| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The pattern that Tacticslion alluded to is due to physical constraints: space, food, clean water, raw materials -- none of these things are in infinite supply in the real world (your fantasy world may differ, but that brings in a whole new set of constraints). As one population grows, it outgrows its supply of any or all of those things and looks to the next area -- where it either takes over the supply there, too (due to its superior numbers/abilities/supplies) or is defeated.
Now, your Perfect Elfs can refuse to participate. But then when the orcs come looking for more resources, in a semi-realistic world it means they've reached the point where they're more numerous, better fed, better trained, better organized, and better equipped. (Read Guns, Germs, and Steel sometime, if you don't quite follow why any or all of these things follow, but they do.)
If the Perfect Elfs are somehow never overrun, and help the humans while singing Kumbayah, that's fine and dandy, but it lacks a convincing explanation as to how that's possible, unless you introduce all kinds of very direct divine intervention.
Which you can do in D&D Land, but that doesn't mean analogies to real life are at all "absurd."
Guns, Germs, and Steel
That was a very eye-opening book, even when I disagreed with his conclusions (which was by no means constant).
Anyway, those are the kinds of things I was referring to.
I do think that a similar-to-post-scarcity societies that would be necessary to avoid said competition could be made without Divine Intervention, depending on the presumptions of the setting (a single Create Food and Water magic trap or other item, for instance, might be able to be created even without the ability to cast the spell).
By "human present", I am referring to what is going on now. Think of the whole thing that went on when Yugoslavia broke apart (technically in the past, but is kind of "present-day"), or the bombings against christians by muslims in the middle east, the whole "Death to America" stuff going on in that part of the world. That's mostly what I meant about "human present". Definitely evidence of genocidal tendancies going on in the world in the present day.
Cool! Mostly, I just wanted to make sure I was understanding. I did, in fact, read it incorrectly - you were saying that it happens now (which it does) but not excluding the past in favor of the now. Got it. :)
If elves are just "better" than humans (in some combination of intelligence, agility, strength, longevity, technology, fertility, whatever), than elves wouldn't really need to consciously wipe out another species.
They might just do so by either outbreeding (and thus expanding and taking over choice territory), outlasting (developing technology/magic that lets them manage diseases better, live longer or better adapt to new environments), or monopolizing (by reduced infighting and the ability to better defend their own turf).
I mean imagine if Elves were as awesome as sometimes depicted in fantasy settings, and resistant to disease. Imagine a black death that took out humans and left elves alone. You would quickly have elves as the dominant race. Without them laying a finger on humanity.
Gradual attrition to non-elven populations over time would be enough for them to become dominant.
Of course if they are so perfect, they could have such high levels of altruism that they end up giving away technology or magic to other less civilized races, which could result in that power being turned against them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If elves are just "better" than humans (in some combination of intelligence, agility, strength, longevity, technology, fertility, whatever), than elves wouldn't really need to consciously wipe out another species.
They might just do so by either outbreeding (and thus expanding and taking over choice territory), outlasting (developing technology/magic that lets them manage diseases better, live longer or better adapt to new environments), or monopolizing (by reduced infighting and the ability to better defend their own turf).
I mean imagine if Elves were as awesome as sometimes depicted in fantasy settings, and resistant to disease. Imagine a black death that took out humans and left elves alone. You would quickly have elves as the dominant race. Without them laying a finger on humanity.
Which is what we're saying. "Outcompete" doesn't necessarily mean directly kill. But the end result is the same: the species that got outcompeted is either domesticated or goes extinct.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By "human present", I am referring to what is going on now. Think of the whole thing that went on when Yugoslavia broke apart (technically in the past, but is kind of "present-day"), or the bombings against christians by muslims in the middle east, the whole "Death to America" stuff going on in that part of the world. That's mostly what I meant about "human present". Definitely evidence of genocidal tendancies going on in the world in the present day.Keep in mind that the only thing that held Yugoslavia together was the iron fisted dictatorial rule. The cultural tensions that balkanised the country were there before Titov was gone.
