| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed a lot of people talking about how they expect a thread to be swarmed by people bringing up the Stormwind Fallacy. For those that don't know, to my understanding, the Stormwind Fallacy is the idea that just because someone optimizes means they're going to roleplay poorly (or that their roleplaying is less "sincere").
Do so many people really believe optimizing runs counter to roleplay? Or is has the term just been misused to the point that people are sick of hearing it?
For the record, I lean in favor of the Fallacy. That is to say, I do believe that there is nothing wrong with building roleplay around stats rather than vice versa. I generally go between the two, depending. As long as you aren't making things boring for the other players, there's nothing wrong with it, surely.
While this thread is obviously going to start some arguments, I'm really just curious. Why must people mind their phraseology?
The Stormwind Fallacy is true, but very occasionally someone misuses it.
Situation A
(95% of the time)
Player optimizes their character. Player is also a good roleplayer.
"You can't be a good roleplayer, you optimized!"
Stormwind fallacy applies. They can do both.
Situation B
(the 5% that tends to get lost amidst cries of "Stormwind!")
Player refuses to optimize their character because their concept doesn't fit that. They claim optimization doesn't work in this instance. Their character is a rogue suffering from a nasty incurable wasting disease, so they gave them a CON low enough for a negative penalty. The argument is that they're not going to live long in a fight. They say "exactly, you'll need to protect them. This is my character concept, I can't take a higher CON."
"I call Stormwind!"
Stormwind fallacy does not apply. The player has purposely, for RP reasons, chosen a character that sucks at adventuring in some way. Other things certainly may apply, such as being a jerk for doing this in a group that specifically wants to play with a chance of success at killing things, but not Stormwind.
That is not Stormwind fallacy.
Stormwind fallacy suggests that role playing and optimization are two separate entities that exist mutually exclusively, and that one does not affect the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The original meaning of the term, from the very first posting:
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say the issue occurs when people quote the corollary alone, when it's the generalizations that are the important parts.
The Generalizations always hold true. The Corollary doesn't, if the player specifically wishes for one at the cost of the other.
Sometimes an RP concept doesn't mesh with optimization, unless you sacrifice your RP wish for sucky stats that accurately represent your concept in the name of optimization.
Most of the time, Stormwind holds, and is used correctly.
Very occasionally, it doesn't due to someone mis-applying it.
Essentially, it comes down to this:
RP and Optimization. You can do both equally well. The ability to do one does not come at the cost of the other.
However, sometimes, a player specifically does not want to do both. Applying Stormwind to that player is a mistake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They say "exactly, you'll need to protect them. This is my character concept, I can't take a higher CON."
Of course, if the rogue's player takes this too far and insists on being protected while giving nothing back, this is still a problem. It's just got nothing to do with Stormwind. ;D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They say "exactly, you'll need to protect them. This is my character concept, I can't take a higher CON."Of course, if the rogue's player takes this too far and insists on being protected while giving nothing back, this is still a problem. It's just got nothing to do with Stormwind. ;D
I absolutely agree with that :)
I often run games specifically for "sucky characters" where I'll tone down encounters to suit the group's overall ability (or lack thereof), but in most games that's certainly going to be an unwelcome choice, and to be clear, in case anyone's thinking I'd advocate that decision in normal play, it's not something I'd ever do without consulting the group first about the nature of the game to make sure it would work.
Occasionally though, someone will throw "Stormwind" at me for a reason why what I'm trying to do is wrong, and I have to point out it's got nothing to do with it. I think, unfortunately, that a few people have latched onto the term and just throw it in whenever RP and optimization are mentioned together in the same sentence without knowing what the Stormwind Fallacy actually is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I want to RP having a wasting disease, so I take 6 con!"
I'm sorry that's not RPing. RPing is role playing a sick character or one that is facing their death. It has nothing to do with having a low con. Low con is a mechanical thing.
Granted this may not be stormwind, but what would be a good fallacy for people who assume their poor mechanical decisions are somehow related to RPing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I want to RP having a wasting disease, so I take 6 con!"
