I have often pondered this question: What benefit does having “non-human” races add to a world setting? Nor am I the first to do so on these boards, but I am really feeling that the subject warrants further discussion.
I understand the problems fairly well:
Counterwise, consider how truly different humans from different cultures really are – as we are starting to really understand as we Americans and (to a lesser extent) Europeans are being forced to learn about the Arab World. This magnitude of cultural difference was also the case with pre-industrial Asia (especially Japan).
So, would a setting without “non-human” characters be viable – in a gaming sense? What would it be lacking?
|
There's nothing that's really missed by removing non-human races from the game, emphasising ethnicity and culture over race is a great way to create differentiation between PCs and NPCs. A lot of great fantasy fiction never mentions elves, gnomes, halflings, orcs or any other tolkienesque staple and works perfectly fine.
What the other races add is a sense of the exotic and magical. I have some players who don't play humans specifically because D&D is an escapist fantasy where they can be more graceful (elf), more powerful (orc) than they could ever be in real life. Those races also allow the players (and the DM) to play up archetypes which are important short-hand in a role-playing game where time is limited and you quickly want to paint a mental picture for the players.
In any case if you're going to remove other races for the setting then really play up the different cultures that the setting has. Pathfinder Chronicles does an excellent job of this as playing a Vudrai feels different from playing a Chelaxian, from playing a Varisian or playing a Shoanti, since each of these ethnicities come with their own role-playing short-hands based on (bastardised) Earth ethnicities and cultures.
What the other races add is a sense of the exotic and magical. I have some players who don't play humans specifically because D&D is an escapist fantasy where they can be more graceful (elf), more powerful (orc) than they could ever be in real life. Those races also allow the players (and the DM) to play up archetypes which are important short-hand in a role-playing game where time is limited and you quickly want to paint a mental picture for the players.
You bring up two interesting, yet contradictory points in this paragraph.
In any event, I hadn't yet actually decided to remove non-humans. I just was considering some of the problems that having them in the setting.
And I had not even looked at problems of game balance () or logic ().
At their best non-human races give us role playing oppotunities.
Example, One of the best games I ever had was one of my early 3.o games. I had one human player who was basically playing John Wyane's character in the Searchers (if you haven't seen it do yourself a favor and do so, if you have seen it then you understand how cool and complex a character he was doing). To complicate matters we had an half-orc in the game who never Role Played before. He got into it, but then began to realize not only did the Wyane character hate his guts, but who, he read up on the Half-Orc a bit. Orcs raid and rape humans, thu half-orcs. The player said told me 'no, I was raised by orcs, and humans raided our villiage, and raped my mom' He did not reveal that to the Wyane character. The game led to an examination of Orcish cuture, one which the Wyane character understood well and could even fit into it if needed.
The fact that Orcs don't really exist allowed us to role play without stepping on anyones toes or break down to just racial jokes/sterotypes. I don't think thats a major concern as games like Conan have multiple human races with stat adjustments, but I have heard some people on these boards accuse that game to almost be racist due to the sorce matterial by Howard not the company mind you. In either case that is an eample of non-human race at their best.
The down side is number chruching. Its a game and I play for numbers everybit as the next guy, but racial characters fall apart when players take them for power X or boost Y then paly the character against type because he didn't want to really play that race, he just wanted power X and boost Y. In this case I'll admit it gets harder to defend other races. If being an Elf means nothing except numbers, you might as well have a +1 long sword shaped like a four foot long +1, with a sharp edge.
For all that I'm still on the side of races, and even allow LizardFolk, Centaurs, Orcs, goblins and hob-goblins (not the standard type) into the game because even when players don't give the best performance as such race, most players still at lest attempt to make the race important.
I do have some suggestions if you really do find it more and more of a problem.
1. Limit the number of PC who can play a non-human or/and limit the number of a certain race to one (elf for example) to show how rare they are.
2. All human PC but the other fantasy races exist, in fact you have to go the Elf city in the game. This give you a race that your aren't supposed to just kill, and allows you to show just how differnt and magical they are. Then in your next game (with the same players of course) start allowing that race.
3. Kinda like #2 start your game as all human party, but when people start getting killed, and if they are in the correct kingdom, then let them play other races. So if player X dies on Avalon, let him play an elf next.
4. All humans with differnt stat ajustments like the Conan game, which is very easily compatable race wise, and gives humans options. I do this alreay because I got tired of 50 subraces of Elves, but all humans are alike gentically and culturally.
5. Go the other direction, take any of the above but an all racial party, in which humans are rare, or at lest rare in this kingdom, or even better humans are the bad guys. In Elf lands they could look down on savage half-humans as thugs.
Hope this helps.
TTFN DRE
Sure, there are lots of great fantasy worlds where "demihumans" don't exist or don't figure in very prominently. Conan, Wheel of Time, Golden Compass, or just about anything derived from Arthurian myth for starters. Dying Earth as well, I believe.
Occorse, Arthurian legends still have (or imply) fairies, WoT still has trollocks, Golden Compass still has talking bears and Hyborian still has all manner of monsters.
Removing all manner of intelligent creatures and monsters (fair and foul) is also doable- fantasy is a very robust genre to put it mildly- but that would be a much wider divergence than merely removing the human-like protagonist races.
For all that I'm still on the side of races, and even allow LizardFolk, Centaurs, Orcs, goblins and hob-goblins (not the standard type) into the game because even when players don't give the best performance as such race, most players still at lest attempt to make the race important.
I do have some suggestions if you really do find it more and more of a problem.
1. Limit the number of PC who can play a non-human or/and limit the number of a certain race to one (elf for example) to show how rare they are.
2. All human PC but the other fantasy races exist, in fact you have to go the Elf city in the game. This give you a race that your aren't supposed to just kill, and allows you to show just how differnt and magical they are. Then in your next game (with the same players of course) start allowing that race.
