Are there any rules for this floating around on the web anywhere?
An area of my long-running (Started with Moldvay-Cook Basic) campaign is full of 'em, and it seems odd to have something so human in the game and not have it available as a PC option. I wanted to see how others handled Neanderthal PCs before I tried my hand at my own rules.
Thanks in advance for any advice.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;865159Are there any rules for this floating around on the web anywhere?
An area of my long-running (Started with Moldvay-Cook Basic) campaign is full of 'em, and it seems odd to have something so human in the game and not have it available as a PC option. I wanted to see how others handled Neanderthal PCs before I tried my hand at my own rules.
Thanks in advance for any advice.
Barbarians?
Orcs?
Barbarian orcs?
ahem.
Just make them a human offshoot with a bonus to STR and maybe a +1 to perception checks.
I agree with Omega.
We don't know a ton about them but Neanderthals were mostly human. Give them a +1 to strength and a -1 to intelligence and call it a day. If you really want to get fancy put a limit on what skills they can learn and maybe toss in a speech impediment.
They were close enough to human that we could mate with them and produce children, so how different could they be?
Now for real fun try playing with a Titanthrope race. This was a fictional race created by Philip Jose Farmer for his Riverworld books. The character Joe Miller was one. Flat footed, spoke with a lisp, not terribly bright but honest, loyal, big and strong.
Quote from: Doughdee222;865161We don't know a ton about them but Neanderthals were mostly human. Give them a +1 to strength and a -1 to intelligence and call it a day. If you really want to get fancy put a limit on what skills they can learn and maybe toss in a speech impediment.
Scientifically, there isn't any evidence that Neanderthals were dumber than modern humans. They may even have been smarter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/8898321/Neanderthals-were-too-smart-for-their-own-good.html
Then again, it's a fantasy game. You can make Neanderthals whatever you want.
That would be my question to the OP: What are you looking for in having a Neanderthal race?
My humans have +1 to their constitution modifier, Neaderthals have +1 to their strength modifier, and my Denisovians have +1 to their dexterity modifier.
OK, how does this look:
+2 STR, +1 WIS
Son of the Untamed Earth: Pick one of the terrain types from the Circle of the Land Druid path. When in that terrain, the Neanderthal PC may add his/her proficiency bonus to survival and perception checks, if they may not do so already. If they may do so already, in that terrain they have advantage on those checks and if guiding a group you can never get lost.
Brother to the Mammoth: Carrying capacity is x1.5 normal.
Grandfather of Mankind: Neanderthals are a type of human and are considered humans for game effects involving race.
Peer to the Eldest: Neanderthals speak Primordial and and have proficiency with greatclubs, spears, and the pike.
The reason I granted a bonus to perception checks is that Neanderthals had larger eyes and a longer nose than most humans. Their perception range would be more accute. So a little bonus to spotting things or picking up on whatever sensory cues.
To keep it quick, and having studied this, I would go with the following:
+1 STR: Neanderthals are robust and strong
+2 CON: Neanderthals can withstand harsh environments and can recover from injuries quickly (many Neanderthal remains show signs of injuries that have healed)
+1 WIS: Surviving so long in harsh environments, having specialist hunting knowledge
-1 DEX: Neanderthals are not as agile as humans, preferring physical encounters
-2 CHA: Neanderthals have smaller social groups and prefer the quiet. Their bone structure also makes them less attractive than humans.
If that is too many I'd take the CON and CHA adjustments
And for 5th Edition:
Ability Scores Increase: Your Constitution score increases by 2 and your Strength increases by 1
Age: Neanderthals reach maturity quicker than humans and are fully grown by their early-teens. They live less than a century.
Alignment: Neanderthals tend toward neutral alignment.
Size: Somewhat bulkier than humans, but small. Heights range from 5 to 5.7 feet tall. Your size is medium.
Speed. Your base walking speed is 30
Tough: You are resistant to Bludgeoning damage
Enduring: When you are reduced to 0 hit points but not killed outright, you can drop to 1 hit point instead. You can't use this feature again until you finish a long rest.