I'm sorry that's not RPing. RPing is role playing a sick character or one that is facing their death. It has nothing to do with having a low con. Low con is a mechanical thing.
Granted this may not be stormwind, but what would be a good fallacy for people who assume their poor mechanical decisions are somehow related to RPing?
The actual mechanical decision may not be RP, but in that instance it would be led by RP considerations, as the player has decided that's the character they want to RP.
They're coughing and wheezing half the time, can't run very far, and will fall over if a strong breeze hits them - to me that's just screaming "low CON".| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fully disagree, Marthkus. Roleplaying facts like "he's frail" should be matched by mechanical facts like "he has a low Con".
To do otherwise is, in my opinion, simply lazy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fully disagree, Marthkus. Roleplaying facts like "he's frail" should be matched by mechanical facts like "he has a low Con".
To do otherwise is, in my opinion, simply lazy.
Not necessarily lazy but certainly pretty odd. I mean, that's sorta a thing that's begging for a mechanical backup. If he had, say, a speech impediment or something you could probably handle it without mechanics but 'he's frail and sickly' is pretty much THE description of low-Con. Why wouldn't that be a thing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They say "exactly, you'll need to protect them. This is my character concept, I can't take a higher CON."Of course, if the rogue's player takes this too far and insists on being protected while giving nothing back, this is still a problem. It's just got nothing to do with Stormwind. ;D
"Unfortunately for you it's in-character for my guy to slit your helpless throat, take your stuff, and dump you in a ditch. It's not like you can fight back after all."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I say "lazy" because it implies you just don't care enough to try to make what your character is match what you say he is.
"I want to make this barbarian a frail glass cannon sorta guy, but that's a real pain to build effectively. I'll just say he's frail, give him 18 Con, and go nuts!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I don't use my system mastery to ensure my character sheet represents the person in my mind as closely as possible, I'm disassociating my ability to optimize and my ability to RP, when I should be using them to complement one another.
If we take "system mastery" as meaning the same as "optimization", then Stormwind actually tells me I shouldn't do anything else other than use my system mastery ability to the fullest. The example player above may not be making the optimal adventurer, but they can certainly make the optimal sickly lockpicking expert ;)
Again, I think we're all agreed this is a crappy thing to do in the average Pathfinder group without checking the group is okay with it first, only that calling Stormwind on it isn't correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RP also includes character development. This include, among other things, choice of skills, feats etc.
The Stormwind Fallacy is true insofar as one (RP vs. Optimisation) does not necesarily prevent the other, but they can also conflict with each other. The only way around this is to allow optimisation to consider the chosen concept, and work with those basic premices.
So the character is sickly and has 6 CON; take that as initial concept and optimise that 6 CON character.
Still, optimisation usually involves planning ahead, sometimes several levels in advance. RP may take your character places you wouldn't have guess at character creation. Therfore for the Stormwind Fallacy to be true, optimisation must accept that charater can evolve in non-linear ways. Again, there's a way to optimise that, even if the charcter isn't overall optimal.
TL;DR: The Stormind Fallacy is true or false depending on your definition of optimisation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
TL;DR: The Stormind Fallacy is true or false depending on your definition of optimisation.
I think if we take Stormwind at it's spirit, that the ability to RP/Optimize doesn't affect your ability to do the other, then there's no issues with it. What Stormwind doesn't say at any point is that you must choose to do both, and I think that tends to be the (rare) occasions I've seen people misuse it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or is has the term just been misused to the point that people are sick of hearing it?
This.
I don't have a problem with what the Stormwind Fallacy says. In fact, I'm a big fan of the idea that you can optimize and roleplay well. I love the introduction of traits into the mechanics of Pathfinder specifically because it's a power booster that helps to create a backstory for your character. (It presents the unfortunate downside of many characters having similar background elements to obtain desired traits, but this is resolved by introducing traits with the same mechanics but different flavor.)