It wasn't that iron fisted, and people actually lived quite well during that time. But you're right. Tensions existed, but were submerged, mostly because Tito was incredibly charismatic. Now the entire former Yugoslavia is falling apart, little by little, people living in horrible conditions. Not pretty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always wondered why, if the reason humans are aways dominant is because they breed faster/have shorter lifespans, why don't orcs, goblins, gnolls, or other such races dominate? They are almost always shown as having much shorter lifespans than humans (orcs max age being about 1/2 that of humans, and gnolls reaching adulthood at 7). And then I remembered. Orcs, goblins, gnolls and other such races don't dominate because, despite breeding faster than humans and having lifespans that are decades shorter, they are Chaotic Evil. And that is what the creators put in as a failsafe to keep the precious humans as the dominant and greatest race.
And, of course, on a purely superficial level it can help bring about a sense of fantasy, walking into town and seeing tengu guards strutting about, ratfolk tinkers and merchants scuttling out of their mysterious warrens to try and sell you something with an obvious lack of the notion of personal space, buildings clearly designed for races with a climb speed or those whose native environs are more swamp-like or mountainous
This so, so, so much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man this topic took a dark turn. Can we go back to organized nymphos?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone wants to be a strange special snowflake. People think being human or human centeric takes away from that.I don't get it. What is the problem of humans being the dominant or most widespread race in the setting?
Considering that even clones and identical twins of people differ from each other, aren't we all special snowflakes in real life anyway?
Different is not a synonym to special. However, on some days I consider human and evil to be synonyms, and seems Zarus from 3.5e D&D agrees.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No reason any other sapient species won't have the same variance.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone wants to be a strange special snowflake. People think being human or human centeric takes away from that.I don't get it. What is the problem of humans being the dominant or most widespread race in the setting?
Considering that even clones and identical twins of people differ from each other, aren't we all special snowflakes in real life anyway?
Different is not a synonym to special. However, on some days I consider human and evil to be synonyms, and seems Zarus from 3.5e D&D agrees.
Man, I am, like, really glad I got over my misanthrope phase a long time ago. Forgot how obnoxious it was.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Implying my personal view on the condition of our species is just a phase that will pass is pretty rude, you know. I find the people who think we're the best thing to ever come to existence rather obnoxious myself, but rather than mock them by claiming their view to be a phase (which is an ad hominem anyway), I instead present arguments to counter their views. I also find it hilarious when some people get upset about the fact that humans are animals too, and not this chosen glorious master race some random God handpicked as the rulers of this world and those beyond. Aside from the way our brain is structured and our capacity for destruction (both towards the environment as well as towards animals of all kinds), we're not really that different from the rest of the beings living on this planet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh I find it rude to imply that "humanity" consists of modern, christian, westerners in the industrialized world, but that's just me.
Implying my personal view on the condition of our species is just a phase that will pass is pretty rude, you know. I find the people who think we're the best thing to ever come to existence rather obnoxious myself, but rather than mock them by claiming their view to be a phase (which is an ad hominem anyway), I instead present arguments to counter their views. I also find it hilarious when some people get upset about the fact that humans are animals too, and not this chosen glorious master race some random God handpicked as the rulers of this world and those beyond. Aside from the way our brain is structured and our capacity for destruction (both towards the environment as well as towards animals of all kinds), we're not really that different from the rest of the beings living on this planet.
Perhaps, but Odraude isn't the only one who has gone through this phase, and got over it. Adolescence gets old after a while.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Implying my personal view on the condition of our species is just a phase that will pass is pretty rude, you know. I find the people who think we're the best thing to ever come to existence rather obnoxious myself, but rather than mock them by claiming their view to be a phase (which is an ad hominem anyway), I instead present arguments to counter their views. I also find it hilarious when some people get upset about the fact that humans are animals too, and not this chosen glorious master race some random God handpicked as the rulers of this world and those beyond. Aside from the way our brain is structured and our capacity for destruction (both towards the environment as well as towards animals of all kinds), we're not really that different from the rest of the beings living on this planet.Perhaps, but Odraude isn't the only one who has gone through this phase, and got over it. Adolescence gets old after a while.
