| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Wolfhound75 |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 22:46:14
To the best of my memory, 0E contained a few core races: Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, and Human.
1E & 2E added the Gnome, two half-species in the Half-Elf, & Half-Orc, and we were introduced to the first sub-species, the drow elf.
And all of this was just the beginning.
It seems that designers are, over time, creating a plethora of sub-races. As a scribe this is interesting given D&D's long term penchant that as a PC race, Human's greatest strength is their adaptability. Given the sudden explosion in the number of sub-species, it appears to this scribe as if the designers are trying to remake the initial balance struck by the core races. Every race except Humans, the one noted for their adaptability, has adapted and evolved. What is even more curious is that each sub-species has particular racial bonuses and traits that are vastly different from the original PC race; as if the designers are trying to create a way for every race to be successful in every possible class or environment.
For example, instead of the race Elf, we now have Grey Elves, Moon Elves, Sun Elves, Wild Elves, Wood Elves, Drow Elves, Dark Elves, Painted Elves, and now Eladrin, to say nothing of the Half- varieties or the ones listed in additional sourcebooks such as Aquatic, Desert, Jungle or what-have-you. Dwarves are also members of the sub-species train with Shield, Gold, Arctic, Desert, Jungle, Tundra, Glacier, Deep, Duregar/Grey, and curiously even an elemental type, Earth Dwarf. And what the heck is a Dream Dwarf? Gnomes also step up their game with the normal adventuring types, Svirfneblin, Whisper Gnomes, and environmental types like Desert, Jungle, or Forest. Don't leave our small friends the Halfling off the sub-species bandwagon either – Strongheart, Lightfoot, Tallfellow, Desert, Water, Jungle, and the list goes on. Even the half-species have gotten into the act with Half-Orcs & Half-Elves sporting various branches related to environments like Water/Aquatic, Jungle, or Desert and elements like Earth or Fire. And speaking of half-species, if precedent holds true we will soon see Half-Dwarf, Half-Halfling, Half-Gnome and I can only wait with bated breath to see what happens when someone discovers the first Gnome-Dwarf or Elven-Halfling.
Curiously though, the only common PC race that seems to not have undergone some sort of niche evolution is the standard Human*. Every other race is now a member of what appears to this scribe as the takeover of racial power gamers – also known as ’The Sub-Species for Every Possible Niche that could be Exploited by a Race Arch-Type' group.
Has anyone else noticed this? If so, what are my fellow scribe’s thoughts?
Good Hunting!
* Humans have shown one instance of evolution in the advent of the Shadar-Kai – a necessary change due to prolonged contact with the Plane of Shadow and subsequently the Shadowfell. However, as a PC Race, Humans have not shown the penchant of other PC races to evolve into specialized niches.
EDIT: Forgot to add Shadar-Kai endnote. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 28 Feb 2012 : 19:56:10
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Wolfhound75
@Everyone:
Let me rephrase the question I was asking though because my own internal science geek may have muddied the waters with the choice of paraphrasing Darwin's title. Why don't Humans have have multiple versions with differing stat modifications like the other common PC races? We've gone far enough to say this character is a 'Calishite Human', an 'Illuskan Human' or a 'Tethyrian Human' as far as description of them. This strikes me as similar to 'High Elf', 'Wild Elf', 'Moon Elf' or whatever. So why do the various, if you'll forgive the use of the word because I couldn't think of a better one, "ethnicities" of elves, dwarves, etc. get different stat modifications but Humans do not?
This is one of those things that I just can't stop making me go "Hmmmmm...... I wonder....?"
Good Hunting!
-If you modify the ability scores of different ethnicities- Chultan Humans are genetically stronger (+ to STR) than Shou Humans, but stupider (- to INT), or vice versa, whatever- you are going to run into the same problems vis-a-vis percieved racism. If you have modified skills/feats- Calashite Humans who generally grow up in the desert wastes are more skilled in trekking the deserts (+ to Survival skill) than Illuskan Humans who are more acclimated to colder climes- that is something that I am a semi-proponent of. You'd run into problems if, statistically, all Humans from X have a plus to whatever skill if the character in question comes from Y. I am more in favor of regional-type bonuses to skills/feats/whatever, rather than pure racial/ethnic bonuses. That allows you to have a Human who was raised by Dwarves (Cattie-Brie, for example) be knowledgeable as if they were a Dwarf, and so on. [bold added]
This is the same logic I use for all standard PC races. It actually allows for greater flexibility, and therefore variation, when designing subraces, because subrace variations are all skill/feat based. Ability score adjustments are variations from the human norm, and are only used for non-human races, apart from on an individual basis for human PCs according to the Pathfinder core rules. I also use slightly different ability score adjustments for other core PC races; elves gain +2 to Dex, Int, and either Wis or Cha (player choice; the player can also elect to add this bonus to one of Dex or Int, for a +4 total bonus, but must determine which one randomly), and dwarves gain +2 to Con and Wis, and an additional +2 to one or the other (player choice). Gnomes gain +2 to Dex, Con, and either Wis or Cha, and halflings gain +2 to Dex, Cha, and either Con or Wis. At the DM's option, I suppose the variable stat bonuses could be tied to one or another subrace, but I don't think it makes much difference; the variations are easily explained as a chromosomal thing (at the risk of being too scientific for a fantasy RPG). Because these races gain bonuses to up to three stats, humans gain bonuses to two: one of their choice, and one determined randomly (roll 1d6). A human with the "Lucky" trait (see PFRPG APG) can roll this twice and take the preferred roll, but cannot apply both bonuses to the same ability score; reroll any result that indicates such.