I don't have a problem with the Stormwind Fallacy itself, but I have a pretty big problem with the way it get used. First off, the name alone is a little pretentious. You could just as easily say "being good at optimization does not mean being bad at roleplay." Is it a little wordier? Yes. But it's also not going to have folks who are new googling a term just because they don't hang around the right message boards a lot. In watching how the term gets used, it sometimes seems like people are deliberately using more obscure language to make themselves seem more intelligent or refined than other posters. I'm not saying that this is the intention of the posters who reference Stormwind Fallacy, but that's how it can seem to neutral parties who are following the discussion. The word fallacy is a big part of it. I think the term would seem less pretentious if it were called "Stormwind's Maxim" or "Stormwind's Creed."
Much more concerning to me is when the term is used as an intellectual attack. I've seen far too many examples of people who bring up the Stormwind Fallacy like an auto-win button they've just pulled out their toolbox. "That sir, is an example of *sneer* the Stormwind Fallacy." *The audience gasps in horror before dispersing. This argument has clearly been won.* I'm sure these posters think they're scoring major points, but this sort of attitude mainly serves to discredit their own argument instead of the other side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think if we take Stormwind at it's spirit, that the ability to RP/Optimize doesn't affect your ability to do the other, then there's no issues with it.
That I can agree with
It's mostly the assesment that one has absolutely no impact on the other that I refute (unless you get a very felxible definition of either RP or optimisation)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or is has the term just been misused to the point that people are sick of hearing it?This.
I don't have a problem with what the Stormwind Fallacy says. In fact, I'm a big fan of the idea that you can optimize and roleplay well. I love the introduction of traits into the mechanics of Pathfinder specifically because it's a power booster that helps to create a backstory for your character. (It presents the unfortunate downside of many characters having similar background elements to obtain desired traits, but this is resolved by introducing traits with the same mechanics but different flavor.)
I don't have a problem with the Stormwind Fallacy itself, but I have a pretty big problem with the way it get used. First off, the name alone is a little pretentious. You could just as easily say "being good at optimization does not mean being bad at roleplay." Is it a little wordier? Yes. But it's also not going to have folks who are new googling a term just because they don't hang around the right message boards a lot. In watching how the term gets used, it sometimes seems like people are deliberately using more obscure language to make themselves seem more intelligent or refined than other posters. I'm not saying that this is the intention of the posters who reference Stormwind Fallacy, but that's how it can seem to neutral parties who are following the discussion. The word fallacy is a big part of it. I think the term would seem less pretentious if it were called "Stormwind's Maxim" or "Stormwind's Creed."
Much more concerning to me is when the term is used as an intellectual attack. I've seen far too many examples of people who bring up the Stormwind Fallacy like an auto-win button they've just pulled out their toolbox. "That sir, is an example of *sneer* the Stormwind Fallacy." *The audience gasps in horror before dispersing. This argument has clearly been won.* I'm sure these posters think they're scoring major points, but this sort of attitude mainly...
Not if their using right. Then its just a shorthand for a winning argument. (And I agree its used right about 95% percent of the time, sorry some people don't have time for people who are wrong.)
The idea that every adventurer needs 14+ Constitution is absurd.
Who mentioned the figure "14+"?
Nobody on this particular thread, but it's a sentiment I've heard expressed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had a lot of bad experiences with optimizers. Role playing usually wasn't part of the equation, but it often touched on it, especially with respect to what their characters were built around and dealing with failure-or at least lack of success - in those areas. There was also a lot of oneupsmanship and monster memorization(the dm is either incompetent or reskinning creatures to confound my vastly superior intellect, let's exasperatedly get on the train) along with blurring of the lines with respect to what a character should know and what their players know. Biggest problem with optimizers was when it came to eyes staying on their own sheet and vocal opinions on whether or not their character wanted to work with someone who wasn't optimized for their "job" as it were. That last is where the biggest problems with Internet-level autism and lack of social skills for the player more so than the character came in.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've had a lot of bad experiences with optimizers. Role playing usually wasn't part of the equation, but it often touched on it, especially with respect to what their characters were built around and dealing with failure-or at least lack of success - in those areas. There was also a lot of oneupsmanship and monster memorization(the dm is either incompetent or reskinning creatures to confound my vastly superior intellect, let's exasperatedly get on the train) along with blurring of the lines with respect to what a character should know and what their players know. Biggest problem with optimizers was when it came to eyes staying on their own sheet and vocal opinions on whether or not their character wanted to work with someone who wasn't optimized for their "job" as it were. That last is where the biggest problems with Internet-level autism and lack of social skills for the player more so than the character came in.