3. Kinda like #2 start your game as all human party, but when people start getting killed, and if they are in the correct kingdom, then let them play other races. So if player X dies on Avalon, let him play an elf next.
4. All humans with differnt stat ajustments like the Conan game, which is very easily compatable race wise, and gives humans options. I do this alreay because I got tired of 50 subraces of Elves, but all humans are alike gentically and culturally.
5. Go the other direction, take any of the above but an all racial party, in which humans are rare, or at lest rare in this kingdom, or even better humans are the bad guys. In Elf lands they could look down on savage half-humans as thugs.
Hope this helps.
Unfortunately, I don't think it will.
Let me address your points:
1.) How does the poor gamemaster fairly choose amounst his friends who gets to play the token non-human character?
2.) That would be cool, and would allow Elves to be like there root form - the Celtic Sidhe and Dwarves to be more like the Norse "Dvergar" that is their original source - namely distant, otherworldly and powerful.
3.) Character death is kind of rare in our campaigns. So this option does not work quite a well.
4.) This path can lead to Real World arguements about racism too. :(
5.) My problem is that having any be "Always Chaotic Evil" leads to some dark ideas that I would rather not deal with. (Now, having a nation or culture be evil is another matter.)
Sure, there are lots of great fantasy worlds where "demihumans" don't exist or don't figure in very prominently. Conan, Wheel of Time, Golden Compass, or just about anything derived from Arthurian myth for starters. Dying Earth as well, I believe.
Occorse, Arthurian legends still have (or imply) fairies, WoT still has trollocks, Golden Compass still has talking bears and Hyborian still has all manner of monsters.
Removing all manner of intelligent creatures and monsters (fair and foul) is also doable- fantasy is a very robust genre to put it mildly- but that would be a much wider divergence than merely removing the human-like protagonist races.
Oh no, I didn't say that. Monsters still have a role: demons, undead, dragons, giants, tenticle horrors, etc. - none of these tend to eclipse the role of humanity.
My issue has more to do with "near-human" races.
Then give them the ax. :)
It sounds like you definitely want more of an Arthurian (or Arabian Knights, or New Argonauts, or...) game and less of a tolkienesque one.
For some of us, the interplay between all these races (which echo humanity in off-key ways) is fascinating, but it certainly isn't necessary for D&D-style fantasy.
Because people like the other races. As for you creating a human only world... it would work fine also. The default setting is just a baseline for GMs.
5.) My problem is that having any be "Always Chaotic Evil" leads to some dark ideas that I would rather not deal with. (Now, having a nation or culture be evil is another matter.)
I've never really used this assumption. There are certain to be stray Orcs or Goblins who are not evil but many of them will be killed before they can reach outside society or just hermits. There might even be occasional tribes that aren't evil but since violence is incited mutually (we kill goblins/ orcs on sight) you generally wouldn't even know it. My players rarely even consider what the motivations of the orcs or goblins they encounter is. Perhaps they are raiding due to starvation?
My impression of goblins is they are evil by necessity. They out breed their environment continually and are voracious so they have to raid adjoining societies or starve to death.
I am planning on running a goblin game where the players are motivated by exactly that.
If a stat block says "usually evil", I make sure that the neutral and good ones are there and accounted for, even if the PCs never see them (or never realize that they saw them). FYI, orcs and goblins and virtually all other humanoids are "usually", not "always".
That said, I think that "usually evil" races are there to make the game less dark, not more.
"We'll kill these green beast-faced bipeds who are cruel and nasty by nature!" doesn't have any real-world connotations unless you're really looking for them.
"We'll kill these soldiers of the Evil Nation even though we know they're mostly good men and loving husbands who have been indoctrinated or conscripted into service!"? Way to close to home for some.
While I like having a variety of races, I can see where the OP is comming from.
A while back I was looking at the weapons and thought to myself "Have I actually seen any players use weapons like axes and maces in place of swords?" Then I realise that I had, but the majority of times that I did it had been because the PC's in question were dwarves (well, I mean the axes specifically in this case).
After thinking a little more for a few hours, I've always noticed that certain races (for the most part) seem to be played a certain way. Rarely have I seen a dwarf that didn't speak with an accent (even if they shouldn't) or an elf that wasn't aloof. And what few that do fall into that catagory I've always seen as bit-part NPC's rather than PC's.
I suppose this is partly why I always seem to be looking for more exotic races, like spellscales and killoren. If the group don't know what to make of them, I feel less like I'm pushed to play towards a stereotype.
If a stat block says "usually evil", I make sure that the neutral and good ones are there and accounted for, even if the PCs never see them (or never realize that they saw them). FYI, orcs and goblins and virtually all other humanoids are "usually", not "always".
That said, I think that "usually evil" races are there to make the game less dark, not more.
"We'll kill these green beast-faced bipeds who are cruel and nasty by nature!" doesn't have any real-world connotations unless you're really looking for them.
"We'll kill these soldiers of the Evil Nation even though we know they're mostly good men and loving husbands who have been indoctrinated or conscripted into service!"? Way to close to home for some.
Ah, but what about ...
"We'll kill these green beast-faced bipeds who are sometimes good beings and loving parents - who have been indoctrinated or conscripted into service!"?
While I like having a variety of races, I can see where the OP is comming from.
A while back I was looking at the weapons and thought to myself "Have I actually seen any players use weapons like axes and maces in place of swords?" Then I realise that I had, but the majority of times that I did it had been because the PC's in question were dwarves (well, I mean the axes specifically in this case).
After thinking a little more for a few hours, I've always noticed that certain races (for the most part) seem to be played a certain way. Rarely have I seen a dwarf that didn't speak with an accent (even if they shouldn't) or an elf that wasn't aloof. And what few that do fall into that catagory I've always seen as bit-part NPC's rather than PC's.
