| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wolfhound75
Learned Scribe
USA
217 Posts |
 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 scribes 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.
|
"Firepower - if it's not working, you're not using enough." ~ Military Proverb
"If at first you do succeed, you must've rolled a natural 20!" |
Edited by - Wolfhound75 on 21 Feb 2012 22:49:46
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 22:58:11
|
I think you're overlooking the fact that the Shadar-Kai is far from being the only race to 'evolve' from humans.
A lot of the exotic races, elemental, planar, dragonic or what-have-yous were once human or are the offspring of human and something else.
And who is to say that halflings and humans aren't subraces of each other?
In the real world, humans had subraces, fairly recently. However, the real world doesn't operate by the rules of niche protection and exotic chic, so the other members of the homo sapiens family went the way of the dodo. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
 |
|
|
Wolfhound75
Learned Scribe
USA
217 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 23:01:49
|
Not really looking at races that evolved from Humans but the sudden proliferation of humanoid sub-races of the parent race. Felt obliged to add the half-species because of their common use as PC core races.
Good Hunting! |
"Firepower - if it's not working, you're not using enough." ~ Military Proverb
"If at first you do succeed, you must've rolled a natural 20!" |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2012 : 00:06:18
|
-You're not going to find Human subraces anywhere, because think of how racist that could look. Especially considering that, for the most part, the biggest difference between subraces within a species are their D&D stats. Would you want to go through the headache of having to deal with, if you were a published designer, explaining why the [Asian analogue] Humans have a +2 to their Intelligence but -2 to Charisma, or why the [African analogue] Humans have a +2 to their Strength but a -2 to Wisdom, and so on?
-Also, Humans don't have an overarching creation story, like most races that are broken down into subraces do, and are extremely more varied in culture than most other races that are broken down into subraces. A lot of what subraces to with Demihumans is just as easily explained with Humans in the context that "that is how their society evolved." With a great deal of Demihuman subraces, that probably can also be used to explain why their society doesn't match the general racial norm, but seemingly, they often resort to simply branching into subraces, with stat/skill alterations, and so on. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 22 Feb 2012 00:08:39 |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2012 : 00:26:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-You're not going to find Human subraces anywhere, because think of how racist that could look.
Ahem, that's not what human subspecies means.
In any event, 'African' and 'Asian' are invalid as subraces because the odds are that two African people are going to be less related than some Africans and Asians, not to mention Asians and all people not from Africa.
Human subraces would be Homo sapiens [x], like the Neanderthals and Denisovans, both of whom coexisted with anatomically modern humans for a good while and interbred with them to some extent.
And these would, indeed, have very different baseline ability scores, with the average Neanderthal being massively stronger than an average AMH, especially in the upper body, but on the other hand would have a less efficient gait, meaning that running and jumping would be more energy intensive for them. Skull capacity would come out higher for the Neanderthal, but whether the different shape of the brain would translate into different cognition is an open question. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
Edited by - Icelander on 22 Feb 2012 00:27:00 |
|
|
|
Eladrinstar
Learned Scribe
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2012 : 02:32:37
|
Edit: Discount my first paragraph, I was talking about something from another thread.
As for the second conversation about human subraces, Neanderthals do indeed have different stats in 3e D&D. |
Edited by - Eladrinstar on 22 Feb 2012 02:35:01 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2012 : 04:25:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-You're not going to find Human subraces anywhere, because think of how racist that could look.
Ahem, that's not what human subspecies means.
-It doesn't matter what something might intend if it comes off in a way that people take in a different manner. Does it matter that the ESPN writer who penned the headline "Chink in the Armor" regarding the Knicks loss a few days ago because of flaws in the way the team is constructed and the kinds of players that are on the team didn't necessarily do it with the racial undertones that other people saw in it, and were angry about? You're likely not going to find in D&D Human subraces for this reason like you do with Elven subraces, Dwarven subraces, and so on. If someone writes that an Elf born, raised, and bred from Elves living in the desert is physically and mentally superior/inferior to an Elf born, raised, and bred from Elves living in the jungle, or an Elf born, raised, and bred from Elves living in the tundra, it makes fodder for "What's your favorite/most powerful/weakest race and why" discussions on RPG boards and groups. If someone writes that a Human born, raised, and living in the desert is physically and mentally superior/inferior to a Human born, raised, and bred from Humans living in the jungle, or a Human born, raised, and bred from Humans living in the tundra, the controversy that would be generated when groups take offense to 'Desert Humans', or 'Jungle Humans', 'Tundra Humans', or any of the other examples the OP brought up certainly make it prudent to not even touch with a ten foot stick. D&D as it is already has a bad track record when it comes to how people generally see it- sexism (chainmail bikinis), satanism (whatever that whole craze was in the 1980s), and other things that other people/groups accuse it of.