Natural Survivors: You gain proficiency in the Survival and Nature skills.
Languages: You can speak Common and Neanderthal. However, reading and writing is alien to you - you must acquire this skill.
Combat Training: You are proficient with the Club, Greatclub, Handaxe and Spear
Quote from: Doughdee222;865161I agree with Omega.
We don't know a ton about them but Neanderthals were mostly human. Give them a +1 to strength and a -1 to intelligence and call it a day. If you really want to get fancy put a limit on what skills they can learn and maybe toss in a speech impediment.
As Kim and others pointed out, there's not much evidence at all that Neanderthals were less intelligent than humans. There's significant evidence, however, that they were MUCH less social.
Humans created social networks, even very early on, from beyond their own tribes; they engaged in trade, ideas were shared. Neanderthals didn't.
Charisma was our killer app, not Intelligence.
So if you were making a Neanderthal, you should give them a Charisma penalty. Or give humans a Charisma bonus, since they should probably be more talented in Charisma than any other species.
Neanderthals seem to have been a lot stronger, probably slower, poor throwers - +2 STR and -1 DEX (except 5e does not use penalties).
They had big brains, but apparently a lot of brain power was dedicated to smell - and they had big noses. Modern humans got dogs to do our smelling for us. I wouldn't give an INT bonus, but a Scent type ability maybe, or just Perception trained.
Charisma penalty seems reasonable, compared to modern humans. They were very robust - this goes along with having lots of muscle - so +1 or +2 CON.
Neanderthals are about 600,000 years divergent from modern humans, arguably not a lot - but then chimps are only 4 to 5 million years divergent on the balance of evidence I've seen. Modern human races are no more than about 100,000 years divergent, most a lot less - Caucasian vs east-Asian only about 20,000 years, the time of the last Glacial Maximum; Bushmen (derogatory 'San') and Pygmies maybe 100,000. PNG Highlanders and Australian aborigines less, with some archaic introgression - 'Denisovan' we know about. All non-Africans and many Africans show a few % Neanderthal, too. And there are signs of other archaic introgressions into various population groups where we don't know the source.
Point being that Neanderthals were not a different species from modern humans, but do fit quite neatly as a D&D 'race' - can interbreed with modern humans, but are substantially more different from modern humans than any modern human races are from each other.
As far as official/comercial designs for PC Neanderthals go, the 3.5 supplement frostburn is the only one I know of.
It mostly goe with the Pop cultural tandart. Increased Str and Con, decreased Int and Dex, perception bonu, illiterate and improved resistance to extreme Weather.
Quote from: jhkim;865287Scientifically, there isn't any evidence that Neanderthals were dumber than modern humans. They may even have been smarter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/8898321/Neanderthals-were-too-smart-for-their-own-good.html
Actually, there is some evidence that indicates just the opposite. It is true that Neanderthals and modern humans mixed, but why didn't the trend go the other way? Why are we still left with modern human anatomy but not Neanderthal anatomy? There is evidence that as anatomically modern humans entered the scene, Neanderthals started to copy their tools, without ever being quite as capable with certain types of tools such as projectile weapons. A paleoanthropologist I know also knows a site in which they coexisted, but modern humans occupied the best hunting sites, indicating that Neanderthals, even though doing just fine on their own, were out competed in the presence of modern humans
Quote from: Trond;866150Actually, there is some evidence that indicates just the opposite. It is true that Neanderthals and modern humans mixed, but why didn't the trend go the other way?
Setting aside the fact that intelligence isn't a very well defined nor a simple concept, I doubt we will ever know for sure. Off the top of my head here are two reasons unrelated to intelligence.
- Better resistance to disease. Arguably this was one of the main advantages of Europeans over the peoples in the Americas.
- Faster reproductive rate. Rats don't outsmart us, they out reproduce us.
QuoteWhy are we still left with modern human anatomy but not Neanderthal anatomy?
