|
The starting text of this thread puts the cart before the horse. The minimum requirements for the various races are not an indicator of any "weeding out" by these races, but rather, the minimum level of competence that an adult of this species will have due to natural reasons. Besides, the rules item of "race x needs at least attribute y" is not something that would be a racial law in the game world itself, but is purely a rules thing. Arguing rules items with in-game logic leads to nothing, except strange texts like the above. And how would the dwarfs measure if a child has a con of 8 or 9? Hit it until it is down to 0 hit points, and see how many hits it takes? The whole text is absurd.
Very low attributes will indeed lead to many deaths of infants and children, but even average does not ensure survival (if you have a look at the real world, infant mortality was about 25% in late 19th century Germany - statistically, not all of those 25% should have low attributes if you see it in D&D terms. Today it varies from ca. 180 of 1000 (Angola) to about 2 of 1000 (Monaco) - the US is at about 6, Germany at 4 (2010 estimates)).
But even the rules do not support this: If you take the monster entries for NPCs, nothing indicates either below or above average stats of these NPCs - statistically speaking, at least some of the bandits would have stats either above or below average, but the rules don´t reflect this at all. So, I think its safe to assume that the die rolling part only applies to special characters - the PCs and special NPCs. Average characters are generally assumed to have average stats. I would come to the conclusion that the stat generation is not meant to represent each and every person in the game world, but rather only the special cases mentioned above. Another example is a background generator found in the City of Greyhawk box IIRC: it states that 20% of the characters are orphaned and have no idea about their background. But it states explicitly that this is only true for PCs, and not meant to...
The Problem is the very first D&D (1974 - Book1: Men&Magic) there are no minimums for Race. The Game engine is functional (though a chaotic ruin) and you selected your class based on certain minimums. Elves can do magic as magic users or swing a sword as a fighter (but they must select which at the beginning of each day).
Gygaxian Naturalism has justified the progressive development of these Races with each new edition of D&D to the point where Race affects the numbers. In doing so they established the basic idea that Elves/Dwarves/Halflings are a barbaric race that has skewed off in their development as a monoculture as a consequence of who they are. Minimums in Abilities now exist because these races are who they are.If Elves have Intelligence of 9 or Greater it is because they have exterminated the INT 3-8 offspring. Otherwise there would still be those elves who come in under the bar (even if the odds are one in a million).
If they came out with a D&D in which White people have a Minimum Intelligence of 8 and all other coloured folk have to live with the prospect of a 3d6, you would be up in arms screaming that White characters should be subject to the very same 3d6 range and the only way to evade these minimums is to cull the 'inferior and socially unacceptable' population.
Basically Gygax and Co. dug a hole. The consequence was that they have created a Mirror of our own human history.
Though your point isn't wrong, I certainly wouldn't call it a "mirror". It's an interesting indictment of eugenics, perhaps, but the last time I checked, the U.N. frowned upon eugenic cleansing.
Just a friendly reminder - real human genetics is not based on the bell curve of a 3d6 roll.
Also, the roll is for character generation, not population generation - if you really want to explain minimal intelligence for elves, just remember that in the original DnD, all elves were spellcasters, and you needed that minimum in order to play one.
If Elves have Intelligence of 9 or Greater it is because they have exterminated the INT 3-8 offspring.
I still don´t subscribe to this interpretation - or is there any place in the rules where this is explicitly stated? I would rather see it that elves with an INT of less than 9 are not born under normal cirsumstances, as something in their biology prevents this.
And development of rules <> development of races inside the gameworld - otherwise, there would be need for an explanation why demihuman races could suddenly be PC clerics in AD&D2 and even more, every class in 3.x (for settings that were continued from AD&D1 to AD&D2 to D&D3, like GH or FR). They tried this for GH (Fate of Istus) for AD&D1 to AD&D2 and explained why there are no longer monks and assassins on GH, but this was partly redefined later anyway, so it didn´t hold.
Stefan
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
INT 2: Smart Animal
INT 3: Sub Human. "Ngh!"
INT 4-5: Idiot Menial. "Koto Work!"
INT 6-8: Unable to learn Reading and Writing. "What this Say?"
INT 9: The Minimum Intelligence required to be able to learn reading and Writing.
YellowDingo, I'm sure you realize that you're suggesting that fully 26% (1 + 3 + 6 + 10 + 15 + 21 = 56 out of 216) of a random sampling of people from a literate society cannot learn to read. That's preposterous, and in no way representative of any historical real-world culture. It's the equivalent of porposing that a quarter of all children flunk out of school in the second grade.