I am really trying to understand what adolescence has to do with Icyshadow's personal philosophy. Care to elaborate?
I cannot speak for all places and people, but in the trendy hipster city I am in, misanthropy in your late teens to late 20s is definitely common. I remember I started that phase early, about 15.
Back on topic, it is so wonderful to give non humans not only depth and attention in a setting, but to boot Tolkien to the curb and to give the spotlight to something other than orcs, elves or halflings. Refreshing!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys may want to tone it back a little, before posts start getting deleted for going against the first rule of the paizo messageboards.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I think it should be my right to insult misanthropes. I mean, they hate me anyway. Way I see it, there's no point in NOT treating them poorly. Though in the interest in forum rules, I suppose there is no reason I should not abide by that.
I am really trying to understand what adolescence has to do with Icyshadow's personal philosophy. Care to elaborate?Implying my personal view on the condition of our species is just a phase that will pass is pretty rude, you know. I find the people who think we're the best thing to ever come to existence rather obnoxious myself, but rather than mock them by claiming their view to be a phase (which is an ad hominem anyway), I instead present arguments to counter their views. I also find it hilarious when some people get upset about the fact that humans are animals too, and not this chosen glorious master race some random God handpicked as the rulers of this world and those beyond. Aside from the way our brain is structured and our capacity for destruction (both towards the environment as well as towards animals of all kinds), we're not really that different from the rest of the beings living on this planet.Perhaps, but Odraude isn't the only one who has gone through this phase, and got over it. Adolescence gets old after a while.
Well there's a lot of kind of, whiny, angry, melodramatic teenage subcultures. You know, like goth kids. They dress in black, sneer at practically everyone. They're young, and they hate their peers, their town and their parents and if humanity just choked on its own greed and cruelty, that'd that'd be a-ok with them. They say this sort of gross over-generalization about the world being destroyed by the human virus because it's a quick and easy way to look like they have some deep insight about the world and humanity (or yoomanity if you're Martin Sheen). So they say things about overpopulation and the cruelty of wars in a dark, edgy cynical way because when you're young and cynical, that's kind of what you do.
I'm not saying that's what he's doing, but that's pretty much how I'd answer this question.
To be fair I have seen some adults talk this way, but I actually find it quite hard not to snicker and think 'Hey way to sound like me when I was 16 and listened to a lot of alt metal'
Oh and if any of the mods feel I'm nearing going just a little bit over the line, let me know.
As for the topic at hand, I feel that many non-humanocentric settings I see come off as gimicky and different for the sake of different. I actually hope one of these days, the so called 'standard fantasy setting' gets a good reconstruction, and maybe we can go back to the days when people approached the elves and the dwarves and their cities with a sense of awe instead of needing a half-celestial ratfolk shaman on every street corner just so we don't feel jaded about fantasy. Not that I have any problem with non-humanocentric settings. I even helped a bud with his. I just think it should be more about presentation than different for the sake of different. I've seen a lot of hack writers come up with ideas for weird settings and races which just went nowhere and had nothing compelling about them. I don't think a setting needs to be non-humanocentric to be fantastical. Look at Nex and Kaer Maga for example. They're strange places but they're still overwhelmingly humanocentric, and done right I think a setting like that would do a lot more to feel fantastical than upping the number of tengu or whatever. Feel free to call me on it if I'm oversimplifying, but I figure humanocentricity is a thing that's called out a lot because A) Making a non-humanocentric setting is another way to be 'different and thus remedy some of the jadedness the fans face regarding fantasy in general and B) Some people just really like non-human races and feel they don't get enough love.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well there's a lot of kind of, whiny, angry, melodramatic teenage subcultures. You know, like goth kids. They dress in black, sneer at practically everyone. They're young, and they hate their peers, their town and their parents and if humanity just choked on its own greed and cruelty, that'd that'd be a-ok with them. They say this sort of gross over-generalization about the world being destroyed by the human virus because it's a quick and easy way to look like they have some deep...