Edit: "half" races (such as half-elves) gain half of the bonuses of each parent; a half-elf would gain a +2 bonus and a +1 bonus, or three +1 bonuses, assigned as described for an elf, plus a single +2 bonus from her human parent, which is always assigned as desired (the human trait of individualism is dominant, since this is fantasy, after all...). 
-From a "we want as much detail as possible" perspective, something like that would be optimal. From a game designing perspective, that'd probably be hell. There's a lot of different ethnicities/regions in Faerûn, let alone in Kara-Tur, Maztica, Zakhara, Osse, and so on. Listing all of those, or even just a selection of the most common PC-used ones would be a task, and then figuring out how to make each ethnicity/region unique, without making certain ones overpowered and other ones underpowered... |
| Jakk |
Posted - 26 Feb 2012 : 01:16:28
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Wolfhound75
@Everyone:
Let me rephrase the question I was asking though because my own internal science geek may have muddied the waters with the choice of paraphrasing Darwin's title. Why don't Humans have have multiple versions with differing stat modifications like the other common PC races? We've gone far enough to say this character is a 'Calishite Human', an 'Illuskan Human' or a 'Tethyrian Human' as far as description of them. This strikes me as similar to 'High Elf', 'Wild Elf', 'Moon Elf' or whatever. So why do the various, if you'll forgive the use of the word because I couldn't think of a better one, "ethnicities" of elves, dwarves, etc. get different stat modifications but Humans do not?
This is one of those things that I just can't stop making me go "Hmmmmm...... I wonder....?"
Good Hunting!
-If you modify the ability scores of different ethnicities- Chultan Humans are genetically stronger (+ to STR) than Shou Humans, but stupider (- to INT), or vice versa, whatever- you are going to run into the same problems vis-a-vis percieved racism. If you have modified skills/feats- Calashite Humans who generally grow up in the desert wastes are more skilled in trekking the deserts (+ to Survival skill) than Illuskan Humans who are more acclimated to colder climes- that is something that I am a semi-proponent of. You'd run into problems if, statistically, all Humans from X have a plus to whatever skill if the character in question comes from Y. I am more in favor of regional-type bonuses to skills/feats/whatever, rather than pure racial/ethnic bonuses. That allows you to have a Human who was raised by Dwarves (Cattie-Brie, for example) be knowledgeable as if they were a Dwarf, and so on. [bold added]
This is the same logic I use for all standard PC races. It actually allows for greater flexibility, and therefore variation, when designing subraces, because subrace variations are all skill/feat based. Ability score adjustments are variations from the human norm, and are only used for non-human races, apart from on an individual basis for human PCs according to the Pathfinder core rules. I also use slightly different ability score adjustments for other core PC races; elves gain +2 to Dex, Int, and either Wis or Cha (player choice; the player can also elect to add this bonus to one of Dex or Int, for a +4 total bonus, but must determine which one randomly), and dwarves gain +2 to Con and Wis, and an additional +2 to one or the other (player choice). Gnomes gain +2 to Dex, Con, and either Wis or Cha, and halflings gain +2 to Dex, Cha, and either Con or Wis. At the DM's option, I suppose the variable stat bonuses could be tied to one or another subrace, but I don't think it makes much difference; the variations are easily explained as a chromosomal thing (at the risk of being too scientific for a fantasy RPG). Because these races gain bonuses to up to three stats, humans gain bonuses to two: one of their choice, and one determined randomly (roll 1d6). A human with the "Lucky" trait (see PFRPG APG) can roll this twice and take the preferred roll, but cannot apply both bonuses to the same ability score; reroll any result that indicates such.
Edit: "half" races (such as half-elves) gain half of the bonuses of each parent; a half-elf would gain a +2 bonus and a +1 bonus, or three +1 bonuses, assigned as described for an elf, plus a single +2 bonus from her human parent, which is always assigned as desired (the human trait of individualism is dominant, since this is fantasy, after all...).
To return to the OP's question, I would say that it's simply a result of humanity's adaptability; there simply hasn't been the need for a great amount of evolutionary adaptation, because humans are so creative and psychologically adaptive. That's my 2 coppers, anyway. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 25 Feb 2012 : 21:17:30
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
@Erik - that was LordKarsus' argument (although I completely agree with it). Despite popular belief, we are NOT the same person (I think he may even be a Yankee fan!)
-A Yankee fan? Ouch, low blow man. Come on- no need to do that to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Wolfhound75
@Everyone:
Let me rephrase the question I was asking though because my own internal science geek may have muddied the waters with the choice of paraphrasing Darwin's title. Why don't Humans have have multiple versions with differing stat modifications like the other common PC races? We've gone far enough to say this character is a 'Calishite Human', an 'Illuskan Human' or a 'Tethyrian Human' as far as description of them. This strikes me as similar to 'High Elf', 'Wild Elf', 'Moon Elf' or whatever. So why do the various, if you'll forgive the use of the word because I couldn't think of a better one, "ethnicities" of elves, dwarves, etc. get different stat modifications but Humans do not?