If that's the way you want to run your campaign world, go for it. But it's certainly not a representation of baseline D&D.
Ability scores from 8 - 13 are within one standard deviation of the mean.
|
YellowDingo, I'm sure you realize that you're suggesting that fully 26% (1 + 3 + 6 + 10 + 15 + 21 = 56 out of 216) of a random sampling of people from a literate society cannot learn to read.
I'm not sure the general D&D World is what we would term literate,it's sort of always portrait as quasi-middle-ages. Mass literacy didn't occur until after mass printing was possible. I don't remember any adventure or supplement mentioning the printing press.
If we accept that D&D is 'middle-ages' then 26% seem too low. For example, from Wikipedia.
France 1720-1724 = ~65% illiterate
France 1881-1885 = ~5% illiterate
World 1970 = ~36% illiterate
World 2000 = ~20% illiterate
Reading/writing is more a function of access to materials/teachers rather than pure intellect. So in someways I disagree with the idea that all persons of less than 9 INT can't read. I also disagree with the 3e+ idea of always knowing how to read your 'race' language and 'common' - skill points should have to be spent to read/write full-stop. Only spoke should be 'free'.
Still at the end of the day if Yellowdingo's campaign World wants infanticidal Elves, then he can have them!
S.
|
If we accept that D&D is 'middle-ages' then 26% seem too low. For example, from Wikipedia.France 1720-1724 = ~65% illiterate
France 1881-1885 = ~5% illiterateWorld 1970 = ~36% illiterate
World 2000 = ~20% illiterateS.
Hum, yeah, you know for most european historians the middle ages end in 1453 at most, and being French, I believe that until the end of the One Hundred War, the illiteracy rate was probably more in the 80+ %. Between the wars and the Black Plague, most artists and educated people were dead.
In comparison, the 1700s were a period of quiet and unbelievable prosperity. This plays a huge factor in literacy.
|
|
Hum, yeah, you know for most european historians the middle ages end in 1453 at most, and being French, I believe that until the end of the One Hundred War, the illiteracy rate was probably more in the 80+ %. Between the wars and the Black Plague, most artists and educated people were dead.
In comparison, the 1700s were a period of quiet and unbelievable prosperity. This plays a huge factor in literacy.
It wasn't meant as an academic treatise on the topic. It was more to point out, as you stated, that even in the 1700's illiteracy was quite high. I couldn't quickly find figures for the middle-age period so I avoided making any direct statements. However, I agree with your supposition that the illiteracy percentage was 'probably' higher in the middle-ages.
All of which doesn't change the central position of the fact that basic reading/writing is a function of education rather than intelligence.
S.
PS: There is a very good article on the British Economic Growth 1270-1870 by Broadberry et al (2010). I quick google should fine it easy enough. Gives some insight into the level of reading/writing over that period. Although it directly investigates economics I would suggest that reading/writing must have been party to these developments.
Hum, yeah, you know for most european historians the middle ages end in 1453 at most,
OT: I recently read somewhere that some historians rethink just that - they say the the middle ages did not truly end until the french revolution, with the abolishment of serfdom and all that.
Stefan
|
|
Hum, yeah, you know for most european historians the middle ages end in 1453 at most,OT: I recently read somewhere that some historians rethink just that - they say the the middle ages did not truly end until the french revolution, with the abolishment of serfdom and all that.
Stefan
Thank you both. That's an interesting take.
I don't know about the rest of Europe at the time, but I believe one of the key points of the French revolution was : educated people + overpopulation (by the then standard) + oppressive traditions that no longer had the same meaning as they used to. Result was ... a pretty explosive cocktail.
OT, let me thank Paizo for including Galt in Golarion. That can lead to really interesting results I believe.
Back to the original topic of selective culling of the young...
There are parts of the world today where they still practice culling if a child doesn't meet certain standards. As an example, there are parts of Africa where children get culled if their first tooth comes from the upper gum instead of the lower, with the superstition that bottom teeth first means the child will grow (and develop) well like a plant, while top first means they will grow into the ground (meaning nothing good will come of them).