Are we? Do we really have enough fossil and other remains to reach that conclusion? And even if that is true it could relate more to dominant and recessive genetics than to intelligence. I haven't seen any data that suggests that blue eyes, fair skin, and red hair are correlated to lower intelligence despite those traits being very uncommon compared to brown eyes, darker skin, and dark hair.
QuoteThere is evidence that as anatomically modern humans entered the scene, Neanderthals started to copy their tools, without ever being quite as capable with certain types of tools such as projectile weapons.
Despite the prejudices of Robert Heinlein, capability with projectile weapons actually doesn't correlate to intelligence.
QuoteNeanderthals, even though doing just fine on their own, were out competed in the presence of modern humans
Humans in warm regions are routinely outcompeted by cockroaches. That isn't due to the bugs being smarter though.
Quote from: Bren;866188Humans in warm regions are routinely outcompeted by cockroaches. That isn't due to the bugs being smarter though.
'Outcompeted' here means 'replaced', not 'has more biomass'.
We have Neanderthal DNA and it basically disproves your points; modern humans are only a few % Neanderthal, and the interbreeding seems to have occurred in the Middle East ca 100,000 years ago, not when modern humans entered Europe 40,000 years ago. Also it's mostly neutral DNA that's Neanderthal, in the case of functional genes the Neanderthal ones have often been selected against, indicating they were not as evolutionarily fit.
We can't actually prove Neanderthals had less general intelligence, but all the evidence on art, tool use/technology, ritual (or lack of it) etc points that way.
Quote from: S'mon;866212'Outcompeted' here means 'replaced', not 'has more biomass'.
We have Neanderthal DNA and it basically disproves your points
Well if you want to play games with the meaning of outcompete, Neandrethal DNA wasn't outcompeted, since it wasn't replaced. It continues to exist alongside Cro-Magnon DNA, just like modern humans and modern human DNA continues to exist alongside cockroaches and coackroach DNA.
But setting aside word games on the exact meaning of competition, we don't know why Neanderthals were outcompeted. To presume it is due to greater intelligence of modern humans is flattering to our hubris, but intelligence is hardly the only possible competitive advantage (disease resistance and rate of procreation are two alternative explanations as are biomechanical differences in shoulders, legs, and pelvises that may have affected hunting efficiency). I'm wary of leaping to a flattering conclusion about how much smarter we are on the scanty evidence available.
Quotemodern humans are only a few % Neanderthal, and the interbreeding seems to have occurred in the Middle East ca 100,000 years ago, not when modern humans entered Europe 40,000 years ago.
How is that relevant to intelligence?
QuoteWe can't actually prove Neanderthals had less general intelligence
Which is my point.
It does indeed appear that Neanderthals created less sophisticated artifacts than did Cro-Magnon. But artifacts are not the only evidence of intelligence, just the longest lasting. We don't know what knowledge Neanderthals had of their environment, what they may have known of herbal remedies, animal habits, climate or weather, astronomy nor what stories they told each other and we never will.
Quote from: Bren;866238But setting aside word games on the exact meaning of competition, we don't know why Neanderthals were outcompeted. To presume it is due to greater intelligence of modern humans is flattering to our hubris...
All we know for sure is that modern humans were more evolutionarily fit - in an environment they had just entered - than were the Neanderthals who had been living there for half a million years or so. My gut instinct is that general intelligence probably had something to do with it, but I can imagine other factors. There is some evidence of global cooling and Neanderthals preferring the shrinking arboreal forests, with modern humans better able to survive on the tundra, but the reason for that seems likely to be intelligence = better clothing, not better physical adaptation.
BTW 'modern' here is relative, it is definitely possible from the evidence that we humans ca 2015 are on average less intelligent than the 'modern' humans of 40,000 years ago who conquered Europe. Domestication tends to lower animal intelligence, and humans have been self-domesticating since the development of farming ca 10000-12000 years ago.
I would just make them a flavor of humans with a society organized around small bands rather than larger social units. I might give them bonuses to perception for smelling things but they would otherwise be the same as humans statistically. Judging from reconstructions, they really weren't all that different from humans but that's about it. There is dispute whether they were even a separate species or a subspecies of h sapiens. It is unclear whether they really died out or just interbred with humans. I would just make them a flavor of human and be done with it.