I don't think those were bad experiences with optimizers, just bad experiences with jerks who also happened to (or in some cases just claimed to) optimize :)
Who mentioned the figure "14+"?
Every class guide ever made says to get 14+ at character creation, maybe 12 if you're an Elf Wizard or something.
They're not wrong to say so.
Yes, but there's no guide for archers. :p
(Really hoping someone writes one just to spite me. There's an arcane archer guide, but no full-martial archer guide. It would be awesome if we had one.)
No, really, i see it a LOT
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but there's no guide for archers. :p
(Really hoping someone writes one just to spite me. There's an arcane archer guide, but no full-martial archer guide. It would be awesome if we had one.)
I'll write a real simple one right now:
STR = DEX > CON = WIS > INT >> CHA
Go Human, you need feats.
One rank in Perception, every level. Not only is it the most important and most often rolled skill in nearly any game, but the further off you detect the enemy, the sooner you can start shooting. It would be bad if they surprise you and get in melee before you get a single shot away.
Fighters can stay vanilla, go Archer, or consider Mobile Fighter if you want to be able to move and full attack unmounted.
Paladins should go Oath of Vengeance. Free Precise Shot is enticing, but Divine Hunter sucks otherwise.
Rangers, ask your DM about the Sable Company Marine archetype.
Mandatory Feats:
Precise Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Point Blank Shot (if you can't skip it via Ranger)
Essential Feats:
Rapid Shot, Many Shot, Deadly Aim, Point Blank Master (consider taking Power Attack for situations where you just can't shoot, then retrain it once you have Point Blank Master. Or keep it, if you're a Paladin.)
Nice Feats To Have:
Weapon Focus/Snap Shot/Improved Snap Shot/Combat Reflexes, Clustered Shots, Improved Critical (if you can't get Bracers of Falcon's Aim).
Mounted archery is nice, but only really feasible on the Ranger and Cavalier. If you're a Ranger, get Boon Companion.
Equipment:
Composite Longbow is the only choice. Yes they can be shot from horseback. Crossbows cost more feats and will still have inferior damage forever. Yes that means Crossbow Fighter archetype and Ranger Crossbow Style are traps.
There is no reason for Shortbows to exist.
Get Seeking and Adaptive on your bow, anything else is gravy.
Get blunted, Cold Iron, and Alchemical Silver Arrows to overcome DR. Remember, blunt arrows don't actually have any damage penalty and do not have to be used to inflict nonlethal damage. And if you need to bring someone down without killing him, you will have that ability.
Bracers of Falcon's Aim are such good value that they're banned from PFS. If you're not in PFS, get them. 4k monies (2k if the party Wizard crafts them) gets you Improved Critical with your bow. +3 to Perception and +1 to ranged attack rolls are the icing on the cake.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a problem with the Stormwind Fallacy itself, but I have a pretty big problem with the way it get used. First off, the name alone is a little pretentious. You could just as easily say "being good at optimization does not mean being bad at roleplay." Is it a little wordier? Yes. But it's also not going to have folks who are new googling a term just because they don't hang around the right message boards a lot. In watching how the term gets used, it sometimes seems like people are deliberately using more obscure language to make themselves seem more intelligent or refined than other posters. I'm not saying that this is the intention of the posters who reference Stormwind Fallacy, but that's how it can seem to neutral parties who are following the discussion. The word fallacy is a big part of it. I think the term would seem less pretentious if it were called "Stormwind's Maxim" or "Stormwind's Creed."
I am not sure if you aware of the background, but if not, I'll try to describe the history of the term. On the WotC boards back in the day, poster Stormwind got tired of people saying that if you optimized you were a bad roleplayer and good roleplayers all were un-optimizers or some such. He actually called it the "Stormwind Fallacy" as a bit of a joke, which he had said later that he wished he didn't do because folks think he was being egotistical. In fact, as Stormwing pointed out, the "Stormwind Fallacy" is just a very specific version of the "False Dilemma Fallacy".