I suppose this is partly why I always seem to be looking for more exotic races, like spellscales and killoren. If the group don't know what to make of them, I feel less like I'm pushed to play towards a stereotype.
That is a huge part of my problem, yes.
|
|
I don't think it would hurt the game any to remove them. If your group will go for it, take them out. I wouldn't miss them is my games. I think that too many games and campaigns have too many nonhuman races. 4-5 options is about my limit. They don't even have to be the traditional races, just not so many. The Forgotten Realms got way out of hand with this, even before the Spellplague. The last FR campaign I played a Mulhorandi Mystic Theurge, human, but still the most exotic PC in the bunch, from a FR point of view.
On the one hand, Favored Enemy(human) gets too powerful. <Grin>
But really the way I see it is this: what do your players want? I know that at our table we've had some interesting role-play with warforged for instance that would never have come up with human characters. Humans account for the majority of our characters but sometimes a non-human PC is born from inspiration derived from the flavor-text of his or her race. Sure, elves could just be a faction of humans. So could dwarves, drow, orcs, gnolls and everything else, but it might lose impact.
Ask your players. If they're playing non-humans it's a good bet that they want to. Even if you don't understand why they find non-humans interesting, it'll be educational.
I don't think you can expect people to play dwarves and not act like dwarves. =p
Archetypes- what you dismiss as "stereotypes"- can be inspiring and fun. If you dismiss the crass scottish dwarf as a flaw rather than a feature and then can't figure out why people like dwarves, you're kinda missing the point.
Of course, you can play articulate and mild-mannered dwarves, or honest halflings, or incredibly ballzy gnomes. That, at least for me, is the other half of the fun.
I think my biggest problem with non-humans is that generally they come off as being simply "humans in elf/dwarf/orc/whatever suits". That is to say they really don't seem non- or in-human. They usually seem to be humans with slightly different outlooks, abilities, and demeanor. Really if they have totally different physiologies, should not they also have completely different psychologies, cultures, and outlooks?
I am strongly in favor of ditching all non-human races in favor of applying those variations to humans and slotting them into the same niches. Only convention and player expectation keeps me from implementing such wide sweeping changes in my own campaigns.
CJ
I don't think you can expect people to play dwarves and not act like dwarves. =p
Archetypes- what you dismiss as "stereotypes"- can be inspiring and fun. If you dismiss the crass scottish dwarf as a flaw rather than a feature and then can't figure out why people like dwarves, you're kinda missing the point.
Of course, you can play articulate and mild-mannered dwarves, or honest halflings, or incredibly ballzy gnomes. That, at least for me, is the other half of the fun.
Don't get me wrong, I do like the idea of Scottish dwarves, but it seems a little boring and repeatative when every dwarf begins having the same tradmarks. It wasn't a problem for me at first, but after seeing lots of characters it does start to build up.
And I suppose the problem is that if someone chooses to play a dwarf, they choose dwarf, they are likely to choose that race for that reason, so seeing a dwarf outwith the stereotype is unlikely.
Why do we have non-humans? Because we always have. It wasn't Father Tolkien that put them into our consciousnous, it was humanity.
There isn't an ancient culture that did not have the "others" ... the ones that weren't quite human or were very NON-human indeed. The elf/dwarfs of Norse mythos, the Fae of Europe, the Centaurs of Greece, the Hengeyokai of the Orient, etc., etc. Those are just an off the top of my head, there are thousands more, ones for all cultures and kinds.
Even when we go into a genre that is not per se fantasy, we bring other races into it's population. Space age games ... the Aslan of Traveller; the Vulcans, Romulans, etc., of Star Trek; the Wookies, Droids, etc. of Star Wars, the wondrous creatures of Barsoom. Cthulhu and other horror games are populated with the changed, the foreign, the alien, even the living dead! Go into post-apocalyptic worlds, you have mutants, morlocks, troglodytes ... no matter where we roam in our imaginations we populate the corners, the dark, the unknown with "Others.
And then, once we've moved beyond the non- but near-human, you find the wondrous creatures and monsters of myth that populate our fantasies, thousands that we love and fear.
As to why so many are played as "stereotypes" and "archetypes"? Again, because we are who we are. Why was Scotty a Scottish engineer on Star Trek? Because of the stereotype/archetype that the best engineers were (are?) Scottish!
When creating any character, we are starting from a concept, a stereotype or archetype if you will, upon which we start to build our alter ego. Most of the reason that a given race is based on one particular "aspect" of humanity is that they are NOT human, but nearly so, and so we assign some aspect to them and build on that for how to make them different. And that is exactly what humanity has done throughout the ages as we spread out from our own homes and encountered the "Others" that we ran into ... people of different cultures and colors and beleifs.
Most of us, if we are honest, have particular thoughts when we think of people from particular countries or races. We don't try to think that way, but we have been raised culturally to do so, by our parents, our own culture, our humor, whatever. Brits are stiff, formal, tea-drinkers. All Irish drink and are lazy. Americans are money-hungry. (I am an American, my grandfather was British, and I'm married to an Irishman :) ). Even culturally in the States we have our predone thoughts -- all Texans carry guns, the Southern folk are "lazy" and/or bigotted, the Northeners are stiff and snooty, Californians all surf and most are latent hippies, etc. Ludicrous, gross over-simplifications and mostly just plain wrong, but isn't that what our comedy and humor emphasize? The stereotypes of an area?
Non-humans are in our games as a reflection of an aspect of ourselves. They are a way to dig into something that we want to learn, in a safe, fun manner, letting us use our ugly side at times if need be to find out a truth about us. We may not like what we find, and then will start to adjust our own behavior to make ourselves better in our new world view. Denying a game of this aspect will just make us use the other cultures a game allows to do the same thing, and maybe in a more painful manner (who hasn't been uncomfortable in a game where for whatever reason a race of color is treated as inferior?).