As I am the one who posited the question, I will stick simply to this segment of your reply.
First, and I mean this - thanks for taking a few moments to respond to the overarching question. Getting to the meat and bones of it all however, I get that perhaps people who would rather be an island tend to be problematic for you socially. Sure, misanthropic people tend to have views distinctly different from the populace, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily deserving of the amount of stereotyping listed above. Nor should some of their arguments be necessarily thrown out because they make people face the darker parts of existence. Hear no evil, see no evil. You get what I am saying here.
Based on your initial statement in your post, I dare-say you feel the same way about Introverts for that matter.
Individuals who are part of collectives tend to think that their group-think, hand-holding, and cheery demeanor's should be the de-facto standards for most, if not all, arenas of human purview. As a middle-aged cynic myself, I tend to hold that people like this want to avoid those nasty aspects of people and the world so as to avoid facing aspects of reality.
Is it a bit extreme to necessarily hate people for being people? Sure. But for that person, they may have been burned so many times in life by other people, by the stories in the news, and other media formats - that it is difficult to be able to see positivist philosophy as sensible and humans to be some sort of altruistic mainstay just waiting to be re-born like a butterfly.
So, while you may take the rantings of a teenager, or in DMUTB's life, 20-something hipsters - as melodramatic, angst, or juvenile in fashion, there are plenty of people out there who tend to face, and sometimes embrace the darker parts of humanity. As I once told a good friend of mine, life should never be expected to be (this will come across a bit condescending): An ABC after school special, Disney Movie, or Episode of MLP.
Getting to the meat and bones of it all however, I get that perhaps people who would rather be an island tend to be problematic for you socially. Sure, misanthropic people tend to have views distinctly different from the populace, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily deserving of the amount of stereotyping listed above. Nor should some of their arguments be necessarily thrown out because they make people face the darker parts of existence. Hear no evil, see no evil. You get what I am saying here.
Based on your initial statement in your post, I dare-say you feel the same way about Introverts for that matter.
Individuals who are part of collectives tend to think that their group-think, hand-holding, and cheery demeanor's should be the de-facto standards for most, if not all, arenas of human purview. As a middle-aged cynic myself, I tend to hold that people like this want to avoid those nasty aspects of people and the world so as to avoid facing aspects of reality.
+1 and then some.
Well there's a lot of kind of, whiny, angry, melodramatic teenage subcultures. You know, like goth kids. They dress in black, sneer at practically everyone. They're young, and they hate their peers, their town and their parents and if humanity just choked on its own greed and cruelty, that'd that'd be a-ok with them. They say this sort of gross over-generalization about the world being destroyed by the human virus because it's a quick and easy way to look like they have some deep...
As I am the one who posited the question, I will stick simply to this segment of your reply.
First, and I mean this - thanks for taking a few moments to respond to the overarching question. Getting to the meat and bones of it all however, I get that perhaps people who would rather be an island tend to be problematic for you socially. Sure, misanthropic people tend to have views distinctly different from the populace, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily deserving of the amount of stereotyping listed above. Nor should some of their arguments be necessarily thrown out because they make people face the darker parts of existence. Hear no evil, see no evil. You get what I am saying here.
Based on your initial statement in your post, I dare-say you feel the same way about Introverts for that matter.
Individuals who are part of collectives tend to think that their group-think, hand-holding, and cheery demeanor's should be the de-facto standards for most, if not all, arenas of human purview. As a middle-aged cynic myself, I tend to hold that people like this want to avoid those nasty aspects of people and the world so as to avoid facing aspects of reality.
Is it a bit extreme to necessarily hate people for being people? Sure. But for that person, they may have been burned so many times in life by other people, by the stories in the news, and other media formats - that it is difficult to be able to see positivist philosophy as sensible and humans to be some sort of altruistic mainstay just...
