This is a question I find myself thinking about a lot as I put together bits of lore and history for my game setting as it gets fleshed out by campaign after campaign.
Worlds that are "human only" fantasy are naturally excluded from it as a general rule, but as to the whole, this genre (and this game) is built upon familiarity. Elves and dwarves are so pervasive that they seem to have bypassed a status as cliche are become virtually essential elements. Almost* every successful/popular fantasy setting/story includes elves and dwarves as familiar staples at least (when one is present, the other usually is too in some fashion). And while elves and dwarves are the heroes we clearly love to be, orcs, arguably Tolkien's greatest creation, are the people we love to hate (or love to be hated as, in some cases).
So the question is: How essential are these three to your "high fantasy experience"? Can we have one without the other(s)? Could creating new races to fill their same spots come off as trying too hard to be "unique"?**
*The only popular fantasy universe I can think of that does has non-human races and does have elves and dwarves is the Tyria/Guild Wars universe. However, dwarves did exist in the world's history at some point and are discussed as an extinct, lost culture in the ongoing Guild Wars 2 story. So, effectively, dwarves are in the game in a fashion.
**Elves and dwarves are such a familiarity that it's hard to not recognize new races as "stand-ins" for the old ones. If having dwarves, elves, and orcs is not a necessity, having a nature race, pragmatic race, warrior race, and misunderstood race (sometimes two are in combination) definitely is, otherwise it feels like there is a hole missing.
Once again, ANet has done a very good job of make their own distinct races to fill these wholes that don't feel like they're merely placeholders. Ironically, the fantasy genre seems to be the only one where you can have something so close to an existing concept that it's better to just use the existing one.
I dunno... Tolkien drew heavily on all sorts of truly ancient myths and stories when he created them. He struck chords that, like the old stories, still resonate easily with us. I am certainly not a mythologist, but I would say that like in the old stories, dwarves and elves are reflections of humans. Elves being feminine, mysterious, beautiful, arrogant and otherworldly, dwarves being masculine, skilled, concrete, collectivistic, xenophobic and different, both reflect things about ourselves that we want, and things we don't want. Add to this fact that they are seen as honourable, long-lived and dangerous. These are the good guys, and orcs are specifically the dark mirror of elves. When you do dualities, like the above, you end up with elements that don't usually do well alone. So, I would say it's an all or none effect, but that today, enough has been written that it's basically okay to ignore these correspondences today.
There is also a problem of definitions. Elves especially are vague enough in concept ("better humans"?) that it's very easy to write a setting, make a new race without intending for them to be elves, and still end up with "these guys are this setting's not-elves".
If we're talking about Guild Wars, the Sylvari are elves, the charr are orcs, the norns are big humans. The interesting race is asuras, though I would hesitate to call them all that original, drawing on several decades of mad scientists in various media.
I'll have to leave a dot here and give my say on this later.
I dunno... Tolkien drew heavily on all sorts of truly ancient myths and stories when he created them. He struck chords that, like the old stories, still resonate easily with us. I am certainly not a mythologist, but I would say that like in the old stories, dwarves and elves are reflections of humans. Elves being feminine, mysterious, beautiful, arrogant and otherworldly, dwarves being masculine, skilled, concrete, collectivistic, xenophobic and different, both reflect things about ourselves that we want, and things we don't want. Add to this fact that they are seen as honourable, long-lived and dangerous. These are the good guys, and orcs are specifically the dark mirror of elves. When you do dualities, like the above, you end up with elements that don't usually do well alone. So, I would say it's an all or none effect, but that today, enough has been written that it's basically okay to ignore these correspondences today.
There is also a problem of definitions. Elves especially are vague enough in concept ("better humans"?) that it's very easy to write a setting, make a new race without intending for them to be elves, and still end up with "these guys are this setting's not-elves".
If we're talking about Guild Wars, the Sylvari are elves, the charr are orcs, the norns are big humans. The interesting race is asuras, though I would hesitate to call them all that original, drawing on several decades of mad scientists in various media.
Asura are pretty much a blend of tradition goblin/gnome/dwarf aspects, depending on what tradition we're looking at.
Speaking of mytholgoy, I think it's an interesting fact that, while Tolkien did not create elves and dwarves (though he may have shaped the way we look at them), Orcs are entirely his creation. One could argue that orcs are his greatest legacy.