Non-humans are a part of us, our psyche, our past and our future. I say they belong, are important and just plain fun.
If you don't like fantasy races, then don't play with them it wouldn't be a problem. I've played in several games like that, though we usually used d20 Modern. It gives you more options when you play the game, that way you could have two players who play rogues who can also have something easily visible that marks both characters as different.
You can have two rogues from different cultures to differentiate but mechanically they'd still be the same. You could make different cultures mechanically different but that could cause problems. Lets say I want to make a Viking like culture (by the by my ancestory is predominantly Scandinavian for those who might be offended). What would the stats look like? +2 Str and Cha, -2 to Int? +2 to Con and Wis, -2 Cha? Then we get to what type of Vikings your looking at, pop-culture complete with horned helmets or ones with out. In my experience most players given the description of "Vikig-like humans" play their characters one way, repeatedly, and with horns on their helmets. This is kind of obnoxious to me, as I've been fascinated by Viking culture since I was a kid, and it's a lot easier to get people upset when they see their culture as a race and represented in a way they don't like.
I'd say the problem with racial archetypes depends on the setting and the players. If you say "we're playing DnD, make characters" as your setting exposition then I'd say expect to see these archetypes. If you have a setting that is developed and decent players you can get away with Halflings who are aggressive and war like as they feel the best defense against invasions and enslavement is by kicking every one elses butts. On the other hand I've seen people get upset about Elves in Eberron being different from the standard archetype or (in an all human games) turn a culture of aggressive sea raiders into vikings even though their primary transport was swimming with whales.
Off Topic: I haven't heard some one playing a Dwarf speak with a scotish accent since 2nd Ed.
up til recently I rarely saw a human being played in one of my games. When it did happen it was generally a human fighter just for the extra feat.
However now with pathfinder humans are interesting again. A variety of cultures, some with their own feats and traits. We are now on our third AP (second darkness and CotCT are being played concurrently) and 2/3 or more of our group have been humans. Wasn't until a near party wipe in SD that we had a party of mostly non humans and that was because the two that died started elves from the Crying Leaf settlement.
if you make humans interesting, with different cultures and backgrounds you'll likely see an increase in the number of them. Eliminate the fantasy races if you like.... but a simpler way might be to just downplay them. Perhaps the elves or dwarves are not very numerous. Either because they live in remote areas (by choice, chance, or geographical oddities) or some calamity has befallen them in the past.
Its your world, do what you want with it as long as you and your players have fun :)
|
The setting I've been GMing subverts a lot of the stereotypes associated with races. Also, they don't get along, and it's only dwarves, humans, and elves. The PC's were originally just two human brothers, although lately they've been traveling with their half-elf half sister.
Also, there are lots of intra-racial cultural discrepancies. For example, there are country humans, and the culture of the Port city of Westhaven was very different from the culture of the human capital of Eisenreich. Even within Eisenreich there were big differences between the upper and lower classes. The elves had the northern forest and jungle elves, a class of elven plantation owners, nomadic desert elves, separatist elves on an island of their own, and a generally over-indulgent population of city elves in the capital of Artagnan. We also explored elves having mustaches and being fat. And their are plenty of beardless dwarves, but they are slaves to the dwarves with beards.
Yea, what I'm trying to say is, in a setting of your own, the PCs should make their own racial calls within reason. If it just so happens that their all human, go ahead and play a human centric or human only campaign. Alternatively, if they are all another race, maybe be crazy and have, for example, an all dwarf campaign? Explore the cultural differences between different kinds of dwarves!
-Drillboss
Playing D&D without the traditional races is tough.
I think the orginal races for D&D are like the Coca-Cola formula.It just hit a real sweet spot. Can it be made better? Changing it up is difficult for that reason.
I really like Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. This tweak of 3rd edition rules is overall still my favorite to date, but although I enjoyed the new races as a change of pace, I always found myself trying to squeeze the D&D core races back into it. Otherwise I would kind of treat it as a different game.
As far as having 'non- humans' I can share my feelings on my favorite core D&D race:
I have always liked playing elves because I wondered what it might be like to live without the effects of aging and live so long. How does that affect how they view the world and interact with others (especially humans)? That is the biggest thing that made them different than any ethnic human group to me and fired the desire to play them as a fantasy escape.
Just a couple thoughts.
D
It fascinates me that dwarves are so intensely masculine and so stern and dour, yet can also be so passionate or emotional at times. A dwarf faced with a great tragedy howls and moans and weeps into his (or her) beard, them works himself up into a stony-faced furry before marching inevitably against those who inflicted that tragedy. This strikes me as the opposite of what other races would do (i.e, confront tragedy with stoicism, and then show open emotion in combat).
Dwarves are incredibly disciplined, fair minded, and generally reasonable; yet they're also capable of outrageous tantrums, mindless grudges, and seemingly random spats of joyous hedonism (or alcoholism at least). Not only is this different and interesting, but on some level, it makes sense. It strikes a chord.
Yes, you absolutely can play a human with that sort of disposition, but the difference is that for the dwarf such behavior is absolutely normal. If harold acts like that he's a sanguine drunk, impeccably trustworthy despite his awful temper. If Dorin acts like that, on the other hand, he's just a dwarf. The race you choose doesn't decide your character so much as the culture that your character will be framed by; you can buck it or you can reinforce it as you prefer.
I do have some suggestions if you really do find it more and more of a problem.1. Limit the number of PC who can play a non-human or/and limit the number of a certain race to one (elf for example) to show how rare they are.
2. All human PC but the other fantasy races exist, in fact you have to go the Elf city in the game. This give you a race that your aren't supposed to just kill, and allows you to show just how differnt and magical they are. Then in your next game (with the same players of course) start allowing that race.
