Why aren't humans found in the Monster Manual? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Why aren't humans found in the Monster Manual? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Courrain
08-29-07, 01:17 PM Why aren't humans found in the Monster Manual?

A friend of mine and I were talking about Monstrous PCs in the upcoming 4th edition next year when he asked me a fundamental question- What is a monster? According to one online dictionary we looked at, a monster is:

1 a : an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure b : one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character
2 : a threatening force
3 a : an animal of strange or terrifying shape b : one unusually large for its kind
4 : something monstrous; especially : a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty.
5 : one that is highly successful

After seeing these definitions of the word Monster, I realized that the word is one of those point-of-view things. A goblin, for instance, doesn't see itself as a monster because it doesn't see its' form as abnormal nor does it see itself as someone who deviates from the acceptable behavior of its own culture. It would, however, see everything else as a monster to be feared and hated.

Now I know that humans much like goblins also don't see themselves as monsters for the very same reasons. We don't see our bodies as abnormal in shape and form, and with the exception of certain individuals, we don't see ourselves as deviating from the acceptible behavior of our own respectible cultures.

But from another race's perspective, we are monsters. ;) So it makes some sense to include humans in the MM. After all, why leave them out when all of the standard races from the PHB are there? ;)
bobothechimp
08-29-07, 01:27 PM There are no human subraces. There are subraces of all the other races.
reaper5081
08-29-07, 01:35 PM I have often wondered the same thing:D
Kadasbrass
08-29-07, 02:33 PM I am not a monster! I am a human being! I do not belong in a monster manual :pbbbtt:

Yeah its kinda annoying that for every other race in core I can get lvl 1 warrior of that race in the mm but when I need human bandits I have to draw them up :P
DnDsnd
08-29-07, 02:50 PM At one time in ages past humans were included in the monstrous manual, however we escaped and found our freedom from those accursed manuals and we rule our world :evillaugh :evillaugh :evillaugh :evillaugh Actually 2nd edition was the last time I remember human stats and subraces like cavemen.
Conspiracist
08-29-07, 02:58 PM Don't make me quote Vincent Price's speech at the end of "Monster Club".:teach:
KoreKore
08-29-07, 03:01 PM actually there are some human varinets. there is one in magic of incarnum and one in the BoVD and I think one in psionics.
key
08-29-07, 03:04 PM But from another race's perspective, we are monsters. ;)
D&D uses a human's perspective. A human views elves as dexterous, halflings as small, and non-humans as (may be a bit harsh) monsters. I agree it's ethnocentric.
Amaril
08-29-07, 03:54 PM Humans are the assumed base to which all other race/monster characteristics are compared. We also understand the concept of what a human is. However, if you say elf, gnome, dwarf, or whatever, there are a number of characteristics that are subjective depending on interpretation, thus they require detailed stats. If I say 'human', though, everyone knows what I'm talking about in terms of physical characteristics.
Rogue Shadows
08-29-07, 04:41 PM Show me a typical example of a 1st-level human warrior, one that can be found in all European, North African, and West Asian cultures that existed from between 800 and 1300 CE. Equip him with weapons and armor that can be shown to of existed between 800 and 1300 CE in all such cultures. Give him the feats that all such typical warriors between 800 and 1300 CE would select, and the skills too.

...

That's why humans aren't in the Monster Manual. Too much variation. You could probably fill an entire (softcover) book with common variations on the 1st-level human warrior.
Amaril
08-29-07, 04:49 PM Show me a typical example of a 1st-level human warrior, one that can be found in all European, North African, and West Asian cultures that existed from between 800 and 1300 CE. Equip him with weapons and armor that can be shown to of existed between 800 and 1300 CE in all such cultures. Give him the feats that all such typical warriors between 800 and 1300 CE would select, and the skills too.

...

That's why humans aren't in the Monster Manual. Too much variation. You could probably fill an entire (softcover) book with common variations on the 1st-level human warrior.

I'm talking about things such as darkvision, immunities, magical abilities, saving throws to magical effects, etc. Not physical traits such as skin color, height, or shape of ears.