Yes. It's easy to end up with races being equated to all these familiar ones without meaning to. And yes to orcs. What is interesting to note is that he doesn't give orcs any sort of redeeming qualities, unlike other similar races created, whether klingons, charr, or the like.
On the subject of writing races, my dilemma is that I like elves as they are, but not orcs or dwarves. I also don't particularly like having 3 different "small" races (dwarves are still small, even though in PF their medium sized because of their girth and strength) that are slight variations of eachother.
So I've made a new race for dwarves/gnomes/halflings/duergar that is... well, the Scandinavian race that started it all, duergar. And then when I come to the "antagonist" race, I much prefer Hobgoblins as they written to Orcs, but I find it awkward to have "Hobgoblin" be the name of the main enemy race while the race called Goblins is a secondary off-shoot, so I think I just make them the orcs, but then they are VERY DIFFERENT from traditional orcs in that they are organized and in many cases intellectual, they are just heavily militaristic and hate gods.
So should I just dispense with the name orc all together and come up with something else? Since the orc race and dwarf race have other official name, should elves? Perhaps they all have their own official names, but humans use words like orc, elf, and dwarf as their own (sometimes derogatory) names for them?
tl;dr I overthink things.
Yes. It's easy to end up with races being equated to all these familiar ones without meaning to. And yes to orcs. What is interesting to note is that he doesn't give orcs any sort of redeeming qualities, unlike other similar races created, whether klingons, charr, or the like.
Tolkien's writing was intended to be a throwback to a simpler time of black-and-white mythology. Nowadays, when we write monster, as with other creatures traditionally viewed as monsters (vampires, werewolves, etc.) we want to be able to understand the outcast because that's more expressive of our culture today.
In the way I view the Bad Guy Races and implement them in my games, their society is tyrannical and anyone who doesn't fall into that is outcast, but even then they are rigidly utilitarian which can be seen as evil by some (not hesitating to sacrifice someone for the greater benefit of the whole).
If you specifically do not want the associations with Tolkien races, then yes, you really should change the names. Dvergar is just old norse for dwarf, so as a swede it doesn't really help me, but YMMV. Regarding orcs, you want hobgoblins... do you have to call them that either? Change a few things. Give them some clear difference to classic hobgobbos, say, four arms, red skin, or whatever. Then call them something different.
In short: I would find it far more interesting to play in a setting where your dwarves, orcs and elves were Different, not merely the same old people with their serial numbers filed off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the question is: How essential are these three to your "high fantasy experience"?
Not needed in the slightest.
So the question is: How essential are these three to your "high fantasy experience"?
I can do without with them. The first ever fantasy setting I planned on writing didn't have any of those three, though some drafts had dwarves too.
You certainly don't need those races, but as the most popular and visible nonhuman races, there is something to be said about familiarity. Stereotypes suck but are useful for a new player.
I hate cliches however, and I know in my own setting I am trying to distance myself from Tolkien. None of the above races have a fleshed out space in the setting at the moment, nor are there really "warrior", "pragmatic", "nature" etc stereotypes. It's hard not to have a "misunderstood" race, since human history itself is full of examples of cultures that have been just that, especially if they exist as minorities within other cultures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me this is all about flavor. If you want to have a fantasy world that people can slide into easily and without putting too much effort into their visualization of the world, using existing races and tropes is a really good way to do that, and many people expect and react favorably to doing so.
But if you have a group that is willing to go the extra mile to accept a wholly new world view for a fantasy environment, then that's cool too, and that can be done either buy sticking to a purely human world, or by introducing entirely new sorts of fantasy creatures.
I am currently wrapping up my first fantasy/sci-fi novel and it is very much written in a fantasy genre style, but there are no elves or dwarves in it. There are different human cultures and other intelligent species involved, but I very deliberately avoided the elf-dwarf-human approach for a lot of reasons, some which are important to the plot.
My own campaign world, however, is very much elf-dwarf-halfling-orc-goblin-human based, and that's what gamers tend to find comfortable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you do not mind making your world up on the fly, one idea to try is to wait until your players have created their characters to decide the racial make-up of your world. Once you know the races of your player characters, pick one or more of the other races that you had no plans for and exclude them from that world. Whether the absence of that race or races is important and what it means is up to you.
|
This just dawned on me, based on my limited knowledge of Tolkien and the Edda.