3. Kinda like #2 start your game as all human party, but when people start getting killed, and if they are in the correct kingdom, then let them play other races. So if player X dies on Avalon, let him play an elf next.
4. All humans with differnt stat ajustments like the Conan game, which is very easily compatable race wise, and gives humans options. I do this alreay because I got tired of 50 subraces of Elves, but all humans are alike gentically and culturally.
5. Go the other direction, take any of the above but an all racial party, in which humans are rare, or at lest rare in this kingdom, or even better humans are the bad guys. In Elf lands they could look down on savage half-humans as thugs.
Hope this helps.
Unfortunately, I don't think it will.
Let me address your points:
1Let me address your points:
1.) How does the poor gamemaster fairly choose amounst his friends who gets to play the token non-human character?
2.) That would be cool, and would allow Elves to be like there root form - the Celtic Sidhe and Dwarves to be more like the Norse "Dvergar" that is their original source - namely distant, otherworldly and powerful.
3.) Character death is kind of rare in our campaigns. So this option does not work quite a well.
4.) This path can lead to Real World arguements about racism too. :(
5.) My problem is that having any be "Always Chaotic Evil" leads to some dark ideas that I would rather not deal with. (Now, having a nation or culture be evil is another matter
Hmmmm, okay try this.....
1. First give your players the option, sit them at the table say, okay this is a human focused game, only one non-human PC. If it gets down to a fight, random roll.2. Sounds like this might be your best option.
3. Okay, maybe not death, but people get sick of their characters, or better have the group split up (I often do this) for a mission. When this happens allow new characters into the story (played by other members of your group, in effect making NPCs into PCs) When the group gets back together have you can write off charcters as down time or other missions. This also helps when someone dies, as the 'replacment now has history.
4. Agreed, you do need mature thinking players for this, however if you base your races on mythic cultures this can still work.
5. Not always, its a sterotype on the part of the PC race.
TTFN DRE
Lord Fyre: Are you worried that all non-human races won't have as much depth as humans (as you talk about steretypes), or just the near-human ones?
The ones intended for PC use. ;)
Why do we have non-humans? Because we always have. It wasn't Father Tolkien that put them into our consciousnous, it was humanity.
That is still happening. Go visit Roswell, NM for example - "the Greys."
Non-humans are in our games as a reflection of an aspect of ourselves. They are a way to dig into something that we want to learn, in a safe, fun manner, letting us use our ugly side at times if need be to find out a truth about us. We may not like what we find, and then will start to adjust our own behavior to make ourselves better in our new world view. Denying a game of this aspect will just make us use the other cultures a game allows to do the same thing, and maybe in a more painful manner (who hasn't been uncomfortable in a game where for whatever reason a race of color is treated as inferior?).
Then perhaps the problem I am having, has more to do with
Are you sure you aren't really having issues with objective alignment labels?
Just because you belong to a usually-evil race doesn't mean you don't have a valid (and possibly sympathetic) point of view. And just because you have your own point of view doesn't mean you aren't evil.
If being an Elf means nothing except numbers, you might as well have a +1 long sword shaped like a four foot long +1, with a sharp edge.
This is brilliant.
-Campbell
Non-humans are in our games as a reflection of an aspect of ourselves. They are a way to dig into something that we want to learn, in a safe, fun manner, letting us use our ugly side at times if need be to find out a truth about us. We may not like what we find, and then will start to adjust our own behavior to make ourselves better in our new world view. Denying a game of this aspect will just make us use the other cultures a game allows to do the same thing, and maybe in a more painful manner (who hasn't been uncomfortable in a game where for whatever reason a race of color is treated as inferior?).Then perhaps the problem I am having, has more to do with
having one or more "evil" races. (Not to be confused with enemy tribes or empires, but just like to real nations each side should have their own "point of view.")
Have a smaller number of better developed non-human player races - Note that Paizo/Golarion is already doing this. This would help players move away from excessively steriotypical portrayals.
Your second point seems to be mostly covered, so I'll talk about the first. The "monsters" and "evil" races are so-called as viewed from our own, human viewpoint. What folks generally feel about that group of beings becoming the definition of them as a whole.
However, from the wonderful Classic XX Revisited line, you get to see inside the mindset of many of these beings, and that allows you ways to play them and such. No, they do not as a whole have to be ravening, slaughtering monsters, which is surely how many folks of Golarion would view Orcs, for example, yet if you go to the former dwarven kingdom that the orcs took over in Belkzen, as portrayed in the Pathfinder's Journal, there is more to that city than "kill the pinkskins".
Variety is up to the players and the GM. If folks want more depth, it is there to be mined. And as has been pointed out, many of the more "monstrous" non-humans are listed as mostly whatever alignment, not always. It makes a difference.
BUT, if your players have faced particular baddies several times, barely avoiding having their faces eaten, watching innocents slaughtered, you also cannot expect them to take a long view on a given race and risk death by "giving them a chance, they might not be as bad as the last hundred we faced" :)
So, would a setting without “non-human” characters be viable – in a gaming sense? What would it be lacking?
It would be lacking deities for one. If you take out dwarves, you delete Clangeddin Silverbeard and Moradin Soulforger. Yondalla, Yeenoghu, Corellon Larethian, Gruumsh, Garl Glittergold, et. al. also get the hatchet.
These deities created these races, and in their own image, too (hrrmmm, what core rulebook did I read that in?). The reason it is
logically “okay,” for instance, to slaughter any group of orcs or goblins that a group of heroes comes across.
is that their creator made them to destroy his hated enemy's creations (elves for orcs, dwarves for goblins). It isn't a guess; in D&D the deities and their agents walk amongst the players. There is no faith, there is knowledge.
So, now you're also looking at filling in the power vacuum. Not necessarily with new gods, but you'll have to spread the portfolios around to those that made the cut.