You said it better than I could have. And I wanted to comment on the part I bolded. This is the biggest cause of my misanthropy. Being in 6th grade, and having an entire Junior High school (grades 6,7,8; about 1,000 students, plus many teachers as well) hate you over something you had no control over, will color your views. Now, I will say I don't have the excessive hatred I once did, as I have met some decent people since then (D&D being the biggest contributor to that), but I am still extremely introverted and still have misanthropic viewpoints. I just find humanity's excessive superiority complex to be disgusting.
As I am the one who posited the question, I will stick simply to this segment of your reply.
First, and I mean this - thanks for taking a few moments to respond to the overarching question. Getting to the meat and bones of it all however, I get that perhaps people who would rather be an island tend to be problematic for you socially. Sure, misanthropic people tend to have views distinctly different from the populace, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily deserving of the amount of stereotyping listed above. Nor should some of their arguments be necessarily thrown out because they make people face the darker parts of existence. Hear no evil, see no evil. You get what I am saying here.
Based on your initial statement in your post, I dare-say you feel the same way about Introverts for that matter.
Individuals who are part of collectives tend to think that their group-think, hand-holding, and cheery demeanor's should be the de-facto standards for most, if not all, arenas of human purview. As a middle-aged cynic myself, I tend to hold that people like this want to avoid those nasty aspects of people and the world so as to avoid facing aspects of reality.
Is it a bit extreme to necessarily hate people for being people? Sure. But for that person, they may have been burned so many times in life by other people, by the stories in the news, and other media formats - that it is difficult to be able to see positivist philosophy as sensible and humans to be some sort of altruistic mainstay just...
Okay so I wrote about 3 responses, and here's about the best one I can find that won't come across as condescending or derail things further:
*ahem*
Osric, in the interest of not having false assumptions about my personal character being drawn, I will have to disagree with those statements. I am actually an introvert. I don't even consider myself the most optimistic person and I don't see why you felt the need to insinuate optimism is essentially tied to conformity.
I answered your question and I'm not entirely sure if it was to your satisfaction or if the question was in fact rhetorical or meant for another party, but you are welcome in any case as I do like to help out when I can.
And I apologize for generalizing cynics and misanthropes. I'm sure they come in all age groups even if I don't agree with this idea that anyone who has dealt with the 'dark side of yoomanity' thinks that way.
Also I was contemplating a thread were people can post a paragraph or so about any homebrew worlds they have come up with, as I'm sure many are dying to talk about their ideas for a less-humanocentric setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I am the one who posited the question, I will stick simply to this segment of your reply.
First, and I mean this - thanks for taking a few moments to respond to the overarching question. Getting to the meat and bones of it all however, I get that perhaps people who would rather be an island tend to be problematic for you socially. Sure, misanthropic people tend to have views distinctly different from the populace, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily deserving of the amount of stereotyping listed above. Nor should some of their arguments be necessarily thrown out because they make people face the darker parts of existence. Hear no evil, see no evil. You get what I am saying here.
Based on your initial statement in your post, I dare-say you feel the same way about Introverts for that matter.
Individuals who are part of collectives tend to think that their group-think, hand-holding, and cheery demeanor's should be the de-facto standards for most, if not all, arenas of human purview. As a middle-aged cynic myself, I tend to hold that people like this want to avoid those nasty aspects of people and the world so as to avoid facing aspects of reality.
Is it a bit extreme to necessarily hate people for being people? Sure. But for that person, they may have been burned so many times in life by other people, by the stories in the news, and other media formats - that it is difficult to be able to see positivist philosophy as sensible and humans to be some sort of altruistic mainstay just...
Okay so I wrote about 3 responses, and here's about the best one I can find that won't come across as condescending or derail things further:
*ahem*
Osric, in the interest of not having false assumptions about my personal character being drawn, I will have to disagree with those statements. I am actually an introvert. I don't even consider myself the most optimistic person and I don't see why you felt the need to insinuate optimism is essentially tied to...
magnumCPA, I am grateful that you took the opportunity to let me in a bit on your actual personality. It clears things up regarding parts of my response. Additionally, you did answer the question to my satisfaction based on your experiences and I chose to rebut them in the best way I could. I intended no offense.