If modern (even if it's 3rd world) cultures have these kinds of practices, just imagine what kind of superstitious practices medieval cultures might have.
|
Just as a note, if people were wondering what the statistics were for a 4d6 generation method as opposed to 3d6:
Score––Possibilities––Chance
3––1––0.077%
4––4––0.309%
5––10––0.772%
6––21––1.620%
7––38––2.932%
8––62––4.784%
9––91––7.022%
10––122––9.414%
11––148––11.420%
12––167––12.886%
13––172––13.272%
14––160––12.346%
15––131––10.108%
16––94––7.253%
17––54––4.167%
18––21––1.620%
Total of 1296 different possibilities for how a 4d6 will fall.
If we accepted that Int 9 was the minimum level of Intelligence for being able to learn to read/write, then we'd only have a roughly 10.5% chance of not being able to read/write. This may be the heroic level, with common peoples only getting 3d6, but it still means that there's a significant reduction in the likelihood of a player character having been killed at birth or during childhood, per the original post. The 4d6 method also means that you've got almost a 70% chance of any given score landing in the 10-15 range, which is a very good chance of avoiding the slaughter possibility.
Just because I was bored. 1cp worth.
It wasn't meant as an academic treatise on the topic. It was more to point out, as you stated, that even in the 1700's illiteracy was quite high. I couldn't quickly find figures for the middle-age period so I avoided making any direct statements. However, I agree with your supposition that the illiteracy percentage was 'probably' higher in the middle-ages.
I would tend to agree.
The reason you won't find rates listed is because illiteracy is impossible to truly estimate without having actually been there. It isn't eactly the kind of thing that kings want to broadcast.
"We have illiteracy rates of 80%!"
"Oh yeh? Our citizens are smarter! Our rate is only 75%! Nyeh!"
Seriously, during the medieval era there was a new war every week. The last thing you need is more reasons to fight.
|
|
Mathematically they must get inferior Elves...you are just suggesting that the Immortals dispose of those elves who dont measure up at the moment of conception. What I'm suggesting is that Elves off the inferior when they prove to be less than minimum height bar.
And what I'm suggesting is you are using the rules for making a PC and extrapolating to the entire race in a game system that does not use PC Stats to describe anything other than PC's. Again I think it's more likely that PC Elves are never born with INT's less than 9. So there are no less than 9 INT's to cull. According to the rules all elves can use magic - does that mean all non-magic using Elves are killed at birth? What about Halflings that can't hide as well, are they discovered and drowned? These rules were written by someone who had an idea if what a fantasy race would be like. I doubt they ripped open their books on Mendelev genetics and Cultural Infanticide during the rule writing process.
Non of this stops you creating a campaign world to suit your tastes. I LOVE 2e Dark Suns and it has canabal Halflings!
S.
|
|
Mathematically they must get inferior Elves...you are just suggesting that the Immortals dispose of those elves who dont measure up at the moment of conception. What I'm suggesting is that Elves off the inferior when they prove to be less than minimum height bar.And what I'm suggesting is you are using the rules for making a PC and extrapolating to the entire race in a game system that does not use PC Stats to describe anything other than PC's. Again I think it's more likely that PC Elves are never born with INT's less than 9. So there are no less than 9 INT's to cull. According to the rules all elves can use magic - does that mean all non-magic using Elves are killed at birth? What about Halflings that can't hide as well, are they discovered and drowned? These rules were written by someone who had an idea if what a fantasy race would be like. I doubt they ripped open their books on Mendelev genetics and Cultural Infanticide during the rule writing process.
Non of this stops you creating a campaign world to suit your tastes. I LOVE 2e Dark Suns and it has canabal Halflings!
S.
But Rules Cyclopedia D&D NPCs do use Stats. Thats the Point. The NPCs are subject to the same reasoning. Non Magic Using Elves dont Exist outside the Hollow World where the Bar for Magic use is Int(16) and those who dont are Just Warrior Elf. So back on the Known World where the Bar for Wizard magic is Int(9), we could just as well have inferior elves who are Warrior only.