According to you, there should be dozens of human subraces in the PHB.
Divokej
08-29-07, 04:57 PM Because if we put humans in no matter what fluff was in there someone would say "That's not right blah de blah..." Then WotC would have to expand it so that no one got upset by the description because evryone's culture would be in the MM. The humans entry would be too large. Then people would look at the dwarves and ask why there wasn't such a big deal made about them. Then if WotC wanted to make them happy they'd have to come up with multiple cultures for all the other core races. Which would be crazy. That's why. (Well, that's why I think they don't do it.)
StruckingFuggle
08-29-07, 05:00 PM Humans are the assumed base to which all other race/monster characteristics are compared. We also understand the concept of what a human is. However, if you say elf, gnome, dwarf, or whatever, there are a number of characteristics that are subjective depending on interpretation, thus they require detailed stats. If I say 'human', though, everyone knows what I'm talking about in terms of physical characteristics.

If humans are the baseline, then isn't that more reason for them to be there, so that the baseline for comparison is spelled out and codified in the text?

Show me a typical example of a 1st-level human warrior, one that can be found in all European, North African, and West Asian cultures that existed from between 800 and 1300 CE. Equip him with weapons and armor that can be shown to of existed between 800 and 1300 CE in all such cultures. Give him the feats that all such typical warriors between 800 and 1300 CE would select, and the skills too.

...

That's why humans aren't in the Monster Manual. Too much variation. You could probably fill an entire (softcover) book with common variations on the 1st-level human warrior.

And that's another problem in and of itself. DnD ignores that the other common races should be like that, too, but "there's humans of all sorts, but only four or five sorts of gnomes..." ... BAH.
Amaril
08-29-07, 05:02 PM Because if we put humans in no matter what fluff was in there someone would say "That's not right blah de blah..." Then WotC would have to expand it so that no one got upset by the description because evryone's culture would be in the MM. The humans entry would be too large. Then people would look at the dwarves and ask why there wasn't such a big deal made about them. Then if WotC wanted to make them happy they'd have to come up with multiple cultures for all the other core races. Which would be crazy. That's why. (Well, that's why I think they don't do it.)
Seriously, you people are over-thinking this. The human entry in the MM would be no different than the human entry in the PHB except with maybe a level of warrior or something.
Polarbeast
08-29-07, 05:31 PM Seriously, you people are over-thinking this. The human entry in the MM would be no different than the human entry in the PHB except with maybe a level of warrior or something.
I'm thinking much the same. To someone who asks why there is no entry in the MM, I reply, "why, do you need stats?"

I think it is as you and Key put it: humans are the point of reference from which all other races/beings differ.

To try to make an entry detailing what they're like visually and culturally, you'd need an exhaustive batch of text that tries desperately not to offend. It's the same reason why they don't create stats differently for male and female, even though some may argue that one tends to be stronger than the other on average, etc. It just isn't worth it.

I think it also allows for the comparative rarity of other races compared to humans; humans are so varied and so adaptable (so "common") compared to other races that their presence is assumed.
imakuni67
08-29-07, 05:35 PM I am not a monster! I am a human being! I do not belong in a monster manual :pbbbtt:

Elephantman reference? Nice.

But seriously, they should be in there it's racist calling the fellow humanoids monsters without calling humans monsters! Unless they are going to make the monster manual(s) and a humanoid...pamphlet.
Rogue Shadows
08-29-07, 05:37 PM And that's another problem in and of itself. DnD ignores that the other common races should be like that, too, but "there's humans of all sorts, but only four or five sorts of gnomes..." ... BAH.

No, not really.

Remember, races in D&D can be taken at face value. Kobolds, for example, look like a race of weak lizard-folk, mostly evil, and very insecure.

They are, in fact, a race of weak lizard-folk, mostly evil, and very insecure.

The whole point of D&D is that every single other intelligent race represents focus or specailization, whereas humans are generic.

According to you, there should be dozens of human subraces in the PHB.

No subrace necessary, actually. Consider, for example, the 1st-level high elf warrior in the MM. This represents the standard tactics of a given high elf warrior from anywhere that the players are likely to meet.

I will guaruntee you that this is the exact reason why humans aren't in the Monster Manual.
Polarbeast
08-29-07, 05:51 PM I discovered this thread already existent: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=890354 ... but it veers off into alignment argument somehow.