-When there has cause for including something, such as the aforementioned Neanderthal (detailed in the Frostburn book), they've been presented as their own distinct creature, or in some cases, templates that can be added on to individuals/groups. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 22 Feb 2012 04:28:11 |
|
|
|
Wolfhound75
Learned Scribe
USA
217 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2012 : 04:44:35
|
I think the biggest point I was trying to make is that, IMO, original PC races each had a niche they were sort of geared toward while I got the impression humans were more of the jack-of-all but master-of-none.
For example, elves were racially more dexterous than humans but also more frail in their modifications to base stat scores, hence they, again IMO and stereotyping a bit, made great archers but were not as optimized for melee combat as other races. Dwarves on the other hand got a racial bonus to constitution helping to make them more stout as a melee fighter but suffered in public perception reflected in their charisma modification. Now however, with all the different possible sub-species to choose from, you can almost take any demi-human race and make it just as optimal as any other race filling that same class.
So it strikes me as odd that Humans, whose vaunted racial ability has always been their ability to adapt, have never seen this type of PC Racial manipulation / super adaptation. Furthermore, if you make every race have one or more sub-species that are capable of performing job-x just as effectively as any other race, what then is the purpose in having different races? Who cares if you call it an X-Dwarf or an X-Elf if in the end there is really no particular difference because of the sub-species racial stat modifications. Game stat and effect wise a +2 constitution and a -2 charisma bonus act the same no matter whether you call that sub-species a dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling, orc, human, or whatever other species catches your fancy name wise.
The caveat to this is there is a difference in how a player might roll play the character. I tend to play a dwarf character far differently than a gnome who is again different than an elf. But then, IMO there is a reason you see certain races gravitating toward certain classes. It's because as a race in general they have a propensity for producing members of that class because as a race their game mechanic, read stats, makes them predisposed and/or optimal choices for those classes.
This predisposition is even reflected in the PC races' descriptions in the PHB in the form of Favored Class. Clearly this mechanic's presence is an indicator that certain PC races as presented do in fact have a propensity toward excellence in a particular class.
Thoughts?
Good Hunting! |
"Firepower - if it's not working, you're not using enough." ~ Military Proverb
"If at first you do succeed, you must've rolled a natural 20!" |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2012 : 05:27:11
|
There are dozens of human off-shoots.
You are over-looking the obvious; humans do not have sub-species because of their super-adaptability. The don't do 'sub' - they do 'completely new race'.
How many psionic ones do we have? Besides the Gith (all branches), you also have those two with the 'stretchy looking' limbs (can't be bothered looking either up - I know one is in one of the psionics handbook). There are dozens more - even Grimlocks are distant (devolved) humans.
And what about the Shades? Vampires, lycanthropes, etc, etc...
And all those 'halfs' you mentioned - and there are half dwarves (Muls & T'darig) and half-giants, etc - why are you giving the demi-humans credit for them? Those are also HUMAN sub-species. We also have Yuan-ti crossbreeds we can roll into that category (and Ophidinas, etc).
Humans don't get credit for 'halfs' because usually within just a few generations, new mutations evolve into brand new species. Thats Human adaptability at its finest. Take a human, thrust it into a hostile environment, and in a very short time you will have something new (and Kurt Vonnegut's Galapagos just jumped to mind). Look at the Asherti from Sandstorm and the Aventi from Stormwrack - just two of many, MANY examples.
Wouldn't a half-halfling be a quarterling? 
And I can't wait for the half-dragonborn.
The half-genasi and half-tiefling would just be a bit redundant.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 22 Feb 2012 15:15:43 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2012 : 06:13:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
There are dozens of human off-shoots.
You are over-looking the obvious; humans do not have sub-species because of their super-adaptability. The don't do 'sub' - they do 'completely new race'.
How many psionic ones do we have? Besides the Gith (all brranches), you also have those two with the 'stretchy looking' limbs (can't be bothered looking either up - I know one is in one of the psionics handbook). There are dozens more - even Grimlocks are distant (devolved) humans.
And what about the Shades? Vampires, lycanthropes, etc, etc...
And all those 'halfs' you mentioned - and there are half dwarves (Muls & T'darig) and half-giants, etc - why are you giving the demi-humans credit for them? Those are also HUMAN sub-species. We also have Yuan-ti crossbreeds we can roll into that category (and Ophidinas, etc).
Wouldn't a half-halfling be a quarterling?
And I can't wait for the half-dragonborn.