Quote from: yosemitemike;866301There is dispute whether they were even a separate species or a subspecies of h sapiens.
They were definitely not a separate species by any zoological definition - they would meet the subspecies rule of thumb zoologists' classification of being 90%+ distinguishable visually, but then so do the different modern human major races/population groups. Their DNA is much more divergent than modern human races are from each other, but nowhere near being a different species. They fit neatly into the D&D 'race' category IMO.
Quote from: S'mon;866304They were definitely not a separate species by any zoological definition - they would meet the subspecies rule of thumb zoologists' classification of being 90%+ distinguishable visually, but then so do the different modern human major races/population groups. Their DNA is much more divergent than modern human races are from each other, but nowhere near being a different species. They fit neatly into the D&D 'race' category IMO.
Unless something has changed recently, the classification of Neanderthals as a subspecies of h sapiens is not universally accepted. Whether something is a subspecies or a separate species can get a bit iffy and vague. Normally, the criteria is reproductive compatibility but not always. Multiple species from genus Canis can interbreed but are generally classified as separate species anyway. There is still dispute over whether the domestic dog should be classified as its own species (C familiaris) or a subspecies of wolf (C lupus familiaris).
They don't really fit all that well into the usual D&D race structure as their own race rather than a flavor of humans. They aren't really that distinct from humans unlike many of the other race like elves, dwarves or dragon people. Then again, neither are half elves and half elves are arguably not a race at all in any meaningful way. You could either way with it but I would lean toward the simpler way and make them a sort of human especially in D20 systems where humans get a floating +2 they can put wherever they want. Making them a mechanically distinct race just seems unnecessarily complicated to me.
Quote from: yosemitemike;866308Unless something has changed recently, the classification of Neanderthals as a subspecies of h sapiens is not universally accepted.
Indeed, but that's because we humans treat human classification differently from how we treat other animals. We have a lot more emotional investment in the issue - plus paleontologists get lauded for discovering another 'human species', so there is an incentive to 'splitism'. Differences between deceased human population groups are exaggerated.
I guess if in your campaign you see Elf Dwarf Halfling and Human as different species then it makes sense to treat Neanderthals as Human. I tend to see them as more like subspecies.
Quote from: S'mon;866314Indeed, but that's because we humans treat human classification differently from how we treat other animals. We have a lot more emotional investment in the issue - plus paleontologists get lauded for discovering another 'human species', so there is an incentive to 'splitism'. Differences between deceased human population groups are exaggerated.
I guess if in your campaign you see Elf Dwarf Halfling and Human as different species then it makes sense to treat Neanderthals as Human. I tend to see them as more like subspecies.
There's a bit more to it than that. Scientific advances, especially cheaper, faster gene sequencing technologies from the human genome project, came in and kind of flipped over all the apple carts not that long ago. A lot of the old classifications based on morphology turned out to be...less than accurate. It took a lot of settled classifications and overturned them. Things haven't really settled out yet. The first rough draft of the neanderthal genome was only completed five or six years ago.
There's a sharp disconnect between the real world and a typical D&D world that makes applying real world classifications like that iffy. For the most part, D&D races were created rather than evolving. They don't have natural histories. They have creation accounts. D&D races aren't really biological classifications at all. They are mechanical classifications. Are elves a different species? Arguably no since they can interbreed with humans and produce fertile offspring and this happens enough that half-elves are usually a core book option. They are mechanically different form humans though. They have low light vision and so forth. I am thinking more in terms of game mechanics classifications than biological ones here.
Quote from: yosemitemike;866345There's a bit more to it than that. Scientific advances, especially cheaper, faster gene sequencing technologies from the human genome project, came in and kind of flipped over all the apple carts not that long ago. A lot of the old classifications based on morphology turned out to be...less than accurate. It took a lot of settled classifications and overturned them. Things haven't really settled out yet.
Yeah, but there was never any real reason from morphology to class Neanderthals as an entirely separate species, it just suited the Hard Out of Africa account of human origins, with zero interbreeding.
Quote from: S'mon;866366Yeah, but there was never any real reason from morphology to class Neanderthals as an entirely separate species, it just suited the Hard Out of Africa account of human origins, with zero interbreeding.
I thought genetic data had pretty much sunk that theory entirely.
Quote from: yosemitemike;866369I thought genetic data had pretty much sunk that theory entirely.
Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you! :)
Quote from: Bren;866238It does indeed appear that Neanderthals created less sophisticated artifacts than did Cro-Magnon. But artifacts are not the only evidence of intelligence, just the longest lasting. We don't know what knowledge Neanderthals had of their environment, what they may have known of herbal remedies, animal habits, climate or weather, astronomy nor what stories they told each other and we never will.
Because they went extinct, and we didn't. I'd say that settles the argument.
Quote from: RPGPundit;866775Because they went extinct, and we didn't. I'd say that settles the argument.
I'm not surprised you would think that. As I said, it it flattering to your hubris.
Quote from: RPGPundit;866775Because they went extinct, and we didn't. I'd say that settles the argument.
Unfortunately, no, as all "fitness" means in evolutionary terms is "survived." It could've been some aspect of intelligence, or it could've been a slight mutation that fractionally slowed birth rates. We may well never know. But the absence of a firm conclusion against superior intelligence doesn't make superior intelligence the default conclusion.
Quote from: Bobloblah;866850Unfortunately, no, as all "fitness" means in evolutionary terms is "survived." It could've been some aspect of intelligence, or it could've been a slight mutation that fractionally slowed birth rates. We may well never know. But the absence of a firm conclusion against superior intelligence doesn't make superior intelligence the default conclusion.
If you were talking about two species of insects, or canines, or even monkeys, sure. But that classification falls apart when you talk about sentient beings, and the Neanderthals were certainly sentient.
If they had been more intelligent than the Cro-Magnons, they could have used that intelligence to figure out a way to survive.
Quote from: Bren;866837I'm not surprised you would think that. As I said, it it flattering to your hubris.
Well, I can't personally recall the period, it was a bit too long ago. So I really don't know, but I suspect I personally had nothing to do with the survival of our species.
Quote from: RPGPundit;867122Well, I can't personally recall the period, it was a bit too long ago. So I really don't know, but I suspect I personally had nothing to do with the survival of our species.
You did not. But you did assume, with little evidence, that our ancestors prospered due to intelligence rather than other less flattering causes like faster and more flexible population growth due to our females being in heat year round or being able to survive a wider number of diseases than our less gregarious hominid cousins. You are indulging in another version of evolution results in progress or survival of the fittest has anything to do with morality or individual superiority.
Quote from: RPGPundit;867121If you were talking about two species of insects, or canines, or even monkeys, sure. But that classification falls apart when you talk about sentient beings, and the Neanderthals were certainly sentient.
If they had been more intelligent than the Cro-Magnons, they could have used that intelligence to figure out a way to survive.
It may well have taken them thousands of years to go extinct, this wasn't some Armageddon (or Independence Day) movie scenario. I bet the Neanderthals were less intelligent, all the evidence points that way. But there's no law of nature that more-intelligent is always more evolutionarily adaptive than less-intelligent; intelligence has costs and it depends on the environment. Maybe the highly intelligent Neanderthals were pathological altruists who welcomed the Cro Magnons as refugees from Global Warming... :D
Quote from: RPGPundit;867121If you were talking about two species of insects, or canines, or even monkeys, sure. But that classification falls apart when you talk about sentient beings, and the Neanderthals were certainly sentient.
If they had been more intelligent than the Cro-Magnons, they could have used that intelligence to figure out a way to survive.
Both of these points are incorrect. There is no particular evidence to suggest that the former is the case. And the latter is simply silly. As an analogy, if you were smarter than you currently are, would it allow you to avoid death from a pre-existing terminal genetic condition? Perhaps. Or perhaps not, depending on the nature of that genetic variation. You might simply be doomed to die from it, in spite of any greater personal intelligence, never mind the unimaginably increased capabilities of our society over that of Neolithic hominids.