To be fair to you, the question was open for everyone who was contained in that micro-discussion, but was more meant for DMUTT as he/she was the initial poster to declare that somehow misanthropes are the intellectual equivalents to adolescents. I disagree, and wanted some clarification on what he/she meant.
As to why I tied optimism neatly with collectivism - well that stems from living in a world where meetings, synergy, and group-organization are coveted more-so than allowing individuals to be individuals and work alone. Group oriented people tend to also be extroverted in nature, preferring to pool their social dynamics and intellectualism together in a cohesive way that they believe is more beneficial than working alone. While not all extroverts are happy-go-lucky people (because that would be a gross exaggeration on my part), many of them are because their work environments are parallel to their personal lives. Any attempts to provide criticisms or point out the negatives and the possibility of) their worlds tend to fall apart.
The more the world pushes individuals to be "part of the larger collective" in more ways than one, the more misanthropes and introverts shoulders bunch up to their heads.
Sidebar: As someone who apparently suffers from RBF (Resting B%&%# Face), I get tired of having to defend my resting face or contemplative face from people who think everyone should be walking around with a $10,000 smile. Just my 2cp.
Edit: I am going to end this here as I do not want to derail the thread any further out of respect for everyone else. Thanks for your response.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You need not outbreed to be dominant.
Romans were less than slaves, but they were the dominant.
Politicians are just the 1%, but they have the 99% under their thumb.
So it can be a setting were elves are the dominant race but not the most populous. They could be seen as guides and leaders, and all other races strive to be like them, or obey them without question because are convinced that their guidance will lead to a better world for them.
...but to boot Tolkien to the curb...Silence, evil one! :)
Tolkien is an amateur compared to Iain Banks world building. :P
So yeah, very happy to leave heavy-Tolkienism behind.
You need not outbreed to be dominant.
Romans were less than slaves, but they were the dominant.
Politicians are just the 1%, but they have the 99% under their thumb.
So it can be a setting were elves are the dominant race but not the most populous. They could be seen as guides and leaders, and all other races strive to be like them, or obey them without question because are convinced that their guidance will lead to a better world for them.
Yeah, setting up a great rebellion against the Elven overlords. Perhaps spurned on by humans taking the brunt of the casualties in the Elven war with the Drow.
Not our fight Elf!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Make sure the dial goes up to eleven.The instrument has not been invented that can measure the absurdity of that statement. :PWorking on it!No.
Twenty-one.
Archimedes used to say, in the Doric speech of Syracuse: “Give TOZ a thread to post and with a snarky comment he will move the whole world.”
The instrument has not been invented that can measure the absurdity of that statement. :P...but to boot Tolkien to the curb...Silence, evil one! :)Tolkien is an amateur compared to Iain Banks world building. :P
Well, it was a joke, but do you know how many worlds that guy got up to in his sci-fi novels?
It is higher than Middle-Earth.
Chap had serious fun with very different settings.
Yeah, indeed it is not. I just wish, some days, that fantasy would get more fantastical.
People will like what they like of course, and some cling to the standard. I wish Golarion was a bit better though, I see too much Forgotten realms in it (especially some of the faiths).
Still, of course, this is all my personal tastes. I certainly know people who much prefer a humanocentric setting, and even like the lack of definition humans tend to have in most settings because they prefer a totally blank slate to work with. To each their own, no?
Egg-Zachary. From start to finish, it's a tale of some characters.
All characters have histories. 1st level characters have very little. They're teenagers who just got their driver's licenses. At 20th, bards sing about their exploits (exploitation?) in taverns across the land.
It's more fantastical at higher levels. Play a character. The race is just detail. Some will care a lot about it and dwell on it, some won't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Read Guns, Germs, and Steel sometime, if you don't quite follow why any or all of these things follow, but they do.
Emphatically seconded! I seriously think that this documentary should be required school material. So interesting!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tolkien is an amateur compared to Iain Banks world building. :P
Not sure I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment, but Banks certainly is a brilliant world-builder and novelist! (I think his Culture is rather idealistic, even for a far-future utopia.) I'm just sad that I discovered him only a year before he died. :(