The half-genasi and half-tiefling would just be a bit redundant.
Heh... this reminds me of a post I made elsewhere recently... its inspiration came from a Zogonia comic, which I don't have immediately to hand, but it goes something like this: the human character says "Hey, elf, you look like a girl!" to which the elf responds, "to a human, everything must look like a girl... half-elves, half-dwarves, half-orcs, half-ogres..." and another character chimes in with "half-giants, half-trolls..." a third with "centaurs, satyrs..." and a fourth with... my personal favourite... "treants..." by which time the human is huddled in a corner crying to himself. 
Edit: Oh, and a half-halfling would be a three-quarterling, because they're half again as big as a halfling... not because they're always triplets. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
Edited by - Jakk on 22 Feb 2012 06:15:44 |
|
|
|
Wolfhound75
Learned Scribe
USA
217 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2012 : 13:00:09
|
@MT
Completely New Race =/= sub-species of Human. An X-Elf, for example is still depicted in a form that we all recognize as an elf and is still called an X-Elf. Same with an X-Dwarf or whichever other PC race you choose to use as a comparison. Regarding your Half- statement, they might be able to be considered a sub-species of human but since they are Half-breeds, they're technically not really a member of either race as indicated in books about Half-Orcs being called Half-Humans by Orc communities and Half-Orcs by Human communities. Admittedly, they are the closest comparison of what we have to what I'm getting at but using a visual impression, a half-orc doesn't look like an orc and it doesn't look like a human. It's something in between. Same with a Half-Elf. Take color out of the drawing and you might be sorely pressed to identify the Gold Elf, Grey Elf, Wood Elf or what-have-you if they weren't dressed in garments that tip off the distinction between those sub-species.
Ultimately, you don't see Arctic Human, Desert Human, Jungle Human, High Human, Grey Human, A-Human, B-Human, ..., Z-Human, etc. with varying racial modifiers for each one. Why? If Humans are supposed to be the most adaptive of the races, why haven't they shown the same propensity to niche-adapt as other races? Using the same rough framework as other PC races adaptations, a Jungle Human should gain a bonus to strength but take an intelligence or wisdom penalty while an Arctic Human might get a constitution bonus and a charisma penalty. But you don't see that like you do with the other races. You see humans and their standard ability base score of 8 in a point-buy system. Every other race starts with 8s then modifies them using their racial modifiers for all the various sub-species of that race. Humans however, don't. Apparently, a Desert Human is the same as a Jungle Human who is the same as an Arctic Human but, an Arctic Elf is so significantly different than a Jungle or Desert Elf that they had to change the racial ability adjustments to reflect this. It makes me wonder, why?
Regarding your statements about Gith and other lines, no one looking at Gith would say, "Oh, that's a Human." By that logic, if it walks upright and has a humanoid shape then it must be part of a sub-species of Human. Giantkin, Lizardmen and any other number of species inhabiting Toril are going to take exception to that. Going on to your statement about vampires, shades, lycanthropes, etc. Every PC Race is capable of having members 'become' one of these so it's not really a sub-species of a particular race. For example, a human bitten by an X-Elf does not become an X-Elf in so many days. Human or X-Elf bitten by a vampire could both become a vampire though, and so could any other PC race. The same goes for Lycanthropes. You could have a halfling werewolf just as easily as a human werewolf.
Away from the serious discussion and jumping on the band wagon of halfling halfbreeds, would a combinatiion of a Half-Elf and Halfling result in a Half-Halfling or a Half-Elfling?
Good Hunting!
EDIT: Add the Halfling commentary. |
"Firepower - if it's not working, you're not using enough." ~ Military Proverb
"If at first you do succeed, you must've rolled a natural 20!" |
Edited by - Wolfhound75 on 22 Feb 2012 13:04:17 |
|
|
|
Marc
Senior Scribe
657 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2012 : 15:20:56
|
| Because humans are not magical creatures, all these others descend from the fey more or less |
. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2012 : 15:54:43
|
I thought a halfling/Elf was a tallfellow, and a halfling/dwarf was a stout?
Not a true '1/2' situation - more like a bloodline. I recall reading that somewhere, a LONG time ago (1st edition?)
And although many of the 'new races' created by human mutation look decidely different then humans, many look just like humans, except for a couple of minor differences. I cite the case of the two from the environmental books again, as well as most of the psionic ones (not the Githyanki, but the Githzerai certainly look human).
And an avariel looks more like a normal elf then an Elan (Expanded Psionics Handbook) or Buomman (Planar Handbook) looks like a normal human?
An Eladrin looks like a Gruagach or Drow?