This is one of those things that I just can't stop making me go "Hmmmmm...... I wonder....?"
Good Hunting!
-If you modify the ability scores of different ethnicities- Chultan Humans are genetically stronger (+ to STR) than Shou Humans, but stupider (- to INT), or vice versa, whatever- you are going to run into the same problems vis-a-vis percieved racism. If you have modified skills/feats- Calashite Humans who generally grow up in the desert wastes are more skilled in trekking the deserts (+ to Survival skill) than Illuskan Humans who are more acclimated to colder climes- that is something that I am a semi-proponent of. You'd run into problems if, statistically, all Humans from X have a plus to whatever skill if the character in question comes from Y. I am more in favor of regional-type bonuses to skills/feats/whatever, rather than pure racial/ethnic bonuses. That allows you to have a Human who was raised by Dwarves (Cattie-Brie, for example) be knowledgeable as if they were a Dwarf, and so on. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 25 Feb 2012 : 05:57:19
He couldn't stand the sunlight because of his disease. It was not mentioned whether his brothers and sisters had the same malady. Hence, such vulnerability most likely does not apply to his race, but to him alone. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 25 Feb 2012 : 05:18:32
I forgot about him! Good call.
I got the idea Bruce was trying to link him to the human Creator race, by making him a proto-gith.
This line of reasoning may help Icelander with his current project; IIRC, the Sojournor couldn't stand sunlight - could it be the gith were the humans during the Cold Night? |
| Dennis |
Posted - 25 Feb 2012 : 03:06:12
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Githyanki:
No one had any thoughts about relating them to the Imaskari? I personally don't like it (not a big fan of time-travel explanations... even though I've used them), but if someone could spin something good I'd be glad to hear it.
While the Imaskari are unrivaled in their mastery of the art of planes-travel, I don't find it necessary to link to them any race that can planeswalk. Besides, Vosthym, who was a member of the Gith race, was born long before the Empire of Imaskar was established. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Feb 2012 : 00:12:13
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Demihuman races, on the other hand, are often phsyically specialized for their environment. So other environs require other specializations -- hence, subraces.
There's the divine factor as well. Specific branches of a race that have been touched/altered by a deity to the point where they've literally become a new sub-race. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Feb 2012 : 00:10:40
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
He's so sorry, he had to apologize twice! 
I'm sorry as well - I actually thought I was in the 'Sorecerer Supreme' movie thread. 
And I love Samual L. Jackson, but I haven't been following Marvel for awhile, and that was bit of a shock for me. When I was a kid I read Sgt.Fury and his Howling Commandos (because I'm THAT OLD), and now I can't figure-out how the hell they can reconcile all of that (although they probably don't even try).
Actually, that was perfect casting... When Marvel was doing the Ultimates titles (I don't know if those are still going or not), ...
The Ultimate books are still running. In fact, they've just gone through their first restart.
quote:
Nick Fury's appearance was changed -- he was specifically based on Samuel L Jackson. In one of the comics, there was discussion of a potential movie, and someone asked Fury who would play him -- and his response was "Samuel L Jackson, of course."
And, not surprisingly, some of the imagery used in the latest Ultimates book, has both Iron Man and Thor looking suspiciously like their film counterparts as well.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 25 Feb 2012 : 00:07:10
AGREED, although they actually gave us an 'out' if we wanted one.
Note that in the official 3e/OGL rules, all racial differences had to be at least '2'. I had thought that odd, until I looked at what other settings/companies had done (like Iron Kingdoms) - the single-point racial differences was left for (human) sub-races.
So if you want those differences, take a setting like IK (I think 7th Sea had them as well) and use that as a basis for what you do. Single-digit stat mods for in-race ethnic variances, and 2-point differences for actual different races.
Regardless, I still wouldn't use them in my games, and especially not for PCs. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 23:44:02
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
LOL! I'll vote for that!
On-topic, I think it's the very versatility- as some have said- that humans have that causes the lack of sub-races. Simply put, they don't have them because they don't NEED them. I don't know many of us who actually use a point-buy system. (aside from whoever mentioned it as a stat-building example of humans vs other races) My own games always use a 4d6 system, omitting the lowest die and granting one free 18 in any score of the player's choice. No reason to change human stats there- they already have an advantage over the others right out of the gate, since they don't have to lower any scores based on a negative modifier.
As I mentioned earlier, I think a simple system of regional traits is more than sufficient for differentiating humans from different regions/ethnicities. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 23:42:58
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
As for Drizzy, I think the simple solution is staring us all right in the face- they are "true" black sknined, with WHITE hair- something NO human in RL resembles, even superficially. Even Halle Barry had to die her hair white (wear a wig?) just to play Storm in X-Men, and no one questioned it, because everyone knew that it was not a "normal" trait. As for albino drow, no, that would not work, as there are none mentioned in any of RAS's novels. NONE. If any of the drow who had wanted him dead had been albino (Szar'kai) it would have been mentioned, as it is a MAJOR descriptive point.