You've got the Alfar (Elves) and the Dvergar (Dwarves) and also Half-Elves (the king of Denmark, if I'm not mistaken). Now, the Dvergar are also known as Dokalfar (Dark Elves) and Svartalfar (Black Elves).
Ofcourse, in D&D and Pathfinder Dark Elves are the twisted elves known as the Drow. Tolkien created the Orcs, and they are... Yes, corrupted and twisted Elves.
Conclusion: There are too many Elves.
And for a more serious answer. I'd like to just toss them out of my setting. If the campaign is about Angels fighting Demons, for example, I'd toss in Aasimars en Tieflings. I'd like a lower caste and a higher caste race, but that's it I guess. I don't think you really need that much races in the first place.
Orcs aren't essential. I'd say elves and dwarves are, though. Various takes on elves and dwarves interest me far more than any races which might replace them. (Incidentally, GW2 doesn't interest me precisely because it tries too hard to be different with sylvari and its other non-standard player races).
I also don't think that humans are an essential part of a campaign world--and that they're often too prevalent and dominant in campaign worlds.
So the question is: How essential are these three to your "high fantasy experience"?
I think they are iconic, but not essential. I'm fine without them and prefer to keep away from clichés. Personally, I'm more partial to beast men races and demi humans that have a closer resemblance to man. The most important thing to me is to keep humans so you still have a semblance of humanity in a setting. Its important for relating to people without seeing alien(to me anyway).
Could creating new races to fill their same spots come off as trying too hard to be "unique"?
Its a trope actually. On tv tropes its the Five Races, and many fantasy settings try to stick to that. Personally I never did, but you see that sort of thing in guild wars 2 for instance. Dwarves and Elves being used in settings has two tropes of its own, All dwarves are the same and Our Elves are Better.
I also don't think that humans are an essential part of a campaign world
So its okay to have a world with just dwarves and elves but no humans? I can understand toning them down(Golarion sometimes forgets it has demihuman races...)
I don't think elves and dwarves are essential, but as many as pointed, they are comfortable. And although it is true that few RPGs feature different races than the human/elf/dwarf standards, many anime/manga/comic/bandes-dessinées do.
Like Ansha, I also don't thing humans are essential in a RPG.
If you do not mind making your world up on the fly, one idea to try is to wait until your players have created their characters to decide the racial make-up of your world. Once you know the races of your player characters, pick one or more of the other races that you had no plans for and exclude them from that world. Whether the absence of that race or races is important and what it means is up to you.
That's sort of how it's been working out. When I ran my first game about two years ago, I had no preconcieved ideas about the setting, and the history and culture of it ( as well as the stories we play through) has been built from character to character.
Now, I'm at the point where I want to sort through everything we've done and lay down an official grounding for the world to build off of.
On the subject of dwarves, if I'm being honest here, my favorite versions are more in line with Disney's Snow White. The quirky, eccentric craftsman who make things of legend, as opposed to the short human who drinks and fights more than usual. I prefer a middle ground between dwarf and what is traditionally gnome, which is why I built a new race from the ground up.
I wanted Kobolds to be a standard, commonplace, accepted race in my setting, and their niche overlapped too much with Dwarves. So I gave the underground-dwelling, mining-and-crafting niche to the Kobolds and turned the Dwarves into sea-faring explorers, merchants, and pirates who as often as not live out their lives without ever touching solid land. So basically I did the opposite of Ellis - focused on the rough-and-ready drinkin'-and-fightin' lifestyle, and ditched the craftsmanship angle.
I wanted Kobolds to be a standard, commonplace, accepted race in my setting, and their niche overlapped too much with Dwarves. So I gave the underground-dwelling, mining-and-crafting niche to the Kobolds and turned the Dwarves into sea-faring explorers, merchants, and pirates who as often as not live out their lives without ever touching solid land. So basically I did the opposite of Ellis - focused on the rough-and-ready drinkin'-and-fightin' lifestyle, and ditched the craftsmanship angle.
I also love kobolds. I was really happy when in one game, a player befriended a tribe of them and convinced them to stop hiding and take charge, so now we have a settlement of (comparatively) brave kobolds that players can come from.
|
My rule when using well tread races is basically the same as when I'm writing using them, "Do I have anything I want to use them for that is unique and interesting to me that I haven't seen done well before?"