Remember that the seed of D&D was battle sims. Battle sims work if you have an enemy target. By eliminating non-humans, you potentially constrict when your players can leap into the melee. There may be a human nation (Boo-klaya), in game, that is "evil." But is the nation your players are from (Waka-Waka) waging open war with them? Are the PC's part of the army? So, killing Boo-klayans on sight is okay? What if there is no war? Can you still kill a Boo-klayan chillin' on the corner just 'cuz of his race? If the players are hack 'n' slashers, that may work. But the depth of your question indicates more thoughtful players. You might tie their morals in knots trying to figure out who they can lightning bolt in the throat and who they have to sleep. Of course, I guess that's what subdual damage is for. Then, instead of swords, everyone is wielding clubs.
The Shadow of Tolkein
Fluff never equalled crunch. Remember the scene in Fellowship of the Ring when they're trying to climb Caradhras? They're all hip deep in snow, except for Legolas. He's just walking along the top of the snow drift. That's the fluff of elves. That's how they're supposed to be! Put that in a game setting and now everyone needs to be in balance so that no race outshines any other. A negative two to constitution? Poppycock! A race that lives hundreds of years and is immune to such body affecting spells as sleep and paralysis is also sickly? How does that make sense? It doesn't. Fluff never equalled crunch.
I solved this by re-writing the races and threw out balance. All sorts of starting racial feats, monstrous HD, different maximums in various schools of magic, different magical resources (elves make staffs, dwarves make rods, etc.) and the like. Humans old-school multi-class.
But you may not want to do that work. So I'll concede the point that, for balance's sake, the non-humans do appear to be, for example, gnomes in little human suits.
Mono-Cultural
If fiction, this is often the result of the “alien’s story function - to highlight or comment on a human culture or practice. But, in a gaming world, non-humans rarely serve this purpose.
Agreed, that does tend to be true. But for the type of DM you appear to be, it shouldn't be that hard to accomplish.
For instance, I'm running a game where the PC's are all elves. At first level they were instructed to find a worthy human family and serve them. But in that service, bring them to a more elven way of living. And elevate them to a position of authority (duke, queen, whatever). It should only take a 100 years or so. In game, it has been 57 years. They're working with the great grandson. There are all sorts of human ancillary NPC's that've aged in that time. When Mish from Thieves' Challenge died in his sleep at 92, one player actually wept. One guy suggested we not play for a little while. I thought I'd killed the game. But after the mourning, they went back to it with gusto.
It can be done. It should be done. It is worth it to make that comment on human culture. Yes, it can be done w/o non-humans, but their "otherness" makes it easier.
Ultimately, though, what you are suggesting is viable. There are issues to address. However, there always are when a DM is world-building.
If you're asking why they are there? You'd have to go back and dig up Gygax and Anderson from thier graves and ask them. In many ways it's just a continuation of tradition.
You can also ask Gygax about his take on "evil races". If every thing I've heard is correct, his take on the Paladin dealing with Orc babies was... um... interesting.
You can also ask Gygax about his take on "evil races". If every thing I've heard is correct, his take on the Paladin dealing with Orc babies was... um... interesting.If you're asking why they are there? You'd have to go back and dig up Gygax and Anderson from thier graves and ask them. In many ways it's just a continuation of tradition.
Can you expand on this? :/
Can you expand on this? :/
From everything I've seen it was that a paladin should either a) kill the Orc babies so that they die with out any sin to stain their souls or b) take the babies, have them raised in a church, and then kill them when they achieve a state of grace. Unfortunately the only sources I can site for this is a gaggle of players who've played since 2nd ed, at the latest, but the concensus is the same.
From everything I've seen it was that a paladin should either a) kill the Orc babies so that they die with out any sin to stain their souls or b) take the babies, have them raised in a church, and then kill them when they achieve a state of grace. Unfortunately the only sources I can site for this is a gaggle of players who've played since 2nd ed, at the latest, but the concensus is the same.
Can you expand on this? :/
Right ...
I don't like non-humans in my game for the simple reason that I have never come across a group of players who could play one. They have all come across, as someone posted, as a human in a silly suit.
People like to play an elf/dwarf/whatever to get the stat/racial bonus and leave the actual "what does it mean to be a dwarf" at the door. The best attempt at doing something about it was the D&D supplements Alfheim, etc.
It bugs me but I can live with it but it still galls me that a half orc, dwarf and elf will still go "adventuring" together without in game "speciesism" raising its ugly head.
From everything I've seen it was that a paladin should either a) kill the Orc babies so that they die with out any sin to stain their souls or b) take the babies, have them raised in a church, and then kill them when they achieve a state of grace. Unfortunately the only sources I can site for this is a gaggle of players who've played since 2nd ed, at the latest, but the concensus is the same.
Can you expand on this? :/Right ...
Never heard that before in 30+ years of playing the game...If any paladin did that in my game they would be a fighter without bonus feats pretty quick!
Here is one way I intend to use races in a campaign I'm working on. The quick and dirty concept is that you have a traditional fantasy world that dies. Before the world is lost, a gate way is opened to another, more alien world, taking refuge in a gigantic ruin. I intend to use the standard races to show how the standard archetypes adapt and I'm also working on more alien races to drive the the setting home. I'm already working on a simalcrum like race created to serve the civilization and one that is essentially a body taken over by an insect hive.
I don't like non-humans in my game for the simple reason that I have never come across a group of players who could play one. They have all come across, as someone posted, as a human in a silly suit.
People like to play an elf/dwarf/whatever to get the stat/racial bonus and leave the actual "what does it mean to be a dwarf" at the door. The best attempt at doing something about it was the D&D supplements Alfheim, etc.
The rules don't help with this either.
Consider an Elf starts with an age of 110 years + between 4d6 to 10d6 years. And, yet for all that time, they have no more skills or abilities then a human or Half-Orc of the same character class.