If people are willing to see ethnic stereotypes in the various aliens in The Phantom Menace, then such a superficial difference will be entirely unimportant. It would likely even be spun to be more negative. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 23:33:51
LOL! I'll vote for that!
On-topic, I think it's the very versatility- as some have said- that humans have that causes the lack of sub-races. Simply put, they don't have them because they don't NEED them. I don't know many of us who actually use a point-buy system. (aside from whoever mentioned it as a stat-building example of humans vs other races) My own games always use a 4d6 system, omitting the lowest die and granting one free 18 in any score of the player's choice. No reason to change human stats there- they already have an advantage over the others right out of the gate, since they don't have to lower any scores based on a negative modifier.
|
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 23:23:12
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Apologies for my part in derailing the topic. 
The topic is human subspecies in the Realms and the lack thereof. Defining what a 'subspecies' or 'subrace' is, ought to be on topic.
[/quote]Oh quite. I meant turning the discussion into the ever-discussed, never-realized FR movie.
And on that note, Joss Whedon to direct! [runs]
Spam + 1.
Cheers |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 22:58:54
quote:
Originally posted by Eladrinstar
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Githyanki - a human offshoot - lay eggs, and Dragonborn don't? Methinks someone needs to lay off the 'pipeweed'.
-I think they all have boobs, so it's all good.
You can definitely lay eggs and be a mammal, but you certainly can't have breasts and not be a mammal. I don't know what they were thinking when they gave breasts to dragonborn.
Actually, the reason for that dates back to the original half-dragons, I believe, back in 2nd ed when they were first introduced in the Council of Wyrms setting rules. The reason being, basically, that half-dragons can only be created by a MALE dragon and female humanoid. Female dragons, for obvious physiological reasons, can't give birth to a half-dragon. (They LAY EGGS. This is not compatible with the physiological requirements of a half-humanoid offspring!) When 3.5 ed brought in the Dragonborn in Races of the Dragon as an alternate type, they were simply "reborn" from whatever humanoid race they had been before, but with draconic traits. 4th ed, apparently decided to add to the confusion by dropping the original race name and combining the origins of both. So there you have it- the reason for "dracoboobies"!
@ MT- Wooly is correct in his reasoning of Jackson playing Nick Fury- it's an alternate universe (the "Ultimates" universe of Marvel) where pretty much EVERYONE is different than the "mainline" 616 MU. Even Colossus is vastly different- he's gay, for one thing. Gwen Stacy was the "bad girl" of Peter Parker's high school, rather than the nice, sweet, "perfect" girl of the 616. You get the point. And yes, they did design him to look like Jackson on purpose. The movies have been following more closely to the Ultimates universe pretty much from the start. Thus, we have Jackson playing Fury.
As for Drizzy, I think the simple solution is staring us all right in the face- they are "true" black sknined, with WHITE hair- something NO human in RL resembles, even superficially. Even Halle Barry had to die her hair white (wear a wig?) just to play Storm in X-Men, and no one questioned it, because everyone knew that it was not a "normal" trait. As for albino drow, no, that would not work, as there are none mentioned in any of RAS's novels. NONE. If any of the drow who had wanted him dead had been albino (Szar'kai) it would have been mentioned, as it is a MAJOR descriptive point. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 20:43:01
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Apologies for my part in derailing the topic.
Cheers
The topic is human subspecies in the Realms and the lack thereof. Defining what a 'subspecies' or 'subrace' is, ought to be on topic.
In so far as the proposed explanation for the lack of such mechanics in D&D is 'it would appear racist', I think that discussions of what might cause such perceptions, how it might be avoided and even if it should be avoided, are all on topic.
Personally, I dislike the very mechanic in D&D that would make this a relevant issue rules-wise. That is, I don't think that the abilities of an average member of a given society, culture or genetically-related population of a given species ought to have any bearing on the mechanics of creating a character.
Players ought to have an artistic interest in cooperating with the DM in presenting the world that they play in authentically and interestingly. That means that individuals ought to arise organically from the world that they inhibit and if they diverge very much from the norm that might be expected, this should be for a good reason and not relating it to the ongoing story that emerges between GM and players is not good 'writing', much in the same way that establishing Chekov's Gun with much fanfare and then forgetting about it is not good writing.* One very common point of divergance for all RPG characters is being quicker to pick up new things, more courageous and more adventurous than the norm,
Thus, players (and the DM, in presenting the rest of the world), ought to aim to reflect the background of characters, whether that is cultural or ethnic. On the other hand, abilities for characters ought to be the result of player choice, not linked to what are essentially cultural groups, some with minor physical variations from the other groups of the species.**
The DM and players can then decide between them whether they wish to play normal members of certain races, allow any combination of magic or divine favour as starting characters or something in between. In general, a method that works well is making players expend some finite resources on buying abilities for their characters, with cost being based on utility. Being very small and so strong that it surprises others is more useful than being large and strong, usually. Hence, it should cost more.
Other than possibly a small surcharge for the most extreme of magical gifts to account for surprise value to those in the world used to a certain state of affairs, abilities should cost the same regardless of how common or uncommon they are within the culture or species that a character comes from. For example, a very small race widely known to be very strong ought not pay more for Str, because opponents already know to expect it.