I think you are over-exaggerating the differences between human groups (many look nearly completely human), while under-emphasizing the differences between non-human sub-races. Humans are just like any other race in D&D - their are hundreds of offshoots on thousands of worlds - its just the nature of the rules themselves to treat human groups as entirely different races (when they are not... in many cases).
And if you want an example of how D&D also does this to other groups - take a look at the 'goblinoids' and 'fey'. Those two groups derive from common racial stock (not with each other... maybe), and yet they are just as diversified as the Human group. In fact, any of the Creator races should have the same plethora of sub-groups humans have (which now makes me wonder why goblinoids are not a Creator race... which makes an even stronger case for them being a fey {unseelie} variant.)
EDIT: Giants and Dragons would also be similar to the Human/Creator groups in their racial diversity, except they are usually lumped together, like the demi-humans, despite the vast differences in appearance and abilities (I wonder why?) |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 23 Feb 2012 01:07:44 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 00:40:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
How many psionic ones do we have? Besides the Gith (all branches)...
-Not anymore, apparently. In my first reply, I was thinking about the Gith, but Wikipedia didn't implicitly state that they were once Human, and alluded that they might have been something else (while I see to distinctly remember they were Humans who were 'modified' by Illithid). |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 01:24:16
|
VERY interesting.
So the name 'Githyanki' actually doesn't belong to WotC at all. Hmmmmmm...
LOL - Githyanki were never one of my favorites, so reading the Wiki is both informative and pretty amusing.
Githyanki - a human offshoot - lay eggs, and Dragonborn don't? Methinks someone needs to lay off the 'pipeweed'. 
EDIT: And they live in the outer planes (so they are Planeswalkers), and worshiping gods is taboo. Has anyone else noticed this sounds like the Imaskari? We know they had portals that went through time as well as space.... |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 23 Feb 2012 01:29:21 |
|
|
|
Eladrinstar
Learned Scribe
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 01:31:56
|
Have we ever settled on a description of what the Imaskari people actually looked like? In my games I've got them looking like a mix between Central Asian Turkic peoples and the various groups of the Caucasus, like Armenians and Georgians.
(On an unrelated note, it amuses me that the Imaskari and the Timelords of Doctor Who share a fondness for structures that are "bigger on the inside.") |
Edited by - Eladrinstar on 23 Feb 2012 01:33:35 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 01:35:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
VERY interesting.
So the name 'Githyanki' actually doesn't belong to WotC at all. Hmmmmmm...
-It says, "The githyanki is considered a 'Product Identity' by Wizards of the Coast and as such is not released under its Open Gaming License", so I believe they do.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
EDIT: And they live in the outer planes (so they are Planeswalkers), and worshiping gods is taboo. Has anyone else noticed this sounds like the Imaskari? We know they had portals that went through time as well as space....
-The fictional history provided gives specific names and planets and such, so, at most, the hypothesis is weak since links wouldn't be able to be conclusively established. But, since much of it is "It is believed" or "It is theorized" history, so... |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 23 Feb 2012 01:37:43 |
|
|
|
Eladrinstar
Learned Scribe
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 01:56:10
|
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. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 02:57:11
|
NO - 'Githyanki' is a race in a novel by George R. R. Martin - Dying of the Light - and the juxtaposition of the Githyanki/Ilithid are based on the Larry Niven novel World of Ptavvs (which is odd, because I read both of those authors, but have never read either of those, and I'm a big Larry Niven fan).
So I - and anyone else - can use the term 'githyanki', since TSR plagiarized it themselves. If anything, George Martin can go after anyone using the name, because he used it first. Them claiming ownership is like how George Lucas tried to claim ownership of just about everything in Science-Fiction (some of you weren't around when he was suing everybody and anybody back in the late 70's and early 80's).
Not saying you can use their version verbatim, but ideas can't be copyrighted - only the specific words, and the only one using someone else's 'specific word' is TSR (now WotC). So my Githyanki can be blue, and have a bad habit of picking their noses... thats all it would take.
Not that I am going to use them... never cared for them anyhow. Just sayin'....
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.
"Dracoboobies"
And now to don my "devil's advocate" hat: Just because something does not exist (at this time) here on Earth, does not preclude the fact that the possibility of its existence can itself exist. When I was a kid, I was taught - in school (including college) - that certain things couldn't possibly exist... and yet, science has since proven the possibility (like non-carbon based life).
What we 'know' today, is not the sum of all knowledge. In an infinite universe, our own experiences amount to almost nothing. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 23 Feb 2012 17:51:22 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 03:44:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
NO - 'Githyanki' is a race in a novel by George R. R. Martin - Dying of the Light - and the juxtaposition of the Githyanki/Ilithid are based on the Larry Niven novel World of Ptavvs (which is odd, because I read both of those authors, but have never read either of those, and I'm a big Larry Niven fan).
-You'd think, with the money involved, he would have done something. I mean, there are how many Githyanki/Githzeri-specific sourcebooks and adventures out there?
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And now to don my "devil's advocate" hat: Just because something does not exist (at this time) here on Earth, does not preclude the fact that the possibility of its existence can itself exist. When I was a kid, I was taught - in school (including college) that certain things couldn't possibly exist... and yet, science has since proven the possibility (like non-carbon based life).
What we 'know' today, is not the sum of all knowledge. In an infinite universe, our own experiences amount to almost nothing.
-It's simple logic, really: In a universe that is thought of to be of infinite size, there is an infinite chance that anything is possible, somewhere. What'd make things interesting would be if some of these things were discovered and observed. To make things tangentially back on topic, however infinitesimally small, there is a X% chance that another planet out there in the universe evolved exactly as Earth did, up until Homo Sapiens overtook Neanderthals as the primary and dominant species. It'd be interesting to be able to observe such a place, to see what might have happened here. Reminiscent of Planet of the Apes. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 23 Feb 2012 03:45:22 |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 05:35:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eladrinstar
Have we ever settled on a description of what the Imaskari people actually looked like? In my games I've got them looking like a mix between Central Asian Turkic peoples and the various groups of the Caucasus, like Armenians and Georgians.
(On an unrelated note, it amuses me that the Imaskari and the Timelords of Doctor Who share a fondness for structures that are "bigger on the inside.")
I don't think that we have canon information on how the Imaskari looked before the 'Deep Imaskari' spell.
On the other hand, their appearance after that is changed in skin colour, but probably not average height and weight or skeletal shape. This makes them tall and thin, on average, and with angular and sloping eye profile, lacking the extra epicanthic fold that characterises a lot of Asians on Earth*. Looks like skull shape is mesocranic, high forehead, little supraorbital development. Total facial index is clearly dolicephalic, very narrow indeed. Orthognathic facial profile. Leptorrhinic, with a pinched and prominent nuchal ridge.
I'd call the canon Deep Imaskari a fairly typical Caucasoid, with no elements suggesting that anything in her heritage is derived from peoples resembling Mongoloids or Negroids on Earth.
Then we have the appearance of Halaster to go on. What canon pictures of him I have seen have been very Caucasoid in appearance. If someone has a description of him penned by Ed, it might give us more. Then again, Halaster was born approximately in the 33rd century before DR, which puts him five millenia later than the first Imaskari. That's more than enough time for whatever original ethnic appearance that they might have had to be replaced with something else, particularly if the early Imaskari did not enslave all groups with which they came into contact, but took wives and husbands among some of them.
The last Lord Artificer, Yvaraj, probably born at a similar time, shows a 'racial' similarity to Hilather/Halaster. He has the same white skin, black to brown beard, straight to slightly wavy hair, high forehead and aquiline nose.
I'd go so far as to say that all canon pictures we have of Imaskari are archtypically Caucasoid, more so than most populations of today, where some ethnic admixture is almost a given and, in any event, the 'pure' Caucasoid craniometry probably deriving from a great crossroads, thus quickly splitting into a wide variety of different 'ethnic' looks.
Note that skin colour is not reliable for determining ancestry of any kind. That is a fairly rapid environmental adaptation, which usually takes place within a comparatively few generations, certainly no more than a few thousand years in the most pessimistic projections, and will depend nearly exclusively on a balance between protection from the sun and the ability to extract Vitamin D from it. As such, it has a close correlation with latitude, with Vitamin D levels of typical diet being the most important variable outside of that.
People with no genetic relationship closer than the common ancestor of all humanity can have identical skin tone and type of hair, based simply on having adapted to similar environments. Their skeletal shape is a much more reliable indicator.
None of which has anything to do with subspecies of humanity, as all modern humans descend from the same small population which survived the last ice age. Genetic diversity among modern humans is less than that among two different populations of chimps or gorillas living in African refugias.
Considering that new evidence suggests that multiple homo species have often coexisted, this is nothing more than an accident of fate. A different course for evolution, resulting in genuine human subspecies, each of whom is adapted to a different environment, would be basically plausible for a setting with a different geological and climatic history.
*And Kara-Turans on Toril. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
Edited by - Icelander on 23 Feb 2012 05:38:15 |
|
|
|
Eladrinstar
Learned Scribe
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 06:08:16
|
Okay, wow, that's a very in-depth answer to my question. It's a pity the artwork for so many human groups in Toril is so inconsistent, but I guessed we lucked out with the Deep Imaskari because they were in just one sourcebook.