If the answer is yes then go for it. If the answer is no then don't.
I think that's usually the biggest issue people run into is they believe those races are essential to the genre rather then just an interesting part of an important part of the medium.
Those specific races? Absolutely nonessential. In fact I generally prefer playing in a completely original fantasy world with nonhuman/alien races and cultures that are not a direct Tolkien ripoff. It takes more mental heavy lifting because you don't get the shorthand, but it is ultimately more fun. For me, anyhow.
Lets be clear here: every aspect of the genre has been built upon the ocean of creativity that has come before us in story and legend. Tolkien didn't invent elves or dwarves, he simply made them popular. Deciding to use elves and dwarves in one's campaign world is no more ripping off Tolkien than Tolkien "ripped off" Snorri's Prose Edda.
I think a better way to phrase my dilemma is thus: I am building a world that is as much (if not more) for other people than it is for myself, whether it's Pathfinder now or the sorts of projects I want to work on after I graduate. How do I reconcile the world that I want with the world that needs to be accessible for everyone else? Ultimately it's not a question anyone else can answer for me, but I can't help but wonder how others might feel about it.
For my two cents, I don't think a world/genre/etc. must have familiar races to be accessible to people. Given a little work on history, background, a world may have (or have not) "nonstandard" races and still be a place wherein your players (readers, whatever) may be very comfortable. How much work on research your players are willing to do is really the main factor here; if you provide a decent rundown of the races you're using, it ought not matter whether the races are "typical" fantasy-types or not.
I wanted Kobolds to be a standard, commonplace, accepted race in my setting, and their niche overlapped too much with Dwarves. So I gave the underground-dwelling, mining-and-crafting niche to the Kobolds and turned the Dwarves into sea-faring explorers, merchants, and pirates who as often as not live out their lives without ever touching solid land. So basically I did the opposite of Ellis - focused on the rough-and-ready drinkin'-and-fightin' lifestyle, and ditched the craftsmanship angle.
Interesting choice. I kept the two as rivals with regards to mining, but I focused more on the "mystic earth" aspects of dwarven lore as well as some other things such as the creation of the warforged, while the kobolds focused more on the arcane as well as their relations with dragons and marahnians, the latter being a partially draconic race who've got an even stronger sense of competition with dwarves. Dwarves are known as legendary armorsmiths while marahnians are usually the better weaponsmiths. However, the Axe of Dwarvish Lords was made by the dwarves, and an artifact-level armor I plan to create was crafted by a marahnian blacksmith. I'll probably have to give something cool to kobolds and gnomes as well, though I'll also have to keep the other races of the continent (elves, humans, etc.) in mind as well.
On the one hand I have no trouble at all with worlds where only humans are an option, on the other hand I like worlds that have an infinite variety of not humans... On the other hand I like creatures with at least 3 hands.... and when available, on the 4th hand sometimes I like groaning when someone pulls the 'yes the world is populated 99.99% with humans, but our party is going to be a mixmash of races that would make the jedi council blush...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are only really necessary if you're making sausage.
Edit:
Oh, also serious answer time: One of my personal pet peeves in fantasy setting design (yes, I have fantasy setting design pet peeves) is when you don't want orcs in your setting, but end up with something that is essentially orcs with a different name. That's rule number 1: If you want to be different and unique, do something different and unique.
The opposite, however, is even worse. Including a familiar race, but changing them into something completely different. If they aren't orcs, don't call them orcs. Certain fantasy tropes come with some build-in presumptions. If you want to subvert those tropes, you either have to do a lot of explaining, or accept that it will cause a lot of confusion. This leads us to rule number 2: If you're doing something different and unique, don't pretend that you're not.
*The only popular fantasy universe I can think of that does has non-human races and does have elves and dwarves is the Tyria/Guild Wars universe. However, dwarves did exist in the world's history at some point and are discussed as an extinct, lost culture in the ongoing Guild Wars 2 story. So, effectively, dwarves are in the game in a fashion.
Not only effectively. You literally meet one at the Durmond Priory.
Not only effectively. You literally meet one at the Durmond Priory.
Aye, but he's stone. The dwarves gave up their race as a big plot point in Eye of the North.
