Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 fepriest Mar 10, 2015 13:05:37	Sooooo I imagine we're bound to get a bunch of posts like this where folks take issue with the fluff of a race/culture/community. I'm not here to rattle my saber as an old guard from 3.x wishing Goliath were the same old friendly giant race. My concern is actually rooted in anthropology and the way nomadic cultures operate--namely, that mutualism is pretty important in a nomadic culture, and the social description of Goliaths would be closer to an agrarian communities' value system than a nomadic cultures. "But fepriest, this is a fantasy race in a fantasy world, the rules don't work the same:" I recognize that this is a fantasy world--but what concerns me here isn't the fantasy nature, but the way we represent nomadic cultures. Egalitarianism and "taking care of thy neighbor" is a *huge* deal in nomadic cultures, because nomads need to be able to trust their fellow travelers will have their back in adverse times. I'm willing to provide academic and cultural evidence based on modern and now-defunct nomadic cultures if you're not comfortable just taking one fool from the internet's word on the subject.  I gotta jet to class now, buuuuut if anyone else has thoughts/concerns/ideas about the subject, lemme know. I think the solution would be simple: that the Goliaths for the Elemental Evil campaigns are a particular group of Goliaths who're on the decline, and in a subsequent splatbook a variant Goliath type is released which shows a different cultural heritage.
#2 Chameleon-X Mar 10, 2015 16:11:42	You're right, of course. But if we're talking about realistic cultures, we would have to address the fact that every single "monster" race community would tear itself apart in a matter of weeks, since they're full of savage, greedy brutes who all like to kill people and cause pain for the fun of it. Not to mention that most of them explicitly don't produce any of their own cultural relics and get by entirely by stealing from others. And don't get me started on the Drow.
#3 Mephi1234 Mar 10, 2015 17:14:48	Drow and Orcs.   Those two drive me crazy.
#4 Farmer42 Mar 10, 2015 17:37:29	You can't really apply social theory to D&D.  This is a world where a guy can murder your family in front of you then walk up, mumble a few words, and you're the best of friends.  Magic chapes and alters logic on the things we DO understand.  What happens off-screen?
#5 fepriest Mar 10, 2015 18:05:46	Ack! Not enough time to respond to this the way I like, but I agree with all y'all--and I think it's not unfair of us to want/demand/expect more. I promise I'm not just being a polemicist--I'll give this a proper response soon!
#6 Chaosmancer Mar 10, 2015 23:40:13	I sort of agree, but I think they balanced it out with the "level playing field" part.   A Goliath is willing to help others, and tend to the sick, but if you lose your leg in a rockslide and can't keep up you're left behind. If you can keep up then great. It makes some level of sense since they want the Goliaths to be living in supremely remote and deadly environments, the weak cannot survive and if you try and drag them along you kill the whole tribe (potentially).   I think for my campaign though I will adjust some things (as I've done for almost all the races) and also put them in a desert. Why? Because the desert is still unexplored and a perfect place for a nomadic race I just found.
#7 Psikerlord Mar 11, 2015 2:18:43	I have never liked Goliaths. They're just big humans to me. Not different enough to include.   I do like their mechanics however as a variant human - large and physically powerful humans from icy mountain ranges.
#8 Mecheon Mar 11, 2015 2:45:11	Psikerlord wrote:
#9 Vahnyu Mar 11, 2015 3:59:40	gnomes are even shorter humans, halflings are barefooted even shorter humans...
#10 Mephi1234 Mar 11, 2015 5:13:42	Mecheon wrote:
#11 Mecheon Mar 11, 2015 5:12:00	I legit have no idea   I know they exist because it turns out in 3.5e, it was a really, really bad idea to up player size, so Goliaths are everything of a larger size but with none of the annoyance
(Reply to #2) Kazadvorn	Chameleon-X wrote:
(Reply to #8) Farmer42	Mecheon wrote:
#14 fepriest Mar 11, 2015 5:52:37	On the idea that a world where magic can change memories and alter entire cities: I see the validity of that argument--but I think it also presents a slippery slope. Magic can also bypass the need for advanced metallurgy, and food production, and housing. Magic could alter political structures so that there is no leader, just a complex set of divination spells churning out policy to the whole world. Magic could counteract our need to wear clothes, or sleep, or fear disease and death. Yet we know in the many D&D worlds, there are cultures approaching feudal and renaissance european cultures. If the humans, Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halflings, and Dragonborn get a culture and civilization and a history (depending on the setting) which reflects real world notions of culture, knowledge-making, and community building, I'd like the same for my other species too. On the "fair play" concept: This approaches the kind of altruism seen in nomadic cultures, buuuut it starts to break down for me when the last section of fluff describes the culture as being conscious of their slow demise because they don't have wise leadership/elders. Again, I will gladly provide sources for what I'm saying, I recognize I'm asking you to take my word as an authority on nomadic cultures when I'm just a dude on the internet. In a Nomadic culture, individual achievement tends to be valued only insomuch as it serves the community. If I go out and hunt as a goliath, and bring back a dire elk, me and my family gets the biggest serving because I earned it--that's fair play. But if I go out, and decide that I need to catch a bigger animal, take on a mammoth, and end up getting two of my hunting allies killed in the process, even if I bring back a dead mammoth my stubbornness and pride ended up weakening the numbers of my nomadic clan. I may have left a wife widowed, or children without parents, or any number of grievances. The fair play tenet makes space for a suicidal mammoth hunt if all the members of the hunting parry were in agreement. Boiled down, my issue really comes down to the fact that the value system they represent is untenable. it's in their description that their lifestyle is going to spell the end of their way of life, but to have developed a culture with such a destructive sense of self at its center implies that this was somehow an efficient lifestyle which led to plentiful breeding and a surplus in resources at some point Which brings me back to my posited idea: this isn't a description of the Goliath Culture as a whole. This is a very specific clan in a very specific place and time experiencing a very specific nihilistic spiral towards extinction. These Goliath are a failed community trying to make do and find a way to survive.
#15 fepriest Mar 11, 2015 5:53:53	-.- I don't know why there aren't Any paragraph breaks in that above post. I will edit it when I can get to my actual computer.
(Reply to #2) fepriest	Chameleon-X wrote:
#17 Mechatarrasque Mar 11, 2015 8:41:26	The cultural writeup makes me think of  large herd herbivores.  When you stop at a place, you defend the herd from predators (adjusted to  take care of everyone there), but when it is time to migrate, anyone who can't make the journey is left on their own.  On top of that, there is a pretty heavy Alpha thing going on, much like elephants and big horn sheep.  Different biological imperatives would suggest different social structures.
#18 Kazadvorn Mar 11, 2015 9:30:46	fepriest wrote:
(Reply to #14) Chaosmancer	fepriest wrote:
(Reply to #17) fepriest	Mechatarrasque wrote:
(Reply to #20) Mechatarrasque	fepriest wrote:
(Reply to #21) fepriest	Mechatarrasque wrote:
(Reply to #19) Kazadvorn	Chaosmancer wrote:
#24 ChrisCarlson Mar 12, 2015 6:53:25	Kazadvorn wrote:
#25 iserith Mar 12, 2015 6:59:21	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #25) fepriest	iserith wrote:
#27 ZHDarkstar Mar 16, 2015 6:45:13	fepriest wrote: