Why have non-humans?


Homebrew and House Rules

101 to 119 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

ProfessorCirno wrote:

Well, the answer there is to tweak the races.

In my setting, elves don't live in the forests, they live in massive jungle, and are very mesoamerican based.
Halflings are islanders who tame flying whales.

Ooh, that's hot.

I went the easy route of having halflings 100% integrated with human societies. 30% of the Taldan and Andoren populace are halflings. It used to be similar in Cheliax, but numbers have dropped off, recently. So there can be Qadiran merchant halflings, or Andoran Eagle Knight halflings, or Taldan snob halflings, or Nexian halflings or Varisian halflings (who are treated every bit as much parts of the Varisian 'race' and 'culture' as a human Varisian), etc. (For various reasons there aren't as many Mammoth Lord or Numerian or Osirioni or Chelaxian halflings, but that still opens up a half-dozen cultures that treat halflings as 'people' and share a culture and language with them.)

Dwarves didn't integrate, they totally replace the Ulfen. Blonde-bearded, blue-eyed, skald-singing, mead-swigging, bear-shirted raiders from the north, the Dwarves are a-viking. Every Linnorm King (and something like 90% of the inhabitants of their lands) is a Dwarf, with half-orcs serving as 'thralls.' A fair percentage of the population of Irrisen, the Mammoth Lords realms and patches of Numeria are also dwarven (although the Kellids remain human). The Kalistocracy of Druma is about 40% human, 35% dwarven and 25% halfling.

Elves have an excuse for not integrating. They mostly abandoned the planet, and have only recently returned. The 'native' elves, who integrated with the Mwangi, or have their own strange, alien cultures in the Mordant regions, are more or less odd, but the more recent arrivals are strange and fey from their time in the First World.

Elves are more passionate than humans, and may seem fickle, fey or even psychotic, by human standards, prone to overwrought displays of sentimentality, deep depressions, manic and excessive exuberance and spectacularly over-the-top displays of anger and violence, as quickly forgotten, moments later, when the passion has passed and the humans are left wondering what the hell is wrong with that pointy-eared nutjob...

For all that Gnomes are even *more* 'fey' than elves, they are also better adjusted, and less prone to extreme behavior. They obsess for much longer periods of time on specific interests or feelings, and while an elf might freak out and attack her best friend over a snarky comment, and then break down crying afterwards, a gnome is as likely to narrow his eyes and ignore the disrespectful comment, bottling up resentment until he decides to do something far more permanant and unforgiving about it. The Gnomes could easily be divided up into three different sub-races, like the old Forest Gnomes / Rock Gnomes / Tinker Gnomes / Illusionist Gnomes / Bard Gnomes of the previous 3 and a half editions.

Perhaps, depending on the 'tribe,' a Gnomes mental ability score adjustment could be intelligence (tinkers and tradesmen and Nexian scholars), wisdom ('forest gnomes' with their animal lore and fey connections and trained animals) or charisma (the 3.5 dude with favored class bard). That would add a ton of versatility to the Gnomish race, making them well-suited to be Wizards, Witches and Alchemists, or Clerics, Druids and Adepts, or Fey/Earth Elemental Sorcerers and Bards.


One thing I have a problem with is how elvish culture is often portrayed as fading and weak, living only in a shadow of their former glory amongst cryptic ruins.

I'm currently working on a setting where the elves are embarking on their rise to glory, sort of like an expanding Roman empire, and humanity is sort of a fringe race. I actually ran a game using that concept using the HERO system and it worked quite well actually.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

ProfessorCirno wrote:
In my setting, elves don't live in the forests, they live in massive jungle, and are very mesoamerican based.

But, since the real Mesoamerican peoples are human, why not use (dare I say it) humans?


ProfessorCirno wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:

This overdependency on defined characteristics for each race and culture and everything really bothers me. People make judgements within seconds of seeing someone. "I wonder who he is and what he is like" becomes "He's a halfling, probably working on his next mad get-rich-scheme". It enslaves individuality.

I wish the Proteans would hurry up and do away with this confining multiverse so individuals can really be themselves again.

*goes and lays waste to a legion of law-crusaders*

Well, the answer there is to tweak the races.

In my setting, elves don't live in the forests, they live in massive jungle, and are very mesoamerican based.

Halflings are islanders who tame flying whales.

Half-orcs and half-elves aren't just accepted by humans, they rule alongside them.

We will send our hordes to your world as soon as possible. Since your static, stifling order is different from that that terrorises Golarion and its Great Beyond, I can't tell you what forms the Proteans that liberate your world will take, but you'll find out for yourself.


Why have non-humans?

Escapism - the players are human and want to play something that they are not.

Political correctness - cultural stereotypes applied to humans have been falling out of favor for years, but applying them to non-human races is still OK since there are no actual examples of these races to offend.

Imagery - some of them just look cool.

Mechanics advantage - Every race gets something for free which can heavily influence some player's race choice.

As for them just being humans in non-human suits, this is a result of the players, GMs, and game designers all being human. They are working from what they know. Any attempt at a truly alien culture will always end up being from a human perspective.

My personal issues with non-humans have to do with the fact that I see how they relate to humans and each other as unrealistic. You would think because of the noticeable physical differences there would be more racial tensions as opposed to harmony. Especially since certain races are "kill on sight". This is one area where Eberron really got it right in my opinion. Every race that has it's own society/nation is more tolerated than welcomed by other races, but nearly all are tolerated to various degrees. It removes the "why can't I play an (insert race here)" problem but keeps racial distinction from being more than "just another human in an (insert race here) suit".

I'm also not a fan of the baggage attached to the more traditional races. For example all dwarves being miners who live underground. Even if you tell your players that the dwarves in your world are different, some players will insist on adhering to the standard stereotype and presenting it as the racial norm. I've taken to not only changing the flavor text of a race, but the name as well to avoid this.

Yes, individuals can and should be allowed to play against type, but with the monoculture view of races this becomes difficult.


Freesword wrote:

Escapism - the players are human and want to play something that they are not.

.........
My personal issues with non-humans have to do with the fact that I see how they relate to humans and each other as unrealistic. You would think because of the noticeable physical differences there would be more racial tensions as opposed to harmony. Especially since certain races are "kill on sight". This is one area where Eberron really got it right in my opinion. Every race that has it's own society/nation is more tolerated than welcomed by other races, but nearly all are tolerated to various degrees. It removes the "why can't I play an (insert race here)" problem but keeps racial distinction from being more than "just another human in an (insert race here) suit".

You seem to have missed an important possibility for why racial differences don't get played up so often, and it's right under your nose.

Sometimes that stuff is just too much for some people.


Also why would someone want to play a human? I mean we are all (Mostly) Humans and Playing stuff that is not us is cool.


clff rice wrote:
Also why would someone want to play a human? I mean we are all (Mostly) Humans and Playing stuff that is not us is cool.

Because humanity has the potential of being far more culturally diverse than the other races. Besides, you're not really playing "you" when playing a human. I'm not playing a early 20s history student from the Midwest, I'm playing a Viking-like barbarian, or a swashbuckling rogue from a coastal trading nation, or a sneaky desert nomad.

Picking the human race allows you to pick your own flavor. You don't have to choose between the misanthropic beer-guzzling Scottish dwarf or the effeminate condescending magically-inclined posh Elf, or what have you. You have way more roleplaying possibilities, and you can choose where to put your stats. So you could be a strong Northman, an dextrous forest hunter, or whatever.

Personally, I think the character classes contribute FAR more to character flavor than the actual races, but YMMV.


Kryptik wrote:
Because humanity has the potential of being far more culturally diverse than the other races.

But this is only true if you take the D&D route. Any and all races can be this way.

In fact you can play any and all races this way, damn what D&D says.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Kryptik wrote:
Because humanity has the potential of being far more culturally diverse than the other races.

But this is only true if you take the D&D route. Any and all races can be this way.

In fact you can play any and all races this way, damn what D&D says.

Perhaps people just don't care for the thought of playing a dwarf/elf/halfbreed/small people.

And of couse, who would ever want to play someone like Leonidas, Achilles, Odysseus, Hector, etc. Lame humans!


Freesword wrote:

Why have non-humans?

...
Political correctness - cultural stereotypes applied to humans have been falling out of favor for years, but applying them to non-human races is still OK since there are no actual examples of these races to offend.
...

Personally, I think this is one of the worst possible reasons to have different races. Some of the best roleplaying experiences I have had were playing with or as racist humans. It allows for serious dialog on an issue, and if done properly, can maintain its fun for all. One of my favorite scenes was a black woman shouting "I'm not racist, I voted for Obama" and other defenses of a character with vastly different views than her. IMO, adding other races for the purposes of insulting them is bad form, and it diminishes the potential dialog.


Kryptik wrote:

Perhaps people just don't care for the thought of playing a dwarf/elf/halfbreed/small people.

And of couse, who would ever want to play someone like Leonidas, Achilles, Odysseus, Hector, etc. Lame humans!

I'm confused: What did I say in that post did I state I thought that there was something wrong with humans as a choice?


i love playing raciest in dnd, especially towards humans.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Kryptik wrote:

Perhaps people just don't care for the thought of playing a dwarf/elf/halfbreed/small people.

And of couse, who would ever want to play someone like Leonidas, Achilles, Odysseus, Hector, etc. Lame humans!

I'm confused: What did I say in that post did I state I thought that there was something wrong with humans as a choice?

That second part should have been directed at clff rice. My bad!


clff rice wrote:
I mean we are all (Mostly) Humans

Speak for yourself.


northbrb wrote:
i love playing raciest in dnd, especially towards humans.

Racism in Pathfinder is boring. Why be a racist when you can be a speciesist? If you think it's fun to hate someone because his skin has a different colour, think how much more fun it is if the sucker has a whole different shape?

On Pathfinder, black and white get along fine - and gang up on green!


Kryptik wrote:
That second part should have been directed at clff rice. My bad!

But what did I say to warrant the first part? I was just pointing out that things don't have to be that way.


KaeYoss wrote:
clff rice wrote:
I mean we are all (Mostly) Humans
Speak for yourself.

Seconded.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
clff rice wrote:
I mean we are all (Mostly) Humans
Speak for yourself.
Seconded.

Thirded. If I had something as stupid as blood, I assure you I could find a better use for it than traveling through my veins. Like spraying other "humans" in the eyes while stabbing them in the guts. Or making a large cloud in the sky to produce blood thunderbolts!

Hmm, actually...

101 to 119 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Why have non-humans? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules