TheRPGSite

One of the things that easily identies pink slime fantasy is the ease with which the diffferent races happily coexist for each other. In Tolkien's Middle Earth, Dwarves were a lesser god's shoddy attempt at creating his own race, and the elves never really had much to do with them. You get to D&D novels and there isn't that much difficulty placing completely disparate races aide by side. It ruins the genre emulation for me because it feels like we have to rehash some version of the United States civil rights struggle to get a party with diverse characters who can cooperate with each other.

For me, it's a conundrum. Players want to be able to have their own unique characters and I want to design lots of different races ideas, but you're basically forced to have cities where all the races coexist in some kind of tenuous peace. You can't have a playable race that prefers to keep to itself, or anything too weird to be accepted in human society. In a sense it kills the sense of otherness I need for the second half of a hero's journey. There needs to be societies that convey a sense of otherness or differentness. If your starting location is already radically cosmoploitan, how do you do that?

I just don't know how to achieve a post apocalyptic fantasy with humanity straining with a population that acts as though they grew up on the Cosby Show.

For those that see the same incongruence, ideas for how to resolve this dilemma? How to bring a diverse party together without it seeming contrived?

Edit: It just seems that racial tolerance is too much of a luxury for a resource scarse society, where people will close ranks and take care of their own first. Bit I want people to be able to play different characters.

Ruhh Rohhh Shaggy, someone may need to go to liberal social justice re-eduction camp.

Do what I do, any setting that has orcs and goblins running legitimate businesses in the middle of a mostly human city go straight to the fire bin. And it is ok for your elves and dwarves to despise each other, they probably are looking out for themselves and their own goals.

You are correct that it does not make sense and ruins the entire idea of otherness to have all of these people holding hands and sharing a coke when three editions ago they were trying to eat each other.

I can't stand it either because it just does not make sense for the most part and the best idea is to do your own setting or ret-con a setting you like.

Get a big ole box of black markers and spare copy of your almost perfect setting book and fix it... The copyright holder will not show up at your door.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;933252The copyright holder will not show up at your door.

Yet. :D  Your day against the wall will come, non-believer!

Right, but the players still want to each play a different races. What then? How does the party coalecse?

It's really simple. As DM, you decide which races are playable, and which ones are not Whatever fits your milieu.  If you want to run a purely human centered campaign, create some different, strongly drawn, but compatible-enough cultures. Players like having choices, so give them some. But it's your game, so it's OK to set limits.

They all team up to fight Sauron, duh.

What I like about good stories is when the motives of the enemy are inscrutable. You can't even tell if they are evil because their psychology is too alien. So, a Mantis warrior that ate her last 20 husbands would be an interesting character to smash people with in combat, but I can't imagine her sitting in a tavern drinking ale with my mage who likes to read books, not without the whole thing getting really silly, really fast. Silly is fine, but it becomes a crutch too easily.

So it gets to the the idea of otherness. Most elves are really just humans with pointy ears. Forest Spocks, if you will. I wouldn't know how to graft human myths onto an alien mindset. The playable races pretty much have to be humans if I want to keep that feel. That's why this is pretty solid advice.

"If you want to run a purely human centered campaign, create some different, strongly drawn, but compatible-enough cultures. Players like having choices, so give them some. But it's your game, so it's OK to set limits."

I believe I could come up with various human factions that could tolerate each other and still have differences that players could enjoy. I can see that for my campaign.

It depends on how you want it to be, or how you handle the history.  

Racial strife and issues are part of the history for what I do, and while it makes little intellectual and logical sense for sentient's to always fight, neither do they have to get along perfectly.  Creating an actual history for where you want things to be helps it all along.

For example, my main setting is in a place where the Ogrillite (see this as monster) races are just starting to become acculturated, but outside tribals are not, and the strife between the two, as well as the discrimination from other races.  http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/44901947/Ogrillite%20Races

Making it not strain credulity is mainly a function of creating a strong, well established history.

In my setting, the population is overwhelmingly human. There are maybe a couple thousand orcs, elves, and dwarves, living in isolated communities of a few hundred each. There really are just a handful of nonhumans in large cities and probably none in smaller human settlements, and many humans haven't ever met a nonhuman. Players can be other races, but in those cases, they are pretty much the only one of their kind. There might be others, but finding them would be an adventure of many sessions.

The benefit of that approach is that humans may be distrustful of nonhumans, but it's more like the way they'd be distrustful of strangers. There just aren't enough elves around for a typical city to pass laws making elves second-class citizens. So, no established racism.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933257Right, but the players still want to each play a different races. What then? How does the party coalecse?

If you want racial conflict in the world, but the players still want a mix of races, then I'd suggest having the party planned around some tie or particular background that overrides the usual prejudices. So rather than just being a random elf, dwarf, and goblin who happened to team up, I might instead require that all of the PCs are members of a fringe religion that accepts different races. (Not that this religion is necessarily good - it might be an evil death cult which accepts everyone on the basis that everyone dies.) For example, I played in a Harn campaign where we were all acolytes of Ilvir - who is a rarely-worshipped god largely seen as the spawner of monsters. We looked on bizarre monsters as holy creations, which is very different from how most of the population viewed them.

Then all the characters might be accepting of each other, but together suffer from religious prejudice.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;933252Do what I do, any setting that has orcs and goblins running legitimate businesses in the middle of a mostly human city go straight to the fire bin. And it is ok for your elves and dwarves to despise each other, they probably are looking out for themselves and their own goals.

You are correct that it does not make sense and ruins the entire idea of otherness to have all of these people holding hands and sharing a coke when three editions ago they were trying to eat each other.

Personally, I like it when games break out of endlessly regurgitating Tolkien, and instead have other racial and social dynamics. Harn is cool in that any non-human is pretty darn weird and alien. In the world of the GURPS game I'm playing in, elves and halflings have been treated as untrusted aliens (which they kind of were) - while dwarves and orcs are more accepted parts of society. There are a lot more possible variations than just Cosby show and Tolkien.

In a world full of magic and gods, race might well not be an important dividing line among nations. It could be that religion is the main divide. This was historically true for many historical periods of religious conflict.

Quote from: LordVreeg;933269It depends on how you want it to be, or how you handle the history.  

Racial strife and issues are part of the history for what I do, and while it makes little intellectual and logical sense for sentient's to always fight, neither do they have to get along perfectly.  Creating an actual history for where you want things to be helps it all along.

For example, my main setting is in a place where the Ogrillite (see this as monster) races are just starting to become acculturated, but outside tribals are not, and the strife between the two, as well as the discrimination from other races.  http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/44901947/Ogrillite%20Races

Making it not strain credulity is mainly a function of creating a strong, well established history.

Yeah... I'm looking at your history here and this...

"Over millenia, positive relationships between the various races had become quite normal.  However, there had been a good amount of racism and discrimination practised, even among allies until very recently.  Where the enemies of the various city-states and countries were of a different race, it was often outright ugly.

But a little less than 2 centuries ago, driven in particular by the bold, equalizing, racial independence that the now-powerful and multi-national guilds had brought to the scene, race ceased being a major discrimination point in the Celtrician Cradle area...."  

... reads like modern sensibilities imposed into a pseudo-medieval milieu. There's nothing wrong with that, but the solution you've reached doesn't actually read like real history, not from a broad enough scale. It reads like American history if you start at 1950 and stop at 1995. You take the history of Yugoslavia, the 2nd Islamic Expansion, or the invasions of the Sea Peoples and peaceful coexistence is often enough just the resting period before one group wipes the other out, pushes them off the map, or interbreeds them out of existence.

Maybe my game should have slavery. If one character could simply own another character it be reflective of broader human historical diversity, get me outside of the comfortable but perhaps short-lived period we happen to find ourselves in, and then I'd have a historical grounded way for diverse coalitions of people to work together.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933273Yeah... I'm looking at your history here and this...

"Over millenia, positive relationships between the various races had become quite normal.  However, there had been a good amount of racism and discrimination practised, even among allies until very recently.  Where the enemies of the various city-states and countries were of a different race, it was often outright ugly.

But a little less than 2 centuries ago, driven in particular by the bold, equalizing, racial independence that the now-powerful and multi-national guilds had brought to the scene, race ceased being a major discrimination point in the Celtrician Cradle area...."  

... reads like modern sensibilities imposed into a pseudo-medieval milieu. There's nothing wrong with that, but the solution you've reached doesn't actually read like real history, not from a broad enough scale. It reads like American history if you start at 1950 and stop at 1995. You take the history of Yugoslavia, the 2nd Islamic Expansion, or the invasions of the Sea Peoples and peaceful coexistence is often enough just the resting period before one group wipes the other out, pushes them off the map, or interbreeds them out of existence.

Maybe my game should have slavery. If one character could simply own another character it be reflective of broader human historical diversity, get me outside of the comfortable but perhaps short-lived period we happen to find ourselves in, and then I'd have a historical grounded way for diverse coalitions of people to work together.

Oh, slavery works.  We have it in some areas.
A good history allows you to do what you need to and allows it to make more sense to the PCS.  
That page is a PC version, one that they can see and helps make sense of where they are.  so it does read like a snapshot of what they are aware of...of a limited time frame... for a reason.

The players in our particular game deal with the current partial acculturation of the ogrillite races, and each race has their own challenges, as they original purposes are long in the past.

But the larger truth holds, for your game.  Create the proper historical background, then bring them down to where the play is going on, and the conflicts based on that current time period.

Yeah, I'm not trying to trash your game. Sorry if it cMe off like that.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933250For those that see the same incongruence, ideas for how to resolve this dilemma? How to bring a diverse party together without it seeming contrived?
.

You'd have to determine what world you are gaming in before I could understand the dilemma and offer any suggestions to change it. D&D isn't a setting, its a toolkit. There are settings for D&D, but each basically has their own explanations (or lack thereof). I can explain to you why things worked the way they did in Tolkien, but unless your breaking out The MERP or The One Ring come game night, it doesn't really matter.

As for my own games? It entirely depends. Warhammer Fantasy has a rich history of intense antagonism between races and the struggle for dominance underpins everything in that game, but generally when I run it I have all PCs as humans living in the Empire.

In the fantasy setting I'm currently running, it is quite literally The Otherworld of European myth; a place outside of Time, somewhere in between the world of dreams and the world of the dead. It was populated by a series of invasions, basically, one dominant race pushing out the older creatures, with the last invaders being the Sith, who drove the Fomhoire into the sea. Likewise the Fomhoire enslaved the giant Fir Bholgs, who now are all but extinct, a few solitary remnants leading solitary lives deep in the Mountains. Before them were the...well, that's a secret actually. Complicating matters, The Otherworld is bordered by Hell and a Tithe is paid each year in "rent" to the Legions of The Howling, the terms of a treatise after the Godwar. Meanwhile a sudden influx of humans has led the Sidhe to believe they are the next invading peoples, and some are preparing for war.

But all of that is so setting specific its really not generally applicable. You need to come up with the setting first, then work out racial relations. An realize that "racism", as we understand it these days, is a modern concept, and completely alien to most thinking throughout the majority of human history.

Not too hard to justify, just make the PCs are bunch of fringe mercenary scum, those groups have always been pretty diverse in our history.

In my own pet setting, elves are such arrogant assholes that most everyone else can envision at least alliances of convenience with everyone who isn't an elf.

One easy solution is that...

Those open race cities are few and far between. Everywhere else is mostly one race with or without other races tolerated.

Open race cities happen because everywhere else isnt so open. Sooner or later someone will get fed up with that and found their own city based on a more tolerant viewpoint.

Other cities may seem tolerant, but when you scrutinize whats going on you likely see things arent so rosy and all those "aliens" are allowed simply because its profitable in one form or another. You'll also tend to see more pairings of relatively human-like races and everyone else may not be so welcome. Or flip it around and humans and demi-humans arent so welcome.

Sorting out whats really going on can be half the fun.

In my view, adventurers are weirdo outcasts. That's why you can have the menagerie of races in your group. But when the zoo crew comes to town, the people are going to look askance at your group.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933268Most elves are really just humans with pointy ears. Forest Spocks, if you will.

Forest Spocks!!! That's awesome.

And you're right. Most races in RPGs are just humans with stat mods and kewl powerz. You could just use human tribes and re-arrange the demi-human templates to them.

I run OD&D with only humans and the world is suffering because Dwarfs and Elves are locked in a genocidal war against each other. Moreover, I'm taking the stance that races that can live 1000 years can easily have much of the population at high levels. If a human can go from 1st level to 10th level in 10 years (often less), then why can't demi-humans do that too.

Quote from: TristramEvans;933285As for my own games? It entirely depends. Warhammer Fantasy has a rich history of intense antagonism between races and the struggle for dominance underpins everything in that game, but generally when I run it I have all PCs as humans living in the Empire.

In the fantasy setting I'm currently running, it is quite literally The Otherworld of European myth; a place outside of Time, somewhere in between the world of dreams and the world of the dead. It was populated by a series of invasions, basically, one dominant race pushing out the older creatures, with the last invaders being the Sith, who drove the Fomhoire into the sea. Likewise the Fomhoire enslaved the giant Fir Bholgs, who now are all but extinct, a few solitary remnants leading solitary lives deep in the Mountains. Before them were the...well, that's a secret actually. Complicating matters, The Otherworld is bordered by Hell and a Tithe is paid each year in "rent" to the Legions of The Howling, the terms of a treatise after the Godwar. Meanwhile a sudden influx of humans has led the Sidhe to believe they are the next invading peoples, and some are preparing for war.

I think I'd like to create a table for waves for migration patterns. A simple chart that documents who arrived and in what order, assuming whoever arrived most recently has the more vital society, and perhaps the older waves have the most mystical knowledge. I'm aiming for a game that a GM can run with minimal prep.

Quote from: TristramEvans;933285But all of that is so setting specific its really not generally applicable. You need to come up with the setting first, then work out racial relations. An realize that "racism", as we understand it these days, is a modern concept, and completely alien to most thinking throughout the majority of human history.

Nailed it!

The recent Thunder Rift thread reminded me that races very not getting along is part of the theme of the setting and its history. Even classes not getting along.

Quote from: Spinachcat;933303In my view, adventurers are weirdo outcasts. That's why you can have the menagerie of races in your group. But when the zoo crew comes to town, the people are going to look askance at your group.

It's done a lot because it works. I'm making my own game and want a wider array of options though... and as I get older letting the characters be connected to the world intrigues me more.

Quote from: Spinachcat;933303I run OD&D with only humans and the world is suffering because Dwarfs and Elves are locked in a genocidal war against each other. Moreover, I'm taking the stance that races that can live 1000 years can easily have much of the population at high levels. If a human can go from 1st level to 10th level in 10 years (often less), then why can't demi-humans do that too.

Sounds like a cool campaign premise!

I find that Dragon Age presents a believable variant of human-elven relationships, if you choose to follow the Western European model;).

Of course, that's not the only possible model, and frankly, for most of history even in Western Europe, race was orders of magnitude less important than class, religion and citizenship. That still means you'd have abused minorities, it's just that they wouldn't be racial minorities:p!

It's really hard to express alienness. I mean, Star Trek had a hell of a time, quickly suffering into "forehead of the week!" repetition -- and that was when they were being professionally paid trying to explore the differences between possible alien cultural attitudes. We really don't get paid for that level of forethought of quality writing in world building prep, so failing shouldn't be a crushing thing for us GMs here.

It's straight up hard to make the alien not some sort of Earth-analog cultural pastiche.

The big thing to remember about Cosmopolitanism is: it favors greater density, opportunity to borders (either proximity, ports, or lax enforcement), and isolation from dominance.

One reason the Gold Rush left such an imprint in San Francisco is because it was rapidly all three. It exploded in population, it was essentially on a frontier hard to access and control, and thus a population isolated in general (let alone from a singular dominant culture, beyond "Western Civ.") had to rapidly put aside differences to survive against Nature and Hunger.

It is quite easy to have large cities feel very ostracizing to outsiders (pre-Adm. Perry Edo). Easy to also have borders where little exchange happens (usually natural boundaries, e.g. mountains). And it is easy to have rather homogenous populations rather distinct and/or isolated from a dominant culture's power (bedouins, Touareg, Kurds, etc.).

But if you get the right mix, and have a greater enemy (again, Nature works very well here,) Cosmopolitanism is an acceptable societal shift for survival.

Now with genuine aliens? It's basically running a cultural stereotype to its logical conclusion. Hard to see how Cosmopolitan life easily germinates everywhere -- friction is far more likely. So keeping Metro behaviors the exception, not the norm, should be an easy sell for setting coherence.

That said, some players don't want to deal with ANY of that, AT ALL. At that point, you either stick to your guns as GM and arbiter of setting, or you might as well throw away your game. Just like letting someone drive from the passenger seat a recipe for disaster, so too is full player veto rights over your game. They have feet, they can walk away.

Quote from: AsenRG;933338Of course, that's not the only possible model, and frankly, for most of history even in Western Europe, race was orders of magnitude less important than class, religion and citizenship. That still means you'd have abused minorities, it's just that they wouldn't be racial minorities:p!

You can't have racism without races.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933250One of the things that easily identies pink slime fantasy is the ease with which the diffferent races happily coexist for each other. In Tolkien's Middle Earth, Dwarves were a lesser god's shoddy attempt at creating his own race, and the elves never really had much to do with them. ....

You need to read the Silmarilion.  The Dwarves and elves "ignoring" each other also meant ignoring the others requests for aid against the forces of evil.  The elves and dwarves did also fight extended blood-feuds/wars with each other.  It's amazing the dwarves and elves ever fought, the elves far outnumbered the dwarves, the dwarves were never many, and the dwarves loved to live in places the elves contested.  Between elves and dwarves there were few if any of the pressures that led to conflict yet they found it none the less.  Lastly the elves fought wars with each other.  By the time you get to the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings both dwarves and elves are dying and dwindling peoples; yet you still see reference to wrongs that were done a thousand years ago.

I just handwave it. We already live in a crapsack world, I don't need to worry about that shit in my RPGs.

Startrek had to take their customers with them, so they couldn´t get too excotic.

Usually racisms drops when (and as long) you can find another profiting way of discrimination or exploitation of a third party that works better together and bound by a common idea:
Kommunism, Piratism, Islam ... .  

For those third parties on the other hand ... .

Quote from: Ashakyre;933250....

For me, it's a conundrum. Players want to be able to have their own unique characters and I want to design lots of different races ideas, but you're basically forced to have cities where all the races coexist in some kind of tenuous peace. You can't have a playable race that prefers to keep to itself, or anything too weird to be accepted in human society. In a sense it kills the sense of otherness I need for the second half of a hero's journey. There needs to be societies that convey a sense of otherness or differentness. If your starting location is already radically cosmoploitan, how do you do that?

Then just have those societies.  It's no conundrum unless your players incessantly whine about how there half-orc demon spawn is discriminated against by the humans.  Species favoritism should be part of the campaign, and is implied in the original D&D rules.  What happened, I believe, is players not wanting to accept any down side for picking an outsider species.

You can easily have both.  A city with many species yet with undercurrents of racism.  Medieval Spain is a good example.  In the larger cities Muslim, Christian and Jew mixed and traded freely.  Although Christians and Jews were second class citizens and had special quarters, in practice, especially if you were powerful or wealthy, it did not matter so much unless you were looking to marry or seeking political power, and even then.

QuoteI just don't know how to achieve a post apocalyptic fantasy with humanity straining with a population that acts as though they grew up on the Cosby Show.

Why would you want to achieve that?  Just because people in your fantasy world may have stereotypes and prejudices against other species doesn't mean characters of that species couldn't enter the city, trade and generally do what they generally want.   The barriers they do face are means to drive adventure.  Unless of course they pick a species that is hated and despised (e.g. an Orc), but why would you allow those to be playable as PCs?

QuoteFor those that see the same incongruence, ideas for how to resolve this dilemma? How to bring a diverse party together without it seeming contrived?

I don't see the same incongruence.  Diverse parties come together for their own reasons.  In a way it depends on how diverse.  Never is there a party formed of species that are ancient blood enemies.  It is more likely that a human from kingdom x is not welcome in kingdom y because of competition between the kingdoms.  That is, such problems are based more on politics than species.  In a world where you have species dedicated to killing and eating you, orcs, trolls, ogres, etc. you don't need to demonize you erstwhile allies based on skin color, pointy ears or facial hair, when you already have an "other" to really hate.  

QuoteEdit: It just seems that racial tolerance is too much of a luxury for a resource scarse society, where people will close ranks and take care of their own first. Bit I want people to be able to play different characters.

It depends on how resource scarce it is.  Cooperation does not equal tolerance.  If things are really bad resource wise then everyone will be out for themselves and what will be most important is the strength of your arm.  I can see species that thrive in environments unpleasant to humans being considered allies in a resource poor world.  When resources are scarce you don't have the luxury of conquering and occupying hostile lands, better to trade, and save your weapons for those who want to occupy your lands...other humans like yourself.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933351You can't have racism without races.

Well technically no, but humans in history (and today) have no problem hating and exploiting people of other cultures even if of the same "race."  Heck, even within the same culture people used difference in tribe or caste to discriminate.  Humans seem to have an endless ability to justify such.

In my campaign, dwarves and elves cultures act in ways that a human culture never would.  They are much more insular, self-absorbed, homogenous, far more law abiding, and not driven by the need for territorial expansion.  So elven and dwarven "kingdoms" are rarely a threat if unprovoked.  They have concepts of property and rights that may seem contradictory to humans and excessive.   Players that play elves and dwarves can act however they want in my campaign, I let them know what the typical elf or dwarf would do but only for informational purposes.  The fact that they are out adventuring makes them odd enough from their people.

In my campaign, humans are the species you most need to look out for.  Humans will commit the most vile acts against there own kind.  Good and trustworthy humans can often be the mouth pieces for the most evil of rulers.  It's hard to deal with humans as they rarely honor any long-term deal, a 10 year deal is a lifetime to a human.  Humans are always looking to expand, and unlike stupid orcs, they are inventive and a real threat to sane species everywhere.

Suggestion: the Babylon 5 model--the races do hate each other, are at each others throats, routinely war... and the PCs are all part of a diplomatic microcosm of their world where everyone has to make nice. Make up some relatively coherent excuse why people from this diplomatic mission are now adventuring together (PCs are the true diplomats kids just hanging around and bored and decide to adventure, Cataclysm happens and diplomacy is irrelevant, but everyone was there together and now is working together to survive far from home, etc.). Enmities intact, racism intact, motivation to work together achieved. Can't do this every campaign, but it's good for a single campaign.

Or make it like some of the British and French wars, where the war is "the King's war" and doesn't really affect the common folk. This would mean making only certain resources rare, rather than the basics (food, water, and shelter.) I believe I recall stories of early scientists getting excited, taking ship to other countries, and then having to send back for papers, when they discovered the countries were at war.

Quote from: Xanther;933354You need to read the Silmarilion.  The Dwarves and elves "ignoring" each other also meant ignoring the others requests for aid against the forces of evil.  The elves and dwarves did also fight extended blood-feuds/wars with each other.  It's amazing the dwarves and elves ever fought, the elves far outnumbered the dwarves, the dwarves were never many, and the dwarves loved to live in places the elves contested.  Between elves and dwarves there were few if any of the pressures that led to conflict yet they found it none the less.  Lastly the elves fought wars with each other.  By the time you get to the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings both dwarves and elves are dying and dwindling peoples; yet you still see reference to wrongs that were done a thousand years ago.

Pendantic, and hinges on the word "ignoring." Elves and Dwarfs never lived with each other. This is a far cry from the D&D tavern scenario. Everyone's read the Silmarilion. This thread isn't supposed to be a trivia contest.

Quote from: Opaopajr;933350It's really hard to express alienness. I mean, Star Trek had a hell of a time, quickly suffering into "forehead of the week!" repetition -- and that was when they were being professionally paid trying to explore the differences between possible alien cultural attitudes. We really don't get paid for that level of forethought of quality writing in world building prep, so failing shouldn't be a crushing thing for us GMs here.

It's straight up hard to make the alien not some sort of Earth-analog cultural pastiche.

The big thing to remember about Cosmopolitanism is: it favors greater density, opportunity to borders (either proximity, ports, or lax enforcement), and isolation from dominance.

One reason the Gold Rush left such an imprint in San Francisco is because it was rapidly all three. It exploded in population, it was essentially on a frontier hard to access and control, and thus a population isolated in general (let alone from a singular dominant culture, beyond "Western Civ.") had to rapidly put aside differences to survive against Nature and Hunger.

It is quite easy to have large cities feel very ostracizing to outsiders (pre-Adm. Perry Edo). Easy to also have borders where little exchange happens (usually natural boundaries, e.g. mountains). And it is easy to have rather homogenous populations rather distinct and/or isolated from a dominant culture's power (bedouins, Touareg, Kurds, etc.).

But if you get the right mix, and have a greater enemy (again, Nature works very well here,) Cosmopolitanism is an acceptable societal shift for survival.

Now with genuine aliens? It's basically running a cultural stereotype to its logical conclusion. Hard to see how Cosmopolitan life easily germinates everywhere -- friction is far more likely. So keeping Metro behaviors the exception, not the norm, should be an easy sell for setting coherence.

Yeah, provide enough external pressure and internal divisions will soften. It would work. The external pressure has to be even more alien and threatening than the internal. You can't have PC races be too alien in their mindsets simply because they will be played by humans.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;933362Suggestion: the Babylon 5 model--the races do hate each other, are at each others throats, routinely war... and the PCs are all part of a diplomatic microcosm of their world where everyone has to make nice. Make up some relatively coherent excuse why people from this diplomatic mission are now adventuring together (PCs are the true diplomats kids just hanging around and bored and decide to adventure, Cataclysm happens and diplomacy is irrelevant, but everyone was there together and now is working together to survive far from home, etc.). Enmities intact, racism intact, motivation to work together achieved. Can't do this every campaign, but it's good for a single campaign.

That would work. I personally lack the story skills to create that kind of a pressure cooker scenario, but it would work.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933369Pendantic, and hinges on the word "ignoring." Elves and Dwarfs never lived with each other. This is a far cry from the D&D tavern scenario. Everyone's read the Silmarilion. This thread isn't supposed to be a trivia contest.

No it doesn't, nor does it fit the definition if pedantic.  Not meant to address the D&D tavern scenario, brought up to counter the suggestion that dwarves and elves hold-hands in a kumbaya fashion in Tolkien.  Reading and remembering are two different things it seems.  Clearly you forgot all about the tension in the Silmarillion and the movies.  If you do remember the books, then your take on Tolkien and the relations between elves and dwarves is bullshit.  Tolkien had this racial tension all throughout it, it is this mythical "standard" D&D tavern you mention that took it away.  Neither is it a trivia contest, it was very basic in Tolkien the tension between dwarves and elves, and hence that may serve as a model for the kinds of tension you are looking for.

Quote from: Opaopajr;933350...It's straight up hard to make the alien not some sort of Earth-analog cultural pastiche.....

So true, especially in Star Trek and Star Wars.   David Brin did a pretty good job of it in his books the Uplift Wars; likewise C J Cherryh in her Chanur novels when describing the Knnn.

Quote from: Xanther;933378No it doesn't, nor does it fit the definition if pedantic.  Not meant to address the D&D tavern scenario, brought up to counter the suggestion that dwarves and elves hold-hands in a kumbaya fashion in Tolkien.  Reading and remembering are two different things it seems.  Clearly you forgot all about the tension in the Silmarillion and the movies.  If you do remember the books, then your take on Tolkien and the relations between elves and dwarves is bullshit.  Tolkien had this racial tension all throughout it, it is this mythical "standard" D&D tavern you mention that took it away.  Neither is it a trivia contest, it was very basic in Tolkien the tension between dwarves and elves, and hence that may serve as a model for the kinds of tension you are looking for.

And now ignore means kumbaya. This is the kind of tedious pendantry that ruins RPG discussions. Tell you what... start another thread about the exact, precise relationship between elves and dwarves in Tolkien's universe and everyone else who understood the basic idea of what I was getting at can continue here.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933351You can't have racism without races.

And you don't need to, because you can have classism, arristocratism, religious oppression, caste oppression, ethnic hate, and a host of other stuff that plays the same role;).

Quote from: AsenRG;933389And you don't need to, because you can have classism, arristocratism, religious oppression, caste oppression, ethnic hate, and a host of other stuff that plays the same role;).

Hate brings people together.

¡Viva hate!

Quote from: Black Vulmea;933390Hate brings people together.

¡Viva hate!

Jared Diamond mentions this... can't remember if its Guns, Germs, and Steel or Collapse... but the two patterns he sees for forming coalitions are one grouping completely dominating the other group, or a larger group forcing two smaller groups to find common ground. (Also why ideologies need an enemy to hold together.)

Simply having a serious outside threat forcing incompatible PC's to get along works just fine. This problem is that once the threat goes away, logically the alliance dissolves as well, and PC infighting gets pretty old.

Quote from: AsenRG;933389And you don't need to, because you can have classism, arristocratism, religious oppression, caste oppression, ethnic hate, and a host of other stuff that plays the same role;).

Wish I could upvote this, lol.

If I made a game of all human PC's I'd have to have various kinds of humans that had their own little abilities, and slight appearance differences - and then I could do some of this stuff.
Religious conflict fascinates me.

Using Opaopajr's San Francisco model seems pretty easy, boom town bringing lots of people to a frontier in search of loot with the threat of scary monsters looming over everyone. People might not have gotten along well back home but right here they can't afford to infight toooooo much.

Does anybody have the old AD&D UA chart that showed how the races were supposed to get along? I seem to recall that many of them couldn't stand one another.

Oh, and if you have a version of that chart you can post here, I'd love to see it.

People might want to take a look at Glen Cook's Garrett PI series, especially the main city of TunFaire.  The race relations shown there are very interesting.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933351You can't have racism without races.

Really? News to me in the 60s and 70s even. If humans arent discriminating against eachother over the colour of their skin, then its their religion, and failing that then its over where they were born. And failing those then it is wether they are deemed "fit" or even still human.

Say what you will, but I grew up playing various Palladium games and those still influence my game today.

What that means, is that in Palladium Fantasy, for example, there are dozens of races you can play. From standard dwarves and elves and gnomes, to kobolds, goblins, orcs, ogres, and trolls (Palladium Trolls are very different from DnD Trolls) and giant wolf people, coyote people, fox people, true giants, centaurs, and on and on.

Racism figures prominently in the fluff. I think it is the Ogre description that says something like, you will find it difficult to find places that cater to your size, and many people fear ogres because of their reputation or because they lost a loved one to ogre attacks on the borderlands. At the very best, you might find someone who will let you sleep in their barn. Usually, you won't be allowed within sight of a town. At the same time, an ogre can be a fearsome and valued defender of a community if they make nice and prove they aren't going to pillage the place.

Orcs are sort of the same, being seen as stupid and lazy by the other races. Even though Orcs can be somewhat smart, they can use that racial bias to their advantage as spies; other people will talk openly around an orc because they don't think the orc is smart enough to remember or use it against them.

Regardless, communities in PF are heterogeneous, being dominated by a single species with other species showing up in specific roles, often not good. For example, the Timiro Kingdom is human dominated, but a third of the population is made up of orc and goblin slaves who are about to revolt. While Elves and dwarves are both allied with and reside within human communities, both are few in number and refuse to live in the same communities as the other.

Nowadays I play other games, but I still generally place communities as more or less a single species, with maybe some traders or mercenaries from other species hangin' out before they return to their own communities. I think it keeps things exotic, while still showing that other stuff exists and providing options for the players.

My first LotFP campaign started off with some dwarven slave traders who shanghai'd the PCs. Never involved dwarves in the campaign again after that first adventure, but the players knew and hated and feared them for the rest of the campaign.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933250Edit: It just seems that racial tolerance is too much of a luxury for a resource scarse society, where people will close ranks and take care of their own first. Bit I want people to be able to play different characters.

Historically cultures were dicks to each other flat out. It got a little better (holding up two fingers an inch apart) after the rise of the Great Religions provided a common background for many regions of the worlds. But even then there were many many issues. It took bloody religious wars, several revolutions in thought (like the Enlightenment), to get to where we are now and it still not finished by a long shot.

With that being said what about a setting with D&D style fantasy with a multitude of sentient races. Well first off, there is a difference between ethnicity, race, and culture. They overlap but there been societies in our history where being of the right culture was more important than being of the right ethnicity or race. One's ethic background was a factor but it wasn't the end all be all that is the norm throughout human history. The Persian Empire, Hellenistic culture, and Imperial Rome were example where the tide shifted in favor of culture over race.

In my Majestic Wilderlands, the default is the same as it ever was throughout our history. Not only race caused animosity but culture as well. However there are two major factors present in the Wilderlands that are not in our world as result of using D&D fantasy as the foundation.

First are the elves, in standard D&D they live for centuries, in my Wilderlands they are true immortals. In either case they provide a cultural continuity that is quite unlike anything we had in our world. The closest would be institutions like that Catholic/Orthodox Church, or the various Chinese ideals like the Mandate of Heaven. In the Majestic Wilderlands, this results in various regions having a Sylvan cultures that are dominated by elven ethos. This also emulate the stereotypical default of we happy band of races found in most D&D setting. Except in my Wilderlands it not universal but regional as a result of other cultures being near an Elven civilization.