I don't regard the word "monster" in the MM to indicate "monster == strange == terrible == evil." It may as well have been called the "Creature Compendium" (er... was there something called that? It sounds familiar) or the "Book of Beings," but retains the MM name because of D&D's history.

So it might be racism... but it's also a moot, purely theoretical point. When an Elf or a Dwarf or a Gnome picks up this book and raises the question of the lack of humans, it will become a racism issue.

Besides, I'd rather save some money on the paper and see it go toward other interesting creature ideas I can use... I'm not likely to use the "Human" entry even if there was one...
StruckingFuggle
08-29-07, 05:51 PM Remember, races in D&D can be taken at face value. Kobolds, for example, look like a race of weak lizard-folk, mostly evil, and very insecure.

They are, in fact, a race of weak lizard-folk, mostly evil, and very insecure.

The whole point of D&D is that every single other intelligent race represents focus or specailization, whereas humans are generic.

Oh, I get that. I'm just saying "I don't like it".
aotrscommander
08-29-07, 06:35 PM I am not a monster! I am a human being! I do not belong in a monster manual :pbbbtt:

Ahahahahaha! I mean...just...pfftahahahahaha!

...

Sorry, I can't even thinkabout that withouahahahahaha!

...

That's soo rich...

The number of species that would voluably rebuke that statement across time and space are innumerable!

...

Okay, I'm calm now.

I too was bothered by the lack of humans in the MM (would it have killed them to provide the stats for a human warrior or to describe humans form the other race's point of view). Until I realised that clearly - like bacteria - humans weren't important enough to warrent an entry. I mean, seriously, you guys are like the sentient equivilent of the common cold. You get everywhere and make everything messy, noisy and infect anyobody who comes close!
Courrain
08-29-07, 11:36 PM Humans are the assumed base to which all other race/monster characteristics are compared. We also understand the concept of what a human is. However, if you say elf, gnome, dwarf, or whatever, there are a number of characteristics that are subjective depending on interpretation, thus they require detailed stats. If I say 'human', though, everyone knows what I'm talking about in terms of physical characteristics.

While I agree that humans in D&D are the baseline species from which all other race/monstrous characteristics are compared to. I am skeptical about your comment regarding the understanding the concept of what a human is. We are human. That is a fact that everyone on this thread can agree on. ;) But do we really understand what makes us human to begin with?

Not to mention that saying 'human' and expecting everyone to know what you are talking about also doesn't work with me. I mean, take the Forgotten Realms setting, in that setting humans come in several major and minor ethnic flavors. If one person playing in that setting was to say I am playing a human fighter, someone else is sure to say 'But what kind of human fighter are you playing?' A Chondathan fighter? A Tethyrian Fighter? Etc. Humans in rl like to pride themselves by sometimes mentioning where they are from. The same is very likely true in D&D.

Now if only D&D were to create ethnic templates to reflect the differences between human ethnic groups. :P
Polarbeast
08-30-07, 12:53 AM We are human. That is a fact that everyone on this thread can agree on. But do we really understand what makes us human to begin with?
An excellent question, but we must leave it to philosophers... for the purposes of this roleplaying game, where it is safely assumed that the players belong to this singular race, the information regarding stats, combat techniques, alignments, treasure, and habitats may not be needed.

I mean, take the Forgotten Realms setting, in that setting humans come in several major and minor ethnic flavors. If one person playing in that setting was to say I am playing a human fighter, someone else is sure to say 'But what kind of human fighter are you playing?' A Chondathan fighter? A Tethyrian Fighter? Etc. Humans in rl like to pride themselves by sometimes mentioning where they are from. The same is very likely true in D&D.
Right... in which case that information comes in the form of flavor text about that nation/tribe/social entity, in the same way that the World of Greyhawk details the politics and racial makeup of each of its cities and regions. D&D really deals with races, not the minor in-species differences between our collection of **** sapiens sapiens.

(Hmm... I notice that our genus is filtered out... pity...)

I'm afraid I am not familiar with Forgotten Realms, however, so if "major ethnic flavors" means "racial divisions" within humans in the same way that you have Wood Elves and Grey Elves--where the stat bonuses differ--then those details will be described in that game setting. That kind of information should come from the Forgotten Realms book; the Monster Manual--which must cater to all published worlds--just doesn't have the room to do it justice.