And yeah, as I said in the Gold Elf thread, skin tone is barely relevant to someone's ancestry and physical appearance. |
Edited by - Eladrinstar on 23 Feb 2012 06:08:49 |
|
|
|
Wolfhound75
Learned Scribe
USA
217 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 17:19:09
|
After Eladrinstar's last post, now seems like the perfect time to look at this discussion from another angle that I've been wondering if anyone else would make note of.
What if we look at this from a creature Type/Subtype perspective and the game effects of belonging to that particular category.
For example, let's look at a weapon with the Elf Bane characteristic. I think we could all agree that the bane properties only take effect when the target falls into the subtype (Elf). It doesn't matter if its exact nomenclature is Aquatic Elf, Desert Elf, Moon Elf, Grey Elf, Drow Elf or whatever-Elf. It has an equal effect on all of them because they are all various sub-species of the subtype (Elf) - including Half-Elves where the PHB specifically states they have Elven Blood for purposes of determining results of racial-targeted effects.
But what happens when we try to apply this same logic to a weapon with a Human Bane property? The obvious answer is it affects creatures with the subtype (Human). Viewed from this perspective, what would happen if we tried apply the same logic to some of the other species that other scribes have said are sub-species of the Human subtype?
For example, someone specifically mentioned the Grimlock as a [de]evolved human sub-species. When you look up the entry for Grimlock in the MM, it's size/type entry is Medium Monstrous Humanoid. A Human Bane property would not have an effect on them. And while I readily admit that the description of Githyanki states they are "...a once human species of Astral Sea dwellers." and that "...they evolved from human slaves of the illithids.", which gives some credence to MT's earlier citation of them as a human sub-species, it remains that their type/subtype is listed as Humanoid (Outsider). To apply it a different way, a character dies and goes to their god. Their god rewards them for their belief by turning them into an angel so they can continue serving the god. Does this new evolution retain their type/subtype of Humanoid (Human) or, are they now a Humanoid (Outsider) like every other Angel and the Githyanki? Would that same weapon with Human Bane still affect them?
If you think it would affect them because they are Humanoid, and to stay with the earlier example of elves, would that Human Bane weapon then affect elves since their type is Humanoid like the Githyanki or would the bane effect be useless since their subtype is (Elf)? I think we all know the answer to this; Human Bane does not affect elves because their type/subtype is Humanoid (Elf). It doesn't matter if the exact individual in question is the Aquatic, Grey, Drow, Jungle, Desert or whatever sub-species of Elf. The same holds true for other races such as Dwarves, Gnomes, & Halflings.
Where do you see the type/subtype of Humanoid (Human) other than with the race of Human in general? There are no sub-species that share the Humanoid (Human) type/subtype like other races. Those other races have numerous sub-species that all share the Humanoid (Elf), Humanoid (Dwarf), Humanoid (Halfling) or even Humanoid (Orc) types/subtypes, but not Humans.
So the question still remains, why haven't Humans with their vaunted ability to adapt seen the same sorts of regional/environmental adaptations in the form of racial stat altering sub-species to their Type/Subtype as the other Humanoid-type races?
Good Hunting!
EDIT: Fix typo in forum code. |
"Firepower - if it's not working, you're not using enough." ~ Military Proverb
"If at first you do succeed, you must've rolled a natural 20!" |
Edited by - Wolfhound75 on 23 Feb 2012 17:48:07 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 18:17:56
|
I think, mechanically, it would go by type and sub-type. Ergo, Certain very humanish-looking types might still count as 'human', but ones that have evolved into something radically different would no longer count. I would say this is one of those '"DM's call" situations.
On the other hand, we can simply say that the five Creator Races can't have Bane weapons against them (for some cosmic reason), but that their 'creations' (descendents, whatever) can.
This would also apply to asceneded humans - obviously a human-bane weapon would not work on Cyric, Mystra(Midnight), or Kelemvor. Once your 'type' changes, the weapon is no longer effective.
And since the topic of this thread has broadened a bit: Terminology
I have a couple of pet-peeves; first off, 'Creator Races'. Thats a mouthful, and a pain-in-the-arse to keep typing. From now on I will refer to them as 'Creatori', and everyone can follow suit, or not, but I can't stand typing three words every time I want to talk about them (THE Creator Races). I even want to lose the 'The', but thats optional.