So, what does a century of study get an elf? A bonus Spell Penitration feat is about it.
It sounds grizzly, but when you actually think about it in terms of the metaphysics (of a world with souls and eternal afterlives), killing the orc babies makes a whole lot of sense.
If he lets them live they're going to grow up, be evil, die, spend ages being tormented before finally being recreated as dretches, spend ages and ages more furthering the goals of Cosmic Evil, and then finally be utterly destroyed and subsumed by the essence of the plane.
If he kills them, on the other hand, then those orc babies and that paladin could be hanging out together as lantern archons a million years from now.
(Occorse, this partially depends on what alignment you think that babies are and what happens to their souls).
Raising the orc and then killing him when he achieves a "state of grace", though? You've got me on that one. Once the orc achieves that state he's a good humanoid like any other, and if killing good people and sending them to heaven were okay, orcs probably wouldn't be evil in the first place.
It sounds grizzly, but when you actually think about it in terms of the metaphysics (of a world with souls and eternal afterlives), killing the orc babies makes a whole lot of sense.
If he lets them live they're going to grow up, be evil, die, spend ages being tormented before finally being recreated as dretches, spend ages and ages more furthering the goals of Cosmic Evil, and then finally be utterly destroyed and subsumed by the essence of the plane.
If he kills them, on the other hand, then those orc babies and that paladin could be hanging out together as lantern archons a million years from now.
(Occorse, this partially depends on what alignment you think that babies are and what happens to their souls).
Raising the orc and then killing him when he achieves a "state of grace", though? You've got me on that one. Once the orc achieves that state he's a good humanoid like any other, and if killing good people and sending them to heaven were okay, orcs probably wouldn't be evil in the first place.
Actually that logic would apply to most sentient beings. Which does a dandy job of cutting down the population.
Raising the orc and then killing him when he achieves a "state of grace", though? You've got me on that one. Once the orc achieves that state he's a good humanoid like any other, and if killing good people and sending them to heaven were okay, orcs probably wouldn't be evil in the first place.
That is *why* orcs are evil!
Lawful Stupid Paladins
Never heard that before in 30+ years of playing the game...If any paladin did that in my game they would be a fighter without bonus feats pretty quick!
Maybe you were lucky enough to start off with a good group. All the players I know have at least one gaming group horror story. I know one of my earliest one involved being run through by a Paladin from behind because I said "I'm a thief (a CG one), I can pick that lock". Not only did the DM find that acceptible for the Paladin but they also allow for the my pick lock check to go through before the Paladin killed me. Usually horror stories like mine lead to how GMs and players justify such actions and often the example I put up gets thrown around.
|
|
Maybe you were lucky enough to start off with a good group. All the players I know have at least one gaming group horror story. I know one of my earliest one involved being run through by a Paladin from behind because I said "I'm a thief (a CG one), I can pick that lock". Not only did the DM find that acceptible for the Paladin but they also allow for the my pick lock check to go through before the Paladin killed me. Usually horror stories like mine lead to how GMs and players justify such actions and often the example I put up gets thrown around.
Never heard that before in 30+ years of playing the game...If any paladin did that in my game they would be a fighter without bonus feats pretty quick!
Now that's just a stupid player and a stupid DM being very stupid.
...
Anyway back on topic.
I've never had the problem of players leaving their race's RP aspects at the door. Everyone usually picks up something about the race they are and play that to the hilt. Sure the Dwarf player will usually be a dour, humourless bastard, right up until the half-orc challenges the puny dwarf to a drinking contest and then they'll bond like friends for life.
The best way to reinforce the RP aspects of different racial choices is to have the NPCs treat the characters differently based on race. For example the half-orc I mentioned above was a half-orc paladin. He was looking for a criminal in a frontier town (the kind of frontier town that had half-orcs and halflings pickin' cotton). When he walked into a gambling den he was immediately stopped at the door by the burly human bouncer:
Human Bouncer: "Where do you think you're going greenskin? Servant's entrance is around the back."
Half-Orc Paladin: "The only thing I serve is the law, now stand aside." (*Intimidate Check*) (Fail)
Human Bouncer: "That's it pal, lets take this outside..."
Half-Orc Paladin: "Gladly..."
Gnome Gambling Den Owner (Smooth Oliver): "Now, now there's no need for that, go take your break nosebleed, the gentleman and I have business to attend to. The name's Oliver, Smooth Oliver, walk with me friend," *indicates tin-star holy symbol* "so what brings a law-man to a humble establishment like mine." *He says while subtly guiding the half-orc outside*
If the PCs are treated differently by NPCs then they will react differently. When my Elf player enters an inn often the owners will offer the choicest selections of wines they own. When my halfling player initiates conversation occasionally I'll begin with:
"Who said that!" *looks down* "OH! Hey little one, how can I help you." I usually make it pretty clear about how one race or another is likely to get treated, with humans getting a mix of reactions based on their nation of origin (and only if it's easily discernable or they are open about it).
|
I think my biggest problem with non-humans is that generally they come off as being simply "humans in elf/dwarf/orc/whatever suits". That is to say they really don't seem non- or in-human. They usually seem to be humans with slightly different outlooks, abilities, and demeanor. Really if they have totally different physiologies, should not they also have completely different psychologies, cultures, and outlooks?
I've encountered this too, but it definitely isn't how I play them. If I play an elf, I try damn hard to think with the alien, elven mindset. If I play a Drow, I play someone suspicious, who puts self preservation above everything else, and has no problems with manipulating people. I started a game last week, where after the first session, one of the other players (the GM for the other game I play in) said: "I can't believe you actually played the gnome like that. I've always seen them played like humans."
The rules don't help with this either.
Consider an Elf starts with an age of 110 years + between 4d6 to 10d6 years. And, yet for all that time, they have no more skills or abilities then a human or Half-Orc of the same character class.