Providing a perverse incentive to choose a type of character not because something about the background of such characteres appeals to the artistic sensibilities of the joint creators, i.e. player and DM, but because this kind provides a mechanical advantage for a given tactical role within a small unit of miniatures, is not a good design for a roleplaying game. It has a place within tactical wargames and skirmish-level games, but these are different games and demand different engines to run them.
In short, therefore, I believe that while D&D races might be presented in the system has having certain average ability scores, skills and other abilities, conforming or not to his average ought to be a decision made by the players and DM. Any exceptional ability could be possessed by a character, provided that the justification fit the world and passed a test of the collective aesthetic sensibilities of the 'artists-audience'*** (and their SoD test, as well), regardless of the character's origin.
Having it would simply consume one or more discretionary units players had access to during character creation. Thus, being a typical 'elf', 'dwarf' or even one of their many subspecies would simply consume a fixed amount of these units, accounting for buying all their special abilities. Being atypical or being from some other species and still being capable of fitting the same tactical role with the same facility, would cost the same number of units, unless this atypicality was of such extent that it could be said to provide some benefit over and above the abilities themselves, in which case a small surcharge would be in order.
Thus, I don't see the creation of yet more new races and subraces as any kind of answer. If you must make it more appealing to play humans for those who have to have a single ability score of 20, simply allow humans to reduce one (or more, if not all ability scores are equally useful) score by -2 and receive a +2 to another, at the player's option.
*Deliberately subverting tropes and thus audience expectations can be a clever trick and has obvious artistic value. As with all cool 'breaking the rules of art' tricks, though, it is primarily good when used by experts who already know the rules. People who start their careers of artistic creation with the idea that learning to use a given medium to express themselves constitutes shackling their creativity with useless rules rarely manage to communicate whatever brilliant ideas that they might have to others, at least not in a manner that others enjoy.
**Saying that 'halflings are mostly of Str 4-8, rarely reach Str 10 and without magic or supernatural help will not be found with above Str 12' [or insert any other fact about species in a setting that is supposed to be true there] is fine. Saying 'being a halfing reduces your Str by X' is not.
***Roleplaying is almost unique as an art form in that the intended audience and the creators are the same people, allowing for precise calibration for their tastes. If the result has little appeal outside the group, who cares? They're not watching them play. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 20:38:20
quote:
Originally posted by Wolfhound75
Let me rephrase the question I was asking though because my own internal science geek may have muddied the waters with the choice of paraphrasing Darwin's title. Why don't Humans have have multiple versions with differing stat modifications like the other common PC races? We've gone far enough to say this character is a 'Calishite Human', an 'Illuskan Human' or a 'Tethyrian Human' as far as description of them. This strikes me as similar to 'High Elf', 'Wild Elf', 'Moon Elf' or whatever. So why do the various, if you'll forgive the use of the word because I couldn't think of a better one, "ethnicities" of elves, dwarves, etc. get different stat modifications but Humans do not?
I think part of it is that in fantasy, humans are always the most adaptable race, and can make their home in nearly any environ. Most of the differences would be cultural, more than anything else. So there's no need for subraces or different mechanics.
Demihuman races, on the other hand, are often phsyically specialized for their environment. So other environs require other specializations -- hence, subraces. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 20:34:44
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
He's so sorry, he had to apologize twice!
I'm sorry as well - I actually thought I was in the 'Sorecerer Supreme' movie thread.
And I love Samual L. Jackson, but I haven't been following Marvel for awhile, and that was bit of a shock for me. When I was a kid I read Sgt.Fury and his Howling Commandos (because I'm THAT OLD), and now I can't figure-out how the hell they can reconcile all of that (although they probably don't even try).
Actually, that was perfect casting... When Marvel was doing the Ultimates titles (I don't know if those are still going or not), Nick Fury's appearance was changed -- he was specifically based on Samuel L Jackson. In one of the comics, there was discussion of a potential movie, and someone asked Fury who would play him -- and his response was "Samuel L Jackson, of course."
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
We know Drow are not 'black people', but what matters is perception. False perceptions got us the 4e Realms, and false perceptions have started wars RW - we need to foresee them, and defuse them before they become an actual issue.
Of course, picking someone else for an FR movie sidesteps the issue quite neatly. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 19:52:10
He's so sorry, he had to apologize twice!
I'm sorry as well - I actually thought I was in the 'Sorecerer Supreme' movie thread.
And I love Samual L. Jackson, but I haven't been following Marvel for awhile, and that was bit of a shock for me. When I was a kid I read Sgt.Fury and his Howling Commandos (because I'm THAT OLD), and now I can't figure-out how the hell they can reconcile all of that (although they probably don't even try).
We know Drow are not 'black people', but what matters is perception. False perceptions got us the 4e Realms, and false perceptions have started wars RW - we need to foresee them, and defuse them before they become an actual issue.
A group of angry albinos doesn't really bother me - Al Sharpton marching (once again) through Manhattan and telling folks to boycott the movie is NOT something I want to see.
And nothing against Al - I've been on his side too, a couple of times. |
| Wolfhound75 |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 19:46:16
@Drizzt movie:
Another possible idea is showing the fall of the drow in the opening scenes then sort of a compressed timeline with voiceover to tell the story their fall. How they were driven below the surface, cursed by the gods, adapted to their new environment by changing their color to blend with their new underdark home. Then show Drizzt being born, using the voiceover to setup the distinction between him and the rest of the drow -- how he feels alienated, departs, and returns to the surface.
That would show them as initially 'white' and may help overcome the ingrained emotional thinking that ESdB noted as well as minimize the connection between 'black' and 'evil'.
@Icelander:
Interesting commentary and I agree on a lot of it science-wise.
@Everyone:
Let me rephrase the question I was asking though because my own internal science geek may have muddied the waters with the choice of paraphrasing Darwin's title. Why don't Humans have have multiple versions with differing stat modifications like the other common PC races? We've gone far enough to say this character is a 'Calishite Human', an 'Illuskan Human' or a 'Tethyrian Human' as far as description of them. This strikes me as similar to 'High Elf', 'Wild Elf', 'Moon Elf' or whatever. So why do the various, if you'll forgive the use of the word because I couldn't think of a better one, "ethnicities" of elves, dwarves, etc. get different stat modifications but Humans do not?
This is one of those things that I just can't stop making me go "Hmmmmm...... I wonder....?"
Good Hunting! |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 19:34:03
Apologies for my part in derailing the topic.
Cheers |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 19:33:29
@Icelander: Your purist/philosophic views are refreshing.
@Drizzt movie: I rather think that the skin color of the person portraying a character is far less important than the actual acting, but then, I come from a background of studying Shakespeare, which is often done with color-blind sorts of casting.
I think the Realms could do with a little color-blindness of its own. The vast majority of the NPCs we know and love are (for the most part) obviously white people (metaphorically speaking--their literal skin-color not withstanding).
And I think Rosario Dawson would be a great Cattie-brie.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Hell, I'm still trying to recover from a black Nick Fury. 
But dude, it's Samuel L. Jackson.
Cheers |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 19:13:39
I was actually thinking of Wilmer Valderrama, because I also considered his Calishite heritage (plus he's short, which makes it a bit easier to 'shrink' him on film).
Then I realized he's hispanic, and we'd be casting him as a thief. 
D&D already has a bad history in this regard - they cast Marlon Waynes as a thief in the first D&D movie (and that was in VERY bad taste).
Icelander - the movie has to appeal to the broadest common denominator, and the issues I bring up (and solutions I suggest) are precisely what the movie execs will be doing. Do you think I would want Cattie-Brie cast as a Mulatto or light-skinned black? Thats not the canon Cattie we know at all. However, that would diffuse several issues at once.
I'd actually prefer a less well-known cast for such a movie. Although I think Will Smith would make an excellent Drizzt, his fame would work against us (everyone would be waiting for him to crack jokes). There are so many more variables involved in such a project then just what a bunch of fans want. Compromises must be made.
Hell, I'm still trying to recover from a black Nick Fury. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 19:08:04
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
@Wooly - my point was to show some nasty 'albino drow' being all creepy and evil, about to sacrifice a young (black) Drizzt to the 'Spider Demon' (we have to keep things generic for a blockbuster movie). He escapes the 'evil whities' and goes on to become a great hero.
Who can be offended by that? As far as we know, the very drow that did want to kill Drizzt may have been albinos (because they DO exist in FR). Just because Matron baenre ordered it (did I remeber that correctly), doesn't mean the minions who went to perform the deed weren't albinos.
The only people who could possibly find fault with that scenario is RL albinos... and they've been portrayed villainous for years (The DaVinci Code, etc) - I guess they got a really bad PR person. 
When the movie version of The Da Vinci Code came out, there was a public outcry from a pro-albino group that complained about the albino monk. They complained that it was perpetuating the stereotype that albino people were evil -- a stereotype that I only learned of due to their complaint!
The fact that the movie was just sticking to the book somehow didn't get mentioned, in that one.  |
| Icelander |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 19:07:41
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
You make very interesting points. I suspect my philosophic reasoning about the responsibility of the artist to consider his/her audience would be ineffectual against your logic armor.
Cheers
You suspect rightly.
The logical conclusion arising from that premise would hold that in a society riven by factionalism and dominated by a spiteful elite full of bile toward other groups, it would become not only practical, but moral, for an artist to put aside his own convictions and pander to the prejudices of the majority of his audience by savagely attacking all disenfranchised groups in his art.
I hold that as a matter of definition, an artist who legitimately hold such views might well incorporate them in his art, and as a matter of integrity of criticism, one ought to be able to evaluate the aesthetic value of his art independent of one's opinions on his personal convictions. When the artist is not expressing his own views in art, but instead attempts to cater to the belief-system of his audience, whether he does for for financial motives or desire for popularity, his work cannot be art, but becomes, at most, a well-done example of the crafts of advertising or propaganda.
In practice, however, the original intentions of artists may be transcended by the impressions works leave on their audience, perhaps seperated from the artist by millenia. In this case, the original work of art and the interpretative faculties of the audience combine to create new works of art. This can even transform things that were created by craftsmen as commercial or political works, with a new audience imbuing them with art by the act of consuming them.
Because the highest echelon of craftmanship demand something of artistic sensibilities and the lowest rungs of artistry demand a strong command of the craft used to create, I do not hold this to be an internal contradiction or even very surprising. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 18:39:05
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The only people who could possibly find fault with that scenario is RL albinos... and they've been portrayed villainous for years (The DaVinci Code, etc) - I guess they got a really bad PR person.