Second, and even more annoying; why do we have one word to describe ALL the 'bad people' - Humanoids - but have to type "humans and Demihumans" to refer to the not-so-bad types? That's a legacy held-over from the original game, and it has to go. We can't use either 'humans' (that would be silly) or demi-humans (just as silly) to describe the whole family of character races, because precedents have been set and are ingrained in the rules. So I propose a new term that would include all the PC races (and related 'goodly' types, like certain fey) - Humanish*. Its not perfect - if anyone can think of better I will gladly accept it. I just can't stand typing so much crap to describe a single concept (or race, or group of races).
Unless humans occupy some sort of distinct, in-betwene group (neutrals?) - that I can also accept. Anyone have any ideas for that? I have never really put much though into the whole 'Race of Destiny' concept, beyond simply using it as an excuse for stuff.
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.
It could tie-into the 'Race of Destiny' thing (considering some of the other theories we have about Illithids and their 'master plan', or whatever). Maybe Gith was an imaskari artificer who first traveled to another world (the pan-world enclave theory of mine), discovered Spelljamming tech there (the Ancients?), and then explored Arcane Space? It could work - does the Imaskari Empire line-up with when the gith race were enslaved by the Illithids? Where can the most info on gith (all branches) be found? The Illithiad?
*Humankin could work, but it sounds odd when it supposed to include true humans. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 23 Feb 2012 18:21:25 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 18:45:13
|
This is very good stuff... thank you for not letting me pull this scroll in a silly direction, and my apologies for the attempt. 
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I thought a halfling/Elf was a tallfellow, and a halfling/dwarf was a stout?
Not a true '1/2' situation - more like a bloodline. I recall reading that somewhere, a LONG time ago (1st edition?)
I recall the same thing from somewhere... might have been 1st edition Unearthed Arcana... does anyone else have a more precise recollection of the source?
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
In fact, any of the Creator races should have the same plethora of sub-groups humans have (which now makes me wonder why goblinoids are not a Creator race... which makes an even stronger case for them being a fey {unseelie} variant.)
EDIT: Giants and Dragons would also be similar to the Human/Creator groups in their racial diversity, except they are usually lumped together, like the demi-humans, despite the vast differences in appearance and abilities (I wonder why?)
Interesting stuff... and I'll assume that Elves and Dwarves are not creator races because they originated outside of Realmspace... in which case, we know from other past Spelljammer lore that the goblinoid races are in the same situation, as are the orcs... but the giants and dragons are curious cases. In many ways, I would think that they would also belong to the ranks of the creator races... other thoughts? |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 18:57:34
|
Well, if you want to get really meta about it, there's an argument to be made that *ALL* fantasy races and subraces are themselves subraces of humans. Because that's basically how different "humanoid" specifies have been treated in SF/F, from back in the Star Trek days (humans with pointy ears and the occasional exotic facial features). 
I am most swayed by MT's argument about how introducing "human sub-races" would appear racist (even if that isn't the intention). The tendency to use humanoid races as stand-ins for human races (prevalent in SF--see Star Wars Episode I) is racist enough, and D&D has more than enough issues with it. The drow, for instance, who were brown-skinned originally, then were cursed with evil and became black, then (in Lady Penitent) were somewhat "freed" from this curse, becoming (you guessed it) "less black." Ouch.
Ultimately, I don't think humans need sub-races, because their mechanical chassis is so customizable as to allow you to hail from practically any background, culture, or region. Mechanical sub-races are more pertinent to races like elves, where sun elves and moon elves vary so widely from wild elves and wood elves, not to mention drow and star elves, as to seem almost like entirely different races. But when the designers actually *make them* different races mechanically (as in the 4e elves and eladrin), it causes a huge uproar and substantial misunderstanding. Sub-races go *halfway*--they're all still elves, but now they have mechanical differences (in terms of skills, proficiencies, and even ability scores) to reflect their radically different cultures.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 19:09:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I am most swayed by MT's argument about how introducing "human sub-races" would appear racist (even if that isn't the intention). The tendency to use humanoid races as stand-ins for human races (prevalent in SF--see Star Wars Episode I) is racist enough, and D&D has more than enough issues with it. The drow, for instance, who were brown-skinned originally, then were cursed with evil and became black, then (in Lady Penitent) were somewhat "freed" from this curse, becoming (you guessed it) "less black." Ouch.
This is part of why I think a Drizzt movie wouldn't work in general release (non-direct to DVD) -- to explain how Drizzt is different, you'd have to explain "Okay, this entire race of black-skinned people are folks who would literally murder their own family members to get ahead. Except this guy, he's different." And I don't see that flying well with the general movie-going populace.