Lastly, I'll point out that presuming that evolution equals progress is exactly the idea that Darwin overturned with his "natural selection." Suggesting otherwise throws out exactly what is most brilliant about his ideas.
Quote from: Bren;867138You did not. But you did assume, with little evidence, that our ancestors prospered due to intelligence rather than other less flattering causes like faster and more flexible population growth due to our females being in heat year round or being able to survive a wider number of diseases than our less gregarious hominid cousins. You are indulging in another version of evolution results in progress or survival of the fittest has anything to do with morality or individual superiority.
Evolution does not necessarily result in progress. Intelligence usually does, in the long run.
Quote from: S'mon;867203It may well have taken them thousands of years to go extinct, this wasn't some Armageddon (or Independence Day) movie scenario.
That strengthens, rather than weakens my point. If evidence pointed to aggressive cro-magnons coming in, with superior numbers, and launching in a barbarian-horde style campaign of rapid brutal aggression that would not have given the Neanderthals time to adapt, then it could have been entirely possible that even if the Neanderthals were smarter they wouldn't have had time to figure out how to save themselves.
But that's not what happened. There was a period of tens of thousands of years, generations longer than all of recorded history, where these two species were in the same places. There was enormous amount of time for either species to adapt to anything the others did, or to changes in their environment. The humans adapted, the Neanderthals did not; and right now the best evidence we have is that the humans did not strictly speaking play the main role in the Neanderthals' extinction (though a competing species in the area might have been a factor); it was that humans were better at making complex social bonds, they were smarter at figuring out abstract systems by which they could engage in things like trade, than the Neanderthals. They were thus better able to use their wits and their connections to survive brutal ice-age conditions.
QuoteBut there's no law of nature that more-intelligent is always more evolutionarily adaptive than less-intelligent
Always? No.
But it is one huge fucking advantage. Especially with enough time and resources to use it.
Regardless of what the reality was regarding their intelligence, I think when most people think of a Neanderthal based fantasy race, they are going for something crude and a bit aggressive. It is based on the Hollywood image, so if you deviate from that, it is potentially confusing. It may still be a great addition to your setting but there is that added step of explanation. Generally I think I prefer my Neanderthals a bit Hollywood in a fantasy game. In a time travel game where pcs go back and bump into Neanderthals, defying their expectations sounds a bit more fun.
Quote from: Bobloblah;867237Both of these points are incorrect. There is no particular evidence to suggest that the former is the case. And the latter is simply silly. As an analogy, if you were smarter than you currently are, would it allow you to avoid death from a pre-existing terminal genetic condition? Perhaps. Or perhaps not, depending on the nature of that genetic variation. You might simply be doomed to die from it, in spite of any greater personal intelligence, never mind the unimaginably increased capabilities of our society over that of Neolithic hominids.
Wow, did your argument get dumb real fast. I'm not talking about the intelligence of any single individual.
If I had a pre-existing terminal genetic condition, there'd probably be fuck all I could do with my own intelligence to save my ass.
The age we live in, however, is showing exactly how HUMANS, as a species, are able to use their intelligence, given sufficient time to do so, to end up being able to beat all kinds of pre-existing genetic conditions.
That's the difference that sentience-level intelligence affords: animals have to adapt to survive within their environment as it is. Human beings have the power to CHANGE their environment, to manipulate it, intentionally, in ways that no other animal could do.
No other animal alive today, that is. The Neanderthals could clearly do it too. So at that point, the question of survival was all about who could do it better.
QuoteLastly, I'll point out that presuming that evolution equals progress is exactly the idea that Darwin overturned with his "natural selection." Suggesting otherwise throws out exactly what is most brilliant about his ideas.
I'm not suggesting evolution equals progress. I'm suggesting Intelligence generally leads to progress over large spans of time.
I know its very fashionable in some circles to believe everything humanity does is purely a product of vagaries of random luck and that no agency is possible at either the individual or collective scale, but that's frankly a load of crap.