It should be noted I'm actually not a fan of the Guild Wars series. I think most of the races are actually very boring. Charr feel generic and they all look the same to me, Asura feel out of place, and I think the Sylvari's wyld hunt is very weak compared to other literature's use the Wyld Hunt. I could go on for a long time about my complaints about guild wars though.
I've never been all that attached to the standard races. And the settings that I'm intrigued by that has the standard races are those that do them in non-traditional ways (Dark Sun and Eberron).
I love fantasy that creates races that 'fit the story'. Brandon Sandersen (sp?) does this pretty well, i think, in a few of his stories.
Then again—like others have said above—I don't mind investing the time to understand a new setting, try to find something I like about a new setting, and do the research on any new racial options provided to find something i really dig... I understand not all gamers are interested in doing that.
I'ts also worth noting that I came to the hobby late... as in i never played when I was young, and my introduction to D&D was in the middle of the shift between 3.0 and 3.5. So I came into a hobby that was already wildly exploring alternate settings and player options.
And to actually answer the question: I say toss your ideas out to your group. If they reject and moan about the loss of their favorite race, you might have an up-hill battle to fight to get your players invested in your setting. And I'd hate to do all that front-end work just to have your players only be meh about it.
on the other hand, if they're open to it at all, then it's probably worth exploring. I'm far more inclined to want to run a game that I feel invested in as the DM.
The opposite, however, is even worse. Including a familiar race, but changing them into something completely different. If they aren't orcs, don't call them orcs. Certain fantasy tropes come with some build-in presumptions. If you want to subvert those tropes, you either have to do a lot of explaining, or accept that it will cause a lot of confusion. This leads us to rule number 2: If you're doing something different and unique, don't pretend that you're not.
Oh God this
The worst example I can think of is a later Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman series, where the Dwarves were mongol horsemen analogues, the orcs were pirates, and the elves were samurai. WHY? If you are going to completely remodel races, just go with new races. And if you are going to just copy blatantly your races from real human civilizations, just use humans.
They are only really necessary if you're making sausage.
Edit:
Oh, also serious answer time: One of my personal pet peeves in fantasy setting design (yes, I have fantasy setting design pet peeves) is when you don't want orcs in your setting, but end up with something that is essentially orcs with a different name. That's rule number 1: If you want to be different and unique, do something different and unique.The opposite, however, is even worse. Including a familiar race, but changing them into something completely different. If they aren't orcs, don't call them orcs. Certain fantasy tropes come with some build-in presumptions. If you want to subvert those tropes, you either have to do a lot of explaining, or accept that it will cause a lot of confusion. This leads us to rule number 2: If you're doing something different and unique, don't pretend that you're not.
*The only popular fantasy universe I can think of that does has non-human races and does have elves and dwarves is the Tyria/Guild Wars universe. However, dwarves did exist in the world's history at some point and are discussed as an extinct, lost culture in the ongoing Guild Wars 2 story. So, effectively, dwarves are in the game in a fashion.Not only effectively. You literally meet one at the Durmond Priory.
Ah. The only character I've beaten the personal story with was Vigil, so I didn't encounter that.
The hobgoblins of the DnD/Pathfinder world are based on Tolkien's "Hogbolins", the Uruk-hai (is that how it's spelled?). They were called Hobgoblins in his initial drafts, if I'm not mistaken.
Oh, also serious answer time: One of my personal pet peeves in fantasy setting design (yes, I have fantasy setting design pet peeves) is when you don't want orcs in your setting, but end up with something that is essentially orcs with a different name. That's rule number 1: If you want to be different and unique, do something different and unique.
The opposite, however, is even worse. Including a familiar race, but changing them into something completely different. If they aren't orcs, don't call them orcs. Certain fantasy tropes come with some build-in presumptions. If you want to subvert those tropes, you either have to do a lot of explaining, or accept that it will cause a lot of confusion. This leads us to rule number 2: If you're doing something different and unique, don't pretend that you're not.
Definitely this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Elves and orcs, yes.
Dwarves, no.
I'd do without elves before doing without dwarves myself.
I only use the races that fit into whatever world I'm gaming in at a given time and I don't think this is particularly troublesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Read Jim Butchers Codex Alera high fantasy no elves, dwarves, or orcs. Another to consider would be books by Brent Weeks.
I was just wondering the other day if people would play a human-only fantasy RPG...I suspect the answer is mostly no.
M