So, what does a century of study get an elf? A bonus Spell Penitration feat is about it.
Well, I think that's a cultural thing. Elves don't try much in that first hundred or so years in most settings. They mostly lie around and relax, and have nonserious relationships with the elven women, with maybe a little bit of training dabbled in there. Their long lifespans tends to get them to wait around and relax more than humans do.
It fascinates me that dwarves are so intensely masculine and so stern and dour, yet can also be so passionate or emotional at times. A dwarf faced with a great tragedy howls and moans and weeps into his (or her) beard, them works himself up into a stony-faced furry before marching inevitably against those who inflicted that tragedy. This strikes me as the opposite of what other races would do (i.e, confront tragedy with stoicism, and then show open emotion in combat).
Dwarves are incredibly disciplined, fair minded, and generally reasonable; yet they're also capable of outrageous tantrums, mindless grudges, and seemingly random spats of joyous hedonism (or alcoholism at least). Not only is this different and interesting, but on some level, it makes sense. It strikes a chord.
Yes, you absolutely can play a human with that sort of disposition, but the difference is that for the dwarf such behavior is absolutely normal. If harold acts like that he's a sanguine drunk, impeccably trustworthy despite his awful temper. If Dorin acts like that, on the other hand, he's just a dwarf. The race you choose doesn't decide your character so much as the culture that your character will be framed by; you can buck it or you can reinforce it as you prefer.
This, this is cool. I don't normally play a dwarf, but the dwarven culture is pretty fascinating.
It bugs me but I can live with it but it still galls me that a half orc, dwarf and elf will still go "adventuring" together without in game "speciesism" raising its ugly head.
I guess this one just depends on the group. I've had that happen a few times.
Then perhaps the problem I am having, has more to do with
having one or more "evil" races. (Not to be confused with enemy tribes or empires, but just like to real nations each side should have their own "point of view.")
Have a smaller number of better developed non-human player races - Note that Paizo/Golarion is already doing this. This would help players move away from excessively steriotypical portrayals. Personally, I always ditched the "Always Evil" rule. There can always be exceptions. I'm also a fan of Paizo's interpretation of good evil law chaos, which is a little less murky than hte D&D equivalent.
Good: Life should be protected
Evil: You can kill people, and you don't feel bad about it.
Law: Order takes priority over freedom.
Chaos: Freedom Takes Priority over Order.Evil doesn't have to be disruptive. I play an evil character in one of our games. I'm allied with a bunch of good characters. They were initially pretty nervous around me after a detect evil went off, but they've since figured out that Evil or not, I'm one of the good guys. I have the same goals as them, I don't want all the evil artifacts in the banewarrens falling into dangerous hands. Being evil, I'm able to handle the evil artifacts without being screwed over. Sometimes the wards in place sting a bit though. The difference is in the execution. I'm okay with being totally brutal, or with dragging a half-dead gnoll around the dungeon and tossing him ahead of us to see if he sets off traps. When I'm confronted with problems, I see options they wouldn't consider. Of course, if the characters do something 'evil' to me, I'll spin their necks around and have them face the back for it. But at the same time, I want to save the town. I want to stop the Banes from being given over to just anyone. I like the world, and I don't want it to end.
I am strongly in favor of ditching all non-human races in favor of applying those variations to humans and slotting them into the same niches. Only convention and player expectation keeps me from implementing such wide sweeping changes in my own campaigns.CJSo, would a setting without “non-human” characters be viable – in a gaming sense? What would it be lacking?It works, it all depends on the game. I'm a player who has to be hard persuaded to play a human in D&D, I'm human all the time. If I play a human, I tend to want to go all the way, and play myself, or a slightly idealized version of myself. In an RPG where there's alot of violence, there've been a few occasions where my friends/the other players found it a bit disconcerting, and I've heard mention that they wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of things if I were ever in extreme circumstances.
Remember that the seed of D&D was battle sims. Battle sims work if you have an enemy target. By eliminating non-humans, you potentially constrict when your players can leap into the melee. There may be a human nation (Boo-klaya), in game, that is "evil." But is the nation your players are from (Waka-Waka) waging open war with them? Are the PC's part of the army? So, killing Boo-klayans on sight is okay? What if there is no war? Can you still kill a Boo-klayan chillin' on the corner just 'cuz of his race? If the players are hack 'n' slashers, that may work. But the depth of your question indicates more thoughtful players. You might tie their morals in knots trying to figure out who they can lightning bolt in the throat and who they have to sleep. Of course, I guess that's what subdual damage is for. Then, instead of swords, everyone is wielding clubs.In my experience, you still have all these moral quandaries with nonhuman creatures. If the players are slaughtering orcs and goblins, then depending on what the orcs and goblins are doing, the players may or may not be evil.
I'm more likely to allow an Orc than a Paladin. Te orc may be brutal, but that depends on the character concept. The paladin is just as brutal, but people consider him a good guy for some reason.
Last time I made a paladin, they were supposed to get some information from an orc camp about a raiding party that had been attacking the town. I set it up as a diplomatic situation on purpose, and put in orcs because the Paladin and a few other characters were a little too big on the slaughter and I had hinted at it before a few times. The players rush in and slaughter all of the orcs. The players keep saying how it seems unusually easy considering the number of orcs. The players didn't even question why the orc were barely armed, and they didn't stop and hesitate when faced with orc women cowering in the corner. The Paladin fell from this slaughter. He had just killed 50 'innocent creatures' Savages, but they were a hunter/gatherer group. The player of the paladin complains that he shouldn't have fell from killing orcs. On the way back to town, tired, and worn out, the players are attacked by the raiding party. A number of orcs in chainmail and breastplates, armed with nice weapons, led by a terrifying orc fighter in full-plate.