Now if only D&D were to create ethnic templates to reflect the differences between human ethnic groups.
Besides the fact that you'd have a devil of a time explaining how human ethnic groups would be statted differently ("you see, this race has a bonus to nonlethal damage from heat because, um... well, their skin is darker..."), I think we'd run into the same dangerous arguments as we do when someone suggests that males and females should get different stat bonuses. All humans get the same opportunities statwise.

Perhaps they feel it's best to leave those kinds of details up to the DM. (Admittedly, they've included decidedly Japanese/Chinese classes and outlooks in the system, so they could go further... I don't know the real reasons why)
pres_man
08-30-07, 06:23 AM But seriously, they should be in there it's racist calling the fellow humanoids monsters without calling humans monsters! Unless they are going to make the monster manual(s) and a humanoid...pamphlet.
What is so funny about this comment is the amount of "racism" (or is it speciesism) in it.
Inalienable human rights … that very name is racist. The Federation is basically a 'homosapiens' only club.
-Gorkon’s daughter Azetbur
Why are these other races describe as "humanoids" meaning "human-like"? Why aren't humans described as "elfoids"? Why does the term "goblinoids" only refer to the subraces and not to dwarves and gnomes and such?
KriegsaffeNo9
08-30-07, 09:10 PM "Is man to have an entry as well?"

Crap, lemme find that... it's hell of relevant.
Frozen Yakman
08-31-07, 05:03 PM There is a human monster write up in the first printing of the 3e PHB. It is a quite boring to fight against.
Horatio Hornblower
08-31-07, 07:19 PM There is a human monster write up in the first printing of the 3e PHB. It is a quite boring to fight against.

You're right, I forgot about that. Good catch.

It's page 9 of the "2000 Survival Kit" section for anyone out there with the first printing. Read it and you'll see why humans aren't in the MM. Enough is said in the Races chapter.

If you are interested in different human cultures go to the library or Wikipedia or even watch the History Channel. Let the WOTC staff work on new races for the MM.
Paradox_of_Life
08-31-07, 08:56 PM The reason why humans aren't in the monster manual is because they Wizards have not come out with an inbred variant.
pigknight
09-28-07, 11:26 PM Because we're racist against elves, gnomes, halflings, and dwarves cause they can now have classes and aren't a class.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Courrain 08-29-07, 01:17 PM	Why aren't humans found in the Monster Manual? A friend of mine and I were talking about Monstrous PCs in the upcoming 4th edition next year when he asked me a fundamental question- What is a monster? According to one online dictionary we looked at, a monster is: 1 a : an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure b : one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character 2 : a threatening force 3 a : an animal of strange or terrifying shape b : one unusually large for its kind 4 : something monstrous; especially : a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty. 5 : one that is highly successful After seeing these definitions of the word Monster, I realized that the word is one of those point-of-view things. A goblin, for instance, doesn't see itself as a monster because it doesn't see its' form as abnormal nor does it see itself as someone who deviates from the acceptable behavior of its own culture. It would, however, see everything else as a monster to be feared and hated. Now I know that humans much like goblins also don't see themselves as monsters for the very same reasons. We don't see our bodies as abnormal in shape and form, and with the exception of certain individuals, we don't see ourselves as deviating from the acceptible behavior of our own respectible cultures. But from another race's perspective, we are monsters. ;) So it makes some sense to include humans in the MM. After all, why leave them out when all of the standard races from the PHB are there? ;)
bobothechimp 08-29-07, 01:27 PM	There are no human subraces. There are subraces of all the other races.
reaper5081 08-29-07, 01:35 PM	I have often wondered the same thing:D
Kadasbrass 08-29-07, 02:33 PM	I am not a monster! I am a human being! I do not belong in a monster manual :pbbbtt: Yeah its kinda annoying that for every other race in core I can get lvl 1 warrior of that race in the mm but when I need human bandits I have to draw them up :P
DnDsnd 08-29-07, 02:50 PM	At one time in ages past humans were included in the monstrous manual, however we escaped and found our freedom from those accursed manuals and we rule our world :evillaugh :evillaugh :evillaugh :evillaugh Actually 2nd edition was the last time I remember human stats and subraces like cavemen.
Conspiracist 08-29-07, 02:58 PM	Don't make me quote Vincent Price's speech at the end of "Monster Club".:teach:
KoreKore 08-29-07, 03:01 PM	actually there are some human varinets. there is one in magic of incarnum and one in the BoVD and I think one in psionics.
key 08-29-07, 03:04 PM	But from another race's perspective, we are monsters. ;) D&D uses a human's perspective. A human views elves as dexterous, halflings as small, and non-humans as (may be a bit harsh) monsters. I agree it's ethnocentric.
Amaril 08-29-07, 03:54 PM	Humans are the assumed base to which all other race/monster characteristics are compared. We also understand the concept of what a human is. However, if you say elf, gnome, dwarf, or whatever, there are a number of characteristics that are subjective depending on interpretation, thus they require detailed stats. If I say 'human', though, everyone knows what I'm talking about in terms of physical characteristics.
Rogue Shadows 08-29-07, 04:41 PM	Show me a typical example of a 1st-level human warrior, one that can be found in all European, North African, and West Asian cultures that existed from between 800 and 1300 CE. Equip him with weapons and armor that can be shown to of existed between 800 and 1300 CE in all such cultures. Give him the feats that all such typical warriors between 800 and 1300 CE would select, and the skills too. ... That's why humans aren't in the Monster Manual. Too much variation. You could probably fill an entire (softcover) book with common variations on the 1st-level human warrior.
Amaril 08-29-07, 04:49 PM	Show me a typical example of a 1st-level human warrior, one that can be found in all European, North African, and West Asian cultures that existed from between 800 and 1300 CE. Equip him with weapons and armor that can be shown to of existed between 800 and 1300 CE in all such cultures. Give him the feats that all such typical warriors between 800 and 1300 CE would select, and the skills too. ... That's why humans aren't in the Monster Manual. Too much variation. You could probably fill an entire (softcover) book with common variations on the 1st-level human warrior. I'm talking about things such as darkvision, immunities, magical abilities, saving throws to magical effects, etc. Not physical traits such as skin color, height, or shape of ears. According to you, there should be dozens of human subraces in the PHB.
Divokej 08-29-07, 04:57 PM	Because if we put humans in no matter what fluff was in there someone would say "That's not right blah de blah..." Then WotC would have to expand it so that no one got upset by the description because evryone's culture would be in the MM. The humans entry would be too large. Then people would look at the dwarves and ask why there wasn't such a big deal made about them. Then if WotC wanted to make them happy they'd have to come up with multiple cultures for all the other core races. Which would be crazy. That's why. (Well, that's why I think they don't do it.)
StruckingFuggle 08-29-07, 05:00 PM	Humans are the assumed base to which all other race/monster characteristics are compared. We also understand the concept of what a human is. However, if you say elf, gnome, dwarf, or whatever, there are a number of characteristics that are subjective depending on interpretation, thus they require detailed stats. If I say 'human', though, everyone knows what I'm talking about in terms of physical characteristics. If humans are the baseline, then isn't that more reason for them to be there, so that the baseline for comparison is spelled out and codified in the text? Show me a typical example of a 1st-level human warrior, one that can be found in all European, North African, and West Asian cultures that existed from between 800 and 1300 CE. Equip him with weapons and armor that can be shown to of existed between 800 and 1300 CE in all such cultures. Give him the feats that all such typical warriors between 800 and 1300 CE would select, and the skills too. ... That's why humans aren't in the Monster Manual. Too much variation. You could probably fill an entire (softcover) book with common variations on the 1st-level human warrior. And that's another problem in and of itself. DnD ignores that the other common races should be like that, too, but "there's humans of all sorts, but only four or five sorts of gnomes..." ... BAH.
Amaril 08-29-07, 05:02 PM	Because if we put humans in no matter what fluff was in there someone would say "That's not right blah de blah..." Then WotC would have to expand it so that no one got upset by the description because evryone's culture would be in the MM. The humans entry would be too large. Then people would look at the dwarves and ask why there wasn't such a big deal made about them. Then if WotC wanted to make them happy they'd have to come up with multiple cultures for all the other core races. Which would be crazy. That's why. (Well, that's why I think they don't do it.) Seriously, you people are over-thinking this. The human entry in the MM would be no different than the human entry in the PHB except with maybe a level of warrior or something.
Polarbeast 08-29-07, 05:31 PM	Seriously, you people are over-thinking this. The human entry in the MM would be no different than the human entry in the PHB except with maybe a level of warrior or something. I'm thinking much the same. To someone who asks why there is no entry in the MM, I reply, "why, do you need stats?" I think it is as you and Key put it: humans are the point of reference from which all other races/beings differ. To try to make an entry detailing what they're like visually and culturally, you'd need an exhaustive batch of text that tries desperately not to offend. It's the same reason why they don't create stats differently for male and female, even though some may argue that one tends to be stronger than the other on average, etc. It just isn't worth it. I think it also allows for the comparative rarity of other races compared to humans; humans are so varied and so adaptable (so "common") compared to other races that their presence is assumed.
imakuni67 08-29-07, 05:35 PM	I am not a monster! I am a human being! I do not belong in a monster manual :pbbbtt: Elephantman reference? Nice. But seriously, they should be in there it's racist calling the fellow humanoids monsters without calling humans monsters! Unless they are going to make the monster manual(s) and a humanoid...pamphlet.
Rogue Shadows 08-29-07, 05:37 PM	And that's another problem in and of itself. DnD ignores that the other common races should be like that, too, but "there's humans of all sorts, but only four or five sorts of gnomes..." ... BAH. No, not really. Remember, races in D&D can be taken at face value. Kobolds, for example, look like a race of weak lizard-folk, mostly evil, and very insecure. They are, in fact, a race of weak lizard-folk, mostly evil, and very insecure. The whole point of D&D is that every single other intelligent race represents focus or specailization, whereas humans are generic. According to you, there should be dozens of human subraces in the PHB. No subrace necessary, actually. Consider, for example, the 1st-level high elf warrior in the MM. This represents the standard tactics of a given high elf warrior from anywhere that the players are likely to meet. I will guaruntee you that this is the exact reason why humans aren't in the Monster Manual.
Polarbeast 08-29-07, 05:51 PM	I discovered this thread already existent: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=890354 ... but it veers off into alignment argument somehow. I don't regard the word "monster" in the MM to indicate "monster == strange == terrible == evil." It may as well have been called the "Creature Compendium" (er... was there something called that? It sounds familiar) or the "Book of Beings," but retains the MM name because of D&D's history. So it might be racism... but it's also a moot, purely theoretical point. When an Elf or a Dwarf or a Gnome picks up this book and raises the question of the lack of humans, it will become a racism issue. Besides, I'd rather save some money on the paper and see it go toward other interesting creature ideas I can use... I'm not likely to use the "Human" entry even if there was one...
StruckingFuggle 08-29-07, 05:51 PM	Remember, races in D&D can be taken at face value. Kobolds, for example, look like a race of weak lizard-folk, mostly evil, and very insecure. They are, in fact, a race of weak lizard-folk, mostly evil, and very insecure. The whole point of D&D is that every single other intelligent race represents focus or specailization, whereas humans are generic. Oh, I get that. I'm just saying "I don't like it".
aotrscommander 08-29-07, 06:35 PM	I am not a monster! I am a human being! I do not belong in a monster manual :pbbbtt: Ahahahahaha! I mean...just...pfftahahahahaha! ... Sorry, I can't even thinkabout that withouahahahahaha! ... That's soo rich... The number of species that would voluably rebuke that statement across time and space are innumerable! ... Okay, I'm calm now. I too was bothered by the lack of humans in the MM (would it have killed them to provide the stats for a human warrior or to describe humans form the other race's point of view). Until I realised that clearly - like bacteria - humans weren't important enough to warrent an entry. I mean, seriously, you guys are like the sentient equivilent of the common cold. You get everywhere and make everything messy, noisy and infect anyobody who comes close!