Claim: A player can either roleplay a character well OR optimize a character well.
The counterpoint to which is, any time you're thinking about optimizing, you're not thinking about role-playing. So to make an optimized character who is also an interesting personality takes more time and effort than doing just one alone.
Of course, most role-playing and character development happens after character creation (when you spend the most time optimizing), so it's not impossible to make a character while focused entirely on optimization and then develop a personality during play.
(I am currently playing a game where we make characters by rolling 3d6 in order for each stat. It is very hard to optimize. Anyone think this will improve the quality of role-play?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The counterpoint to which is, any time you're thinking about optimizing, you're not thinking about role-playing. So to make an optimized character who is also an interesting personality takes more time and effort than doing just one alone.
Of course, most role-playing and character development happens after character creation (when you spend the most time optimizing), so it's not impossible to make a character while focused entirely on optimization and then develop a personality during play.
(I am currently playing a game where we make characters by rolling 3d6 in order for each stat. It is very hard to optimize. Anyone think this will improve the quality of role-play?)
It might make the players more careful, and encourage them to look for solutions that don't require a d20 roll. That might improve role-play.
On the other hand, they may spend more time thinking about how to compensate for their low ability scores.
On the whole, I don't find what you described to be a problem. Good crunch is easy, if you know the system reasonably well. Good fluff is much more difficult to write.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two primary places where you can get the "thrill of accomplishment" fun with an RPG.
1) Window shopping for combinatorial super powers.
2) Improvising a crazy out of the box solution to a problem in game.
Option 1 doesn't require social skills. It just requires a near-autistic ability to focus on something obsessively. Because it doesn't require social skills, many of the people who do it are utterly lacking in them...and see nothing wrong with showing up at a game with a character/pet/eidolon that so completely outshines the rest of the party that they make the combats a yawnfest.
Option 2 requires that players pay attention during a game. It requires social skills. It also requires that other players don't sabotage you because, dammit, you've talked to this stupid sack of walking XPs for fifteen whole minutes, and they want to Be Awesome again, and that requires a brief one-round fight.
So, while it's not impossible to optimize and roleplay - and I know and play with people who do both - there is a significant fraction of people who optimize and think that roleplaying is that boring talky-talky crap that happens before "I roll initiative."
What Freehold DM posted up there is pretty common in my experience. "Winning Pathfinder" becomes a competition, and characters that render scenarios moot are common.
lots of good stuff
I wish I could favorite your posts ten times over.
I'd add that there's a more common faulty application of the fallacy though; when discussing a game system rather than individual players. I see that much more commonly than the flawed use on a player.
Our group only recently started even looking towards optimization, and only a few of us do. Most of us try to RP, but for some they're just not comfortable with it. As a GM, I try to help with both, but not to intrude past their comfort-zone. As a player, my characters are usually both, concept first, mechanics then fluff, as much as allowed. Some GM's are so new to optimization (usually the rules too, sadly) that optimized characters are viewed as a potential problem rather than a boon. I think the fallacy is true, people who are familiar with both the rules and RP usually do both very well, most aren't great with one or the other however.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Optimization isn't dogma, it's plain mathematics. You can play a Barbarian with 10 Strength, just don't be surprised when he proves ineffective. If he's more of a charismatic Shaman type, why not make him a Bard? If you're in it solely for the roleplay, why are you using such a rules-heavy system?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think some of the problem comes out and why Stormwind may exist is that in some instances, the ONLY people that one has met that are optimizers in real life...don't rp...and are jerks.
obviously, this doesn't mean optimizers or even all optimizers would be jerks...but if that's the experience one has during play, there is a chance that this is why there's a perception carried over onto other areas where optimization vs. roleplaying may be discussed.
Obviously, the other end could be happening, where the roleplayers are the jerks, but normally we don't hear about that, we hear from the optimizers that they just don't want to play with someone who is not also an optimizer (do these guys even realize what they are saying?).
Which is an uneven balance between how the two types perceive each other.