You've replaced something that is not offensive to anyone, because it features a magical race of elves not resembling in any way any real world group, with something that explicitly uses the sufferers from a real-world medical condition as the villains of the piece, using the rationale that this particular real-world group already suffers from negative public depictions and are powerless to do anything about it.
As always, viewing things through 'racial' or other artificial lenses resulting from our parochial, tribal, us-vs-them roots simply results in unintentional harm and no benefit to anyone.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Cast Halle Berry (or someone like her) as Cattie-Brie, and its all good. Keep the audience guessing.
Halle is probably too old now - maybe Rosario Dawson (Men in Black II)?
Both Halle Berry and Rosario Dawson could easily be Chondathan and Tethyrian in the Realms (as well as a number of other ethnic groups there).
Either they or any number of less well-known actresses would work. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 18:27:56
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@Drizzt movie: Here's a non-sequitor idea--why not cast an actual black person as one of the other major characters? Any of them would do (though probably Wulfgar the least, as the duality of coloration is important to his relationship to Drizzt). This provides a realistic, positive image of a "black person" in the world, which allows the audience to see the drow not as representatives of "blackness" but rather as alien creatures that happen to be black. I would be stoked about a dark-skinned Bruenor or Cattie-Brie, actually.
Except as relates to Realms-canon*, I would be fine with this.
That is, a dark-skinned Bruenor would require explanation for how a Gold Dwarf came to inherit the throne of an ancient Shield Dwarf kingdom within the last generation or two.
Catti-Brie is an orphan and having her be the orphan of a Turami trader would be less likely than some other origins, but not beyond the bounds of plausibility. A Chultan origin for her is even less plausible, but possible.
In principle, I don't see anything against making some of the Calishite characters dark-skinned. Unfortunately for your purposes, the most visible one of them is not all that un-drow-like, in Artemis Entreri, but he is, for all that, a very popular character. There are also 'neutral' or positive Calishites, though. For example, Regis might easily be dark-skinned.
Of course, there is no reason for why the Harpells, for example, could not have a 'familial' tradition of seeking wives far away. They might favour powerful mages, making Halruua, Turmish and Tashluta all viable, all of which have significant minorities or even majority of dark-skinned inhabitants. This could mean that any of the Harpells would be well-portrayed by a modern 'mixed-race' individual, i.e. pretty much any person called 'black' in English speaking areas.
If there is any knightly warrior whose origins are not specific, I would like Idris Elba to play him as a Turami. Anywhere from the Old Empires through Vilhon Reach have plenty of them, with them being possible on the Dragon Coast and in the eastern parts of Tethyr. Of course, individuals move around a lot in the Realms, so a warrior from Silverymoon might have a parent from Turmish (perhaps a mage who emigrated due to admriration of the city and its ruler?).
*I don't like deviations from the canon in a shared world (or a private one, for that matter). Establishing new things is fine, invalidating the old is bad. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 18:25:57
@Wooly - my point was to show some nasty 'albino drow' being all creepy and evil, about to sacrifice a young (black) Drizzt to the 'Spider Demon' (we have to keep things generic for a blockbuster movie). He escapes the 'evil whities' and goes on to become a great hero.
Who can be offended by that? As far as we know, the very drow that did want to kill Drizzt may have been albinos (because they DO exist in FR). Just because Matron baenre ordered it (did I remeber that correctly), doesn't mean the minions who went to perform the deed weren't albinos.
The only people who could possibly find fault with that scenario is RL albinos... and they've been portrayed villainous for years (The DaVinci Code, etc) - I guess they got a really bad PR person.
And showing him as a child running away from 'creepy witches' is so much cooler (on film) then the canon version wherein he is older (it also makes it more miraculous he survived). We got to 'take it up a notch' if we want FR to go mainstream (which I am sure most of us want).
@Erik - no worries - LK is a very intelligent guy; I don't mind the accidental comparison at all (plus he made an excellent point, as usual). I just wanted to make sure credit was given where credit was due.
Cast Halle Berry (or someone like her) as Cattie-Brie, and its all good. Keep the audience guessing.
Halle is probably too old now - maybe Rosario Dawson (Men in Black II)?
Maybe not how we pictured her, but things always get changed for the big screen, and she has to be 'neutral' to diffuse the race card.
She'd look weird with red hair... |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 18:21:59
You make very interesting points. I suspect my philosophic reasoning about the responsibility of the artist to consider his/her audience would be ineffectual against your logic armor.
Cheers |
| Icelander |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 18:08:34
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@Icelander: You seem remarkably literal/philosophical/scientific in your thinking here. Speaking from experience, you can debate logical analysis to death, but it won't overcome people's ingrained emotional thinking about race, gender, etc--at least, not without appealing to their emotions on the topic.
Regrettably true.
On the other hand, how does that make certain artistic depictions 'offensive'? The cause of the offence does not lie in the depiction itself, it lies in the beliefs of those viewing it. Beliefs, which, as I explained earlier, are directly contradicted by facts.