Courrain 08-29-07, 11:36 PM	Humans are the assumed base to which all other race/monster characteristics are compared. We also understand the concept of what a human is. However, if you say elf, gnome, dwarf, or whatever, there are a number of characteristics that are subjective depending on interpretation, thus they require detailed stats. If I say 'human', though, everyone knows what I'm talking about in terms of physical characteristics. While I agree that humans in D&D are the baseline species from which all other race/monstrous characteristics are compared to. I am skeptical about your comment regarding the understanding the concept of what a human is. We are human. That is a fact that everyone on this thread can agree on. ;) But do we really understand what makes us human to begin with? Not to mention that saying 'human' and expecting everyone to know what you are talking about also doesn't work with me. I mean, take the Forgotten Realms setting, in that setting humans come in several major and minor ethnic flavors. If one person playing in that setting was to say I am playing a human fighter, someone else is sure to say 'But what kind of human fighter are you playing?' A Chondathan fighter? A Tethyrian Fighter? Etc. Humans in rl like to pride themselves by sometimes mentioning where they are from. The same is very likely true in D&D. Now if only D&D were to create ethnic templates to reflect the differences between human ethnic groups. :P
Polarbeast 08-30-07, 12:53 AM	We are human. That is a fact that everyone on this thread can agree on. But do we really understand what makes us human to begin with? An excellent question, but we must leave it to philosophers... for the purposes of this roleplaying game, where it is safely assumed that the players belong to this singular race, the information regarding stats, combat techniques, alignments, treasure, and habitats may not be needed. I mean, take the Forgotten Realms setting, in that setting humans come in several major and minor ethnic flavors. If one person playing in that setting was to say I am playing a human fighter, someone else is sure to say 'But what kind of human fighter are you playing?' A Chondathan fighter? A Tethyrian Fighter? Etc. Humans in rl like to pride themselves by sometimes mentioning where they are from. The same is very likely true in D&D. Right... in which case that information comes in the form of flavor text about that nation/tribe/social entity, in the same way that the World of Greyhawk details the politics and racial makeup of each of its cities and regions. D&D really deals with races, not the minor in-species differences between our collection of **** sapiens sapiens. (Hmm... I notice that our genus is filtered out... pity...) I'm afraid I am not familiar with Forgotten Realms, however, so if "major ethnic flavors" means "racial divisions" within humans in the same way that you have Wood Elves and Grey Elves--where the stat bonuses differ--then those details will be described in that game setting. That kind of information should come from the Forgotten Realms book; the Monster Manual--which must cater to all published worlds--just doesn't have the room to do it justice. Now if only D&D were to create ethnic templates to reflect the differences between human ethnic groups. Besides the fact that you'd have a devil of a time explaining how human ethnic groups would be statted differently ("you see, this race has a bonus to nonlethal damage from heat because, um... well, their skin is darker..."), I think we'd run into the same dangerous arguments as we do when someone suggests that males and females should get different stat bonuses. All humans get the same opportunities statwise. Perhaps they feel it's best to leave those kinds of details up to the DM. (Admittedly, they've included decidedly Japanese/Chinese classes and outlooks in the system, so they could go further... I don't know the real reasons why)
pres_man 08-30-07, 06:23 AM	But seriously, they should be in there it's racist calling the fellow humanoids monsters without calling humans monsters! Unless they are going to make the monster manual(s) and a humanoid...pamphlet. What is so funny about this comment is the amount of "racism" (or is it speciesism) in it. Inalienable human rights … that very name is racist. The Federation is basically a 'homosapiens' only club. -Gorkon’s daughter Azetbur Why are these other races describe as "humanoids" meaning "human-like"? Why aren't humans described as "elfoids"? Why does the term "goblinoids" only refer to the subraces and not to dwarves and gnomes and such?
KriegsaffeNo9 08-30-07, 09:10 PM	"Is man to have an entry as well?" Crap, lemme find that... it's hell of relevant.
Frozen Yakman 08-31-07, 05:03 PM	There is a human monster write up in the first printing of the 3e PHB. It is a quite boring to fight against.
Horatio Hornblower 08-31-07, 07:19 PM	There is a human monster write up in the first printing of the 3e PHB. It is a quite boring to fight against. You're right, I forgot about that. Good catch. It's page 9 of the "2000 Survival Kit" section for anyone out there with the first printing. Read it and you'll see why humans aren't in the MM. Enough is said in the Races chapter. If you are interested in different human cultures go to the library or Wikipedia or even watch the History Channel. Let the WOTC staff work on new races for the MM.
Paradox_of_Life 08-31-07, 08:56 PM	The reason why humans aren't in the monster manual is because they Wizards have not come out with an inbred variant.
pigknight 09-28-07, 11:26 PM	Because we're racist against elves, gnomes, halflings, and dwarves cause they can now have classes and aren't a class.