Not that either is representative of the other or of the stereotype, but with the arguments we've seen over these, it appears that the things people experience from these types of players are transferred automatically onto those on the boards whether the people on the board are like that type of player or not.
AKA as an example...the optimizer I played with was a jerk, therefore that idea is transferred to all optimizers on the board irregardless of what they really are like. They could be the best guys in the world...but due to the preconceptions developed by this guy or guys I've had a transference of opinion regarding them framed onto your board namesake.
Vs.
I optimize and I seem to be the only one in the group that actually does anything in my group. If it weren't for me, they all would die. I hate playing with these guys who simply refuse to hold their own weight in the party. I use this opinion of these people in my group as a transference of thought onto others who are on this board.
Just as some examples of how these thoughts get transferred over?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know personally I NEED to have both to make a fun character. If I can't get the mechanics to work the way I want them, I'll toss out a solid character concept that goes with those. Because you're STUCK with the mechanics. You have to play that, for what is probably a significant period of time. Better make damn sure they're ones you like and will have fun with.
Likewise, though, I'll conform my mechanics to character to a certain extent. Though I just can't bring myself to use an option that would genuinely kinda suck without something to make up for it at a later date.
I was going to insert an example here from a character I just made (for Kobold Cleaver's game, actually) but I just realized I can make that work. Forgot that Shield Master removes TWFing penalties on the shield bash, so I could quite easily use a Klar because it's cool and still be pretty good later.
So once again I may have my cake and eat it due to the power of melding the two things into a cohesive whole, as they should be. =)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no reason for your "creative repertoire" to include deliberately poor decisions, relative to the CR system, or the rest of the party, or what have you. It doesn't make you a better roleplayer, it's just being contrary for its own sake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ineffective and effective is all relative. A challenge is a challenge whether its a +500000 melee vs a 500000 ac or its a 0 melee vs a 10 ac. The fault lies in DMs not adjusting their encounters to fit players and forcing them to have to go into these mechanical boxes to survive.
In order for the strength 10 Barbarian to be viable character the player must first persuade all the other players to be equally suboptimal - otherwise his character will be relatively worthless to the party and the GM will be unable to adjust encounters to fit both styles of play at once. Then the GM has the chore of going through the adventure path he's running and make every encounter easier to avoid constant TPKs.
(Of course, much the same can be true for very highly optimized characters...)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the most often problem I see with GM's and encounter design is a lack of getting or even not knowing the rules. You can still challenge optimized characters, it just takes an understanding of the ruleset. Calling fluff or RP to challenge them is just bull crap. I also think that the perception of a player who is good within the ruleset is skewed, it doesn't make them bad RPers, hell knowing the rules is a huge time investment. In my encounters with players who optimize, they're the RP backbone of the group, staying in character, coming up with real solutions, not just ones that appeal to the GM's sense of what's "creative enough" benchmark. Maybe its just my group, but the ones I have trouble with in RP are the same one the aren't up on the rules. The ones that make bad feat selections do so because they don't understand, not flavor.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, how many ways can you hash out a story of why your orc barbarian has an 18 str and 5 charisma?
I don't think many optimizers are likely to repeatedly play the same character class, race and stats.
But here are some barbarians with high strength and low charisma:
Julbo is an orc, kicked out of his village as a child for being too meek. He was raised by a pair of kindly halflings who taught him to be incredibly polite so that people will realize he's not like other orcs. He's very shy, and reluctant to ask anyone to do anything they might not want to do. In battle, his suppressed rage takes over, and he becomes a whirlwind of death.
Hellgha was a nice middle-class girl who saw her family murdered in front of her. She escaped, physically unharmed, and learned to survive alone in the wilderness. She calls herself Princess Hellgha of the Deathskull clan, a tribe she entirely invented. She deliberately scars herself to make herself less attractive. She is obnoxious to everyone because she doesn't want to form any close bonds, to lessen the pain when her companions die.
Simoon is a human, treated as a village idiot for most of his life until his incredible strength became apparent. He's a simpleton who always blurts out whatever is in his mind without concern for the consequences.