From an ethical point of view, people's personal beliefs are their own business, but like the right to swing their fist, that stops where the other fellow's nose begins. Believe what you like, but beliefs alone are not sufficient justification for imposing them on others or forcing others to conform to codes of behaviour founded in irrational beliefs*.
Genuine differences of opinion lie in starting from differrent priorities or premises and therefore reaching a different final conclusion, even with the same evidence. If an opinion is not subject to evidence or not logically derived from its premises, it can be a religious belief, aesthetic judgment, prejudice or delusion**. None of these can legitimately** be offered as the basis for any harm to others, not even a minor limitation on their freedom of thought or speech.
The powers of the state and even the social pressures of community, are fundamentally mechanisms of coercion, of violence and intimidation in the broadest sense possible. Any attempt to influence laws or politics, invoking the power of the state, is therefore an unambigious act of force. Any conscious attempt to do the same for a community is also potentially an act of coercion, particularly when opposing viewpoints are systematically stigmatised and proponents of a given belief call for acts of retaliation against those who hold them or fail to live up to the desired conduct.
If I wish to live in accordance with ethical principles, I cannot allow the personal beliefs of people to offend me**** to the point of trying to stigmatise them. If I did, I would be guilty of immoral behaviour. On the other hand, I must inevitably be offended whenever someone's personal beliefs are advanced as justification for actions that affect others, in defiance of evidence and logic.
A work of art can be aesthetically unpleasant. It is even possible for it to reflect unethical views of its creator and therefore be immoral*****. It is, however, very difficult to see how a work that does not even contain any of the 'races' that inhabit Earth could ever be 'racist' or how its narrative could be 'offensive' to actual ethnic groups. Surely, the people who create a new artistic work out of the original with their interpretation are the ones supplying the offence and the racism?
Corporations, as impersonal representations of the interests of their owners, are not subject to morality. They must obey the law and it is the duty of the wielders of governmental power, in most of our cases, the people, to see that the law reflects ethical duties sufficiently so that corporations do not harm people.
I therefore understand why corporations would bow to societal prejudice and I do not demand anything different from them. However, it offends me deeply when individual human beings allow their prejudice to blind them sufficiently to engage in the sort of irrational harmful behaviour exemplified by the stigmatisation of largely imaginary and elusive groups living among them and the consequent condemnation of anything supposedly connected with them. In cases where the imaginary threat actually corresponds to something real, if largely different from the fevered fantasy, the episodes become particularly saddening, and infuriating.
In nearly all cases, the most vigorous hunters for signs of 'heresy' are not themselves victims of this purported social evil. The crusaders against witches, poisoning cults, Satanists, secret child-abuse rings or any of the various groups that are held to control the modern media and slip their insidious message into it are not their victims, it is those who blame all their ills on them who are leading the charge.
And while there are really people who have all sorts of odd notions about skin colour or other stupid things, the fact is that they are neither as insidious nor as influential as those who find their secret messages everywhere would like to believe. And people who have actually been their victims are generally not the same people who find evidence of hatred against specific social groups in art which lacks all of these social groups or even anything close to them. They know what the real thing looks like and it isn't arranging your DVD covers according to colour.******
Pandering to these people is not polite or enlightened. It is encouraging harmful delusions and strenghtening the case of those who wish to make their delusions the basis of mandatory codes of behaviour.
*As opposed to the legitimate purpose of laws and the source of the only ethical ones, preventing people from harming one another.
**The difference between any kind of belief not founded in fact and an actual delusion being one of degree, lying in whether or not it interferes with normal functioning. A belief about the afterlife or the creation of the world is rarely delusional, it is just an unfalsifiable belief (which is not a negative thing, there exist areas of hypothetical knowledge outside the boundaries within which beliefs are falsifiable or provable). A belief that a supernatural force within the neighbours dog directly speaks to you and tells you to kill people is, however, a delusion. Determining the exact dividing line is problematic, but fortunately an important matter for psychiatrists primarily, as the distinction is not important when it comes to whether such beliefs are valid justifications for harming others.
***That is, within any ethical system that is both self-consistent and attempts to conform to reality, as epitomised by evidence.
****Though it is natural and healthy for me to prioritise spending my time with those with whom I feel rapport.
*****In which case I nevertheless maintain that to censor it would be greater harm than to allow it to stand and thereby allow informed discussion and criticism of the irrational views set forth in it.
******Yes, someone from a society without significant discrimination for the past thousand years actually told me very confidently that this was 'racist'. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 17:16:12
@MT: My apologies. I misread the post, I suppose. Full credit to LK for that one!
@Icelander: You seem remarkably literal/philosophical/scientific in your thinking here. Speaking from experience, you can debate logical analysis to death, but it won't overcome people's ingrained emotional thinking about race, gender, etc--at least, not without appealing to their emotions on the topic.
@Drizzt movie: Here's a non-sequitor idea--why not cast an actual black person as one of the other major characters? Any of them would do (though probably Wulfgar the least, as the duality of coloration is important to his relationship to Drizzt). This provides a realistic, positive image of a "black person" in the world, which allows the audience to see the drow not as representatives of "blackness" but rather as alien creatures that happen to be black. I would be stoked about a dark-skinned Bruenor or Cattie-Brie, actually.
Just a random thought. Eh?
Cheers
|
|
|