Many folks disagree with me on that one, though, so I'm really not going into it. Just thought it was relevant to Erik's point.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Ultimately, I don't think humans need sub-races, because their mechanical chassis is so customizable as to allow you to hail from practically any background, culture, or region. Mechanical sub-races are more pertinent to races like elves, where sun elves and moon elves vary so widely from wild elves and wood elves, not to mention drow and star elves, as to seem almost like entirely different races. But when the designers actually *make them* different races mechanically (as in the 4e elves and eladrin), it causes a huge uproar and substantial misunderstanding. Sub-races go *halfway*--they're all still elves, but now they have mechanical differences (in terms of skills, proficiencies, and even ability scores) to reflect their radically different cultures.
Cheers
Human "sub-races" could easily be distinguished by specific traits, which is a mechanic already in 3.x/PF. It's only the not-quite-humans that would need mechanical differences not based on traits. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Wolfhound75
Learned Scribe
USA
217 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 19:32:01
|
@MT - RE: "Humanish"
Expanding on your thought, which I like - Why not just call them Humanoid? After all, the precedent has already been set, is in [fairly] common use depending upon edition, and would be easy to include the Monstrous Humanoid type as well. That would really expand the horizon of the descriptive terminology while still allowing for the different races to be different in their subtype. I think that's what you were getting at with your statement anyway, sort of a "one term to rule them all" concept?
I'm with MT on the dislike of the time-travel, especially given the fact that Ed has come out and said it doesn't exist in The Realms. I personally see some potential similarities between the Githy and & Imaskari but have decided to treat the Githy as similar the Shadar-Kai - they 'evolved' by prolonged contact with another plane. They escaped their enslavers, found themselves trapped on the plane, and over time, adapted to their new environment by literally becoming something else.
Interesting concepts MT and it seems like we're all struggling with what amounts to a D&D version for a Taxonomic Classification System. Let's keep expanding on this.
Good Hunting! |
"Firepower - if it's not working, you're not using enough." ~ Military Proverb
"If at first you do succeed, you must've rolled a natural 20!" |
Edited by - Wolfhound75 on 23 Feb 2012 19:35:18 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31727 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 00:34:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Well, if you want to get really meta about it, there's an argument to be made that *ALL* fantasy races and subraces are themselves subraces of humans. Because that's basically how different "humanoid" specifies have been treated in SF/F, from back in the Star Trek days (humans with pointy ears and the occasional exotic facial features).
And, of course, The Next Generation tried to explain that with the Ancient humanoid race.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 01:59:22
|
I don't feel like doing the 'quotey thing'.
@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!)
My argument was that while D&D has no problem creating a sub-race every time a hobbit is born slightly less hairy, they have avoided (with good reason) creating human 'sub-races'. Its much more 'PC' to just call all those offshoots separate races when it comes to humanity.
@Wooly - simple fix; make the movie Drow 'Edwardian' Drow (albino). Movies almost never match 'book canon' anyway (plus they would look like the cool ones in the Hellboy movie). Then if you REALLY wanted to be PC (and stick a little closer to canon), make Drizzt black. Ergo, 'Black Drow' would be the aberrations, not just because of their color, but because of their (good) nature. That ought to disarm the racist-card, and keep the fanbois happy at the same time.
@Wolfhound - because 'Humanoid' is already in-use to mean 'all the bad guys' (Goblinoids, Orcs, Gnolls, even giants). 'Demi-human' means 'all the good guys, EXCEPT humans'. That was my problem with it. I think I am leaning more toward 'Humankin' the more I dwell on it. 'Humanish' is just a bit off, now that I've had time to consider.
So 'Humankin' shall now mean humans AND all those human-like (sentient bipeds) that aren't necessarily evil (although aberrations exist in all species). This ties into your OT - the term 'Humankin' would include all those near-human offshoots of mankind. Still not sure where to stick the gith....
'Humanish'?
@Sage - actually, they were first alluded to in ST:tOS episode The Paradise Syndrome, wherein Kirk lost his memory. As a kid, that episode used to make me cry (when Miramanee dies).
I loved the premise of that episode, and even used the Obelisk in a GH adventure I ran (which also included lizardmen, so I turned the obelisk into a pylon-thingy and called the reptilians 'Sleestak', a'la Land of the Lost).
Yeah... I was a real whore when I ran GH - nothing was sacred. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 24 Feb 2012 18:03:39 |
|
|
|
Eladrinstar
Learned Scribe
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 03:44:21
|
| Drow are like, obsidian black, and have white hair from birth. No human race looks like that. They don't even look African in their face. But of course, no one would understand that in a live action audition. |
Edited by - Eladrinstar on 24 Feb 2012 03:47:06 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Origin of [Sub] Species
