer to evil in terms of bright sunshine and verdant meadows. It is deep in our psyche: we don't even notice the bump on a bright and sunny day that in the dead of night would fill us with dread. Actually, that's a common misconception. In many Asian cultures, white is the color of death, not black. This has been mentioned before in other threads, but even in cultures (real or fantasy) that do fear the dark, evil is associated with a lack of light, not the actual color black, and certainly not black skin, at least not until the colonial era. In fact, when Polynesians first encountered Europeans, they were frightened by the newcomers' white skin, because they looked dead, drained of blood. Even today a white person in Hawaii might be called a haolie, "one without breath." That said, great discussion. Its a Game and Rl shoould stay out of it. The biggest part that i dont get is why it is so selective? What about the poor cuddly baby owl bears? I mean do people expect PCs encountering a Owl bear want to bonder a deep philosphical connection with it and wonder if the creature is misunderstood? Or do they just kill it then hunt down its cubs and do the same and get hailed as heroes. And why is the owlbear any different from the orc? I think the main problem some people have with slaughtering orcs is that they're sentient creatures. According to the Monster Manual, no creature with a Intelligence less than 3 (like an owlbear) can have an alignment other than neutral. This implies that they're not capable of making moral decisions. An orc however, can be just as intelligent, or moreso, than a human. Yet to say that it's the rare orc who can stop to think about why they're always rampaging and pillaging seems strange. I mean, if they don't have a choice in the way they act, they should be outsiders or animals. And even "typically aggressive" RL animals, like the wolverine, can be domesticated. If orcs can make weapons and cook food and learn magic and paint and sing and pray, why shouldn't they have as much control over their actions as the 7 "civilized" PHB races? And why shouldn't players think twice before cutting them down? Of course, I'm not saying there's no room for mindless hack 'n' slash, just that it shouldn't be race-based. It's easy enough to make the "bad guys" wear the same uniform (Nazis, anyone?) or have the same goals or belong to the same cult. But I prefer when you have to figure it out. I mean, that's what Sense Motive's for. And honestly, if you want evil races or haughty elves or drunk dwarves in your campaign, I'm fine with it. I just don't think it should be canon and foisted on everybody.
Sidivan 08-21-07, 11:01 AM	"Dwarves are suited to living underground and generally tend to, and while slow don't suffer maneuverability penalties for slower armor. They're gruff, generally not too personable, but they're stout, hard to poison, and superb stoneworkers; Elves meanwhile all know how to wield basic martial weapons and don't sleep, are resistant to certain charm magic, and they're not too hardy, though they're more nimble and can sense secret doors". Simple enough. The differences Race makes in every game are mechanical ones, which are easy to explain. Ok, so I had a counter-point to this, but after thinking about it, it was pretty weak. I'm going to throw it out there anyway. I was going to say, "But that doesn't promote role playing" which is something that I feel is should be stressed to new players and old alike. Breaking down the differences into mere mechanics takes the flavor of the race out of the equation. Then I realized that the heart of role playing should be based on a charactor design concept first and foremost regardless of what race that charactor is. I'LL GET YOU NEXT TIME STRUCKINGFUGGLE!
baby_kamikaize_kobold 08-21-07, 11:42 AM	Some also appeared as desirable creatures, like the Celtic, can't think of the name, but it appeared as a fine horse and if someone jumped on its back to tame it, they got stuck, at which point the creature ran into the water and drowned the victim before eating them. As for the Dark Elves, there's no racism there. When humans speak of evil, they invariably refer to darkness, shadow, and so forth. They never refer to evil in terms of bright sunshine and verdant meadows. It is deep in our psyche: we don't even notice the bump on a bright and sunny day that in the dead of night would fill us with dread. By the same token, humanity sees ugly as evil and beauty as good. Not always the case, but there it is. We also see things things more like us as less threatening while the more different, the more scary. Again, not always the case but there it is. Since the monsters were drawn from myths around world, we can see this holds up pretty universally amongst humans. First of all you are right in my opinion and secondly those creatures are called kelpies.
StruckingFuggle 08-21-07, 08:51 PM	I was going to say, "But that doesn't promote role playing" which is something that I feel is should be stressed to new players and old alike. Breaking down the differences into mere mechanics takes the flavor of the race out of the equation. Then I realized that the heart of role playing should be based on a charactor design concept first and foremost regardless of what race that charactor is. I'LL GET YOU NEXT TIME STRUCKINGFUGGLE! Well... I answered mechanically, because I think that you shouldn't be able to answer "how are (all) (subrace X) elves different from (all) dwarves?" from a fluff standpoint unless you hold humans to the same standard; and that I think is settling the disagreement in the wrong way. Personally, I think that absent Divine Intervention (in the form of the designer / dm, not in the term of the pantheon), the only reason one species would have subcultures and others wouldn't, human or not - I don't think it's a manifestation of racial character or flavor (except perhaps in the other direction, in radical cases) - is because one species has had the time and space to spread out and splinter into different cultures; and for them to be monolithic means that they would have been contained closely for ages. Unless Species X is some sort of hive-mind or other psychology that's vastly, hugely alien to what we're familiar with, or so unadaptive that they would likely not survive for too long, then two different societies of Species X from different parts of the world should be like comparing Mexican culture to Japanese culture. Now if they've no room to expand and split off, then maybe there's a case... but then why should humans be the only one to have that fun?