Ummm... the sheer political incorrectness of this threat topic aside, I would like to say that the end points of our basic statistics are generally misunderstood. The important part of this discussion is that if it's 3d6 that's seen as the generation method in society, then that 3 value will mean that you are worse off than the lowest half percentile. Or, imagine you rank all the people involved, according to the stat in question. The guy then standing at the half percent mark, or #5 of 1000 people, that's the guy with the "highest 3". Everyone who has a 3 score is worse off than him. Now, most people don't have a good concept of this, but very low scores should typically equate to various diseases, genetic or otherwise, or be the result of injury. You know, ever since George almost drowned when he was 1, he hasn't been able to say anything but his name. How bad these conditions are depends on the culture and the environment, but undoubtedly some are set out in the forest, or whatever is usually done. A wealthy family might not be forced to do such a thing, a religious family might not do so, and even a farmer might not have to do so in times of plenty. There are thousands of reasons. Even a child born in the worst possible environment might be kept alive to be used as a begging prop to scream when poked by a needle. It is also questionable if any quality of the child would be a more important factor for who gets to live than whether the mother can socially afford to keep the child.
But: There WILL be people with very low scores. If we're talking a medieval society, the slums of the cities were full of people who never stood a chance at a reasonable life. Every village had their village idiots. Stupidity was not necessarily a social problem; the noble families were by no means immune. Even a stupid person might learn how to feed the pigs, or sweep the floor. Rather, stupidity and especially naivete would likely be popular traits in a cutthroat world. Note also that very low scores are not necessarily due to what you're born with, but are a current image of the entire society. Old and demented Sally would likely not score much more than a 3 Intelligence, even if she was brilliant in her youth.
The next question is what segment of society goes adventuring. Obviously, you need pretty decent scores to even consider it. If you start at level 1, it won't be much of a problem, because a very low Constitution, for example, will leave you with something of a survival problem, which properly reflects why such people don't adventure much. However, if you start your character at higher levels, I would be loath to accept very low stats for your character as a DM. At the very least, you would need to explain how your 15th level Barbarian got to this point despite his 5 Con. Most likely, that would be explained by some major injury, which could be acceptable.
|
|
Ummm... the sheer political incorrectness of this threat topic aside, I would like to say that the end points of our basic statistics are generally misunderstood. The important part of this discussion is that if it's 3d6 that's seen as the generation method in society, then that 3 value will mean that you are worse off than the lowest half percentile. Or, imagine you rank all the people involved, according to the stat in question. The guy then standing at the half percent mark, or #5 of 1000 people, that's the guy with the "highest 3". Everyone who has a 3 score is worse off than him. Now, most people don't have a good concept of this, but very low scores should typically equate to various diseases, genetic or otherwise, or be the result of injury. You know, ever since George almost drowned when he was 1, he hasn't been able to say anything but his name. How bad these conditions are depends on the culture and the environment, but undoubtedly some are set out in the forest, or whatever is usually done. A wealthy family might not be forced to do such a thing, a religious family might not do so, and even a farmer might not have to do so in times of plenty. There are thousands of reasons. Even a child born in the worst possible environment might be kept alive to be used as a begging prop to scream when poked by a needle. It is also questionable if any quality of the child would be a more important factor for who gets to live than whether the mother can socially afford to keep the child.
But: There WILL be people with very low scores. If we're talking a medieval society, the slums of the cities were full of people who never stood a chance at a reasonable life. Every village had their village idiots. Stupidity was not necessarily a social problem; the noble families were by no means immune. Even a stupid person might learn how to feed the pigs, or sweep the floor. Rather, stupidity and especially naivete would likely be popular traits in a cutthroat world. Note also that very low scores are not necessarily due to...
Certainly this is so for Humans and that is reflected in the fact that there are no minimums applied to ability scores for humans. So when there are ability minimums that weed out the weak and infirm for those Demi humans - you must think they have less tolerance for the weak in their cultures.
Its also Why I suggest that Human Society must impose some obligation to eliminate the Social burdens from society or you wind up with 25% village Idiot in your City Populations. Therefore there must be Human Minimums -an obligation to off kids with very low Intelligence (or any stat of 3-5) - that Society must Impose for the well being of the State.|
|
Page 144 of the rules Cyclopedia. Elves roll 2d6+6 and treat 8 as 9 for INT. So Elves of less than 9 INT don't exist other than in specific settings or a homebrew world.
Of course what this says about DEX/CON of the other demihuman races?
S.
You mean how those Halfling Parents knock off any Children with an Armor class Penalty?
Tofig the Elder stared at the child.
"The standard test is to see if the child can free itself from this trap mechanism..." Franny Shireborne looked concerned.
"And if he cant?" Tofig the Elder pulled out the paper finger-trap and placed it over the fingers of the Smiling Halfling baby.
"We knock him on the Head in the ceremony of the pit for the Good of the Halfling Race...Its OK everything will be fine. You passed. What could go wrong?"