For example the Elephand Lands have been setup to be very D&Dish in it culture because the Kingdom of Irminsul, a major Elven kingdom, is a dominate force. However the region around the City-State of Invincible Overlord is much more fractured with diverse cultures because of the legacy of it history. So there is no grand alliances of good aligned races. The closest is the Dwarves of Thunderhold being allies of the City-State.

The second is that deities and demons interact differently with the world than they do in our history. There are similarity to how religion plays out in the Wilderlands and in our history. But on the other hand Mantriv, the Lord of Sky is the same deity as Thor the Thunderer. The difference is that Mantriv is how the deity manifests to the Ionians in the southern regions of the Wilderlands and Thor is how he manifests to the Skandian Vikings in the northern regions. Both are similair in they teach that it is important to stand up and be honorable. Be willing to fight for one home, family, and people, and both surrounded themselves with tales of going out into the wilderness and hunting down monsters as central life lessons. But a lot of details are different especially in ceremonies and rites although if you boil it down the root symbolism are the same in both.

In any case it not that the standard default of D&D assumption of a happy band of races is bad or improbable. It just that it used too often in cases where it doesn't make sense in light of other information about the setting. A stereotype can be effective if you think it through and carefully place in the context of your larger setting.

One final comment, I opt for few races, many culture to achieve diversity. For example among the humanoids I have only goblins and orcs. But there are distinct cultures among those (as well as dwarves, elves, and humans). So the Orcs of Dearthwood are not the same as the Orcs of the Southern Jungles.

Quote from: estar;933475Historically cultures were dicks to each other flat out. It got a little better (holding up two fingers an inch apart) after the rise of the Great Religions provided a common background for many regions of the worlds. But even then there were many many issues. It took bloody religious wars, several revolutions in thought (like the Enlightenment), to get to where we are now and it still not finished by a long shot.

Religion seems to be the best substitute for race for the formation of group identity. I don't have a teleological view of history. Mine is circular, and we are still subject to the same forces the ancients were. We just want to believe the particular phase we're at will last forever. I believe each phase prepares the next.

Quote from: estar;933475With that being said what about a setting with D&D style fantasy with a multitude of sentient races. Well first off, there is a difference between ethnicity, race, and culture. They overlap but there been societies in our history where being of the right culture was more important than being of the right ethnicity or race. One's ethic background was a factor but it wasn't the end all be all that is the norm throughout human history. The Persian Empire, Hellenistic culture, and Imperial Rome were example where the tide shifted in favor of culture over race.

The Romans became dependent on barbarians and collapsed. Sure, you can point to a phase in their history where Roman citizenship - on paper - was more important than tribe, but in the next phase barbarian refugees stopped assimilating and eventually sacked Rome, and set up de facto kingdoms within the Empire, leading to its dissolution. Meanwhile the Jewish tribes kept their identity and are still going strong today.

EDIT: I'm not sure what caused the end of classical Greece or Persia, other than they were subsumed by other empires. But they had to become internally weak first, I suppose - I just don't know the history.

Quote from: estar;933475In my Majestic Wilderlands, the default is the same as it ever was throughout our history. Not only race caused animosity but culture as well. However there are two major factors present in the Wilderlands that are not in our world as result of using D&D fantasy as the foundation.

First are the elves, in standard D&D they live for centuries, in my Wilderlands they are true immortals. In either case they provide a cultural continuity that is quite unlike anything we had in our world. The closest would be institutions like that Catholic/Orthodox Church, or the various Chinese ideals like the Mandate of Heaven. In the Majestic Wilderlands, this results in various regions having a Sylvan cultures that are dominated by elven ethos. This also emulate the stereotypical default of we happy band of races found in most D&D setting. Except in my Wilderlands it not universal but regional as a result of other cultures being near an Elven civilization.

For example the Elephand Lands have been setup to be very D&Dish in it culture because the Kingdom of Irminsul, a major Elven kingdom, is a dominate force. However the region around the City-State of Invincible Overlord is much more fractured with diverse cultures because of the legacy of it history. So there is no grand alliances of good aligned races. The closest is the Dwarves of Thunderhold being allies of the City-State.

The second is that deities and demons interact differently with the world than they do in our history. There are similarity to how religion plays out in the Wilderlands and in our history. But on the other hand Mantriv, the Lord of Sky is the same deity as Thor the Thunderer. The difference is that Mantriv is how the deity manifests to the Ionians in the southern regions of the Wilderlands and Thor is how he manifests to the Skandian Vikings in the northern regions. Both are similair in they teach that it is important to stand up and be honorable. Be willing to fight for one home, family, and people, and both surrounded themselves with tales of going out into the wilderness and hunting down monsters as central life lessons. But a lot of details are different especially in ceremonies and rites although if you boil it down the root symbolism are the same in both.

In any case it not that the standard default of D&D assumption of a happy band of races is bad or improbable. It just that it used too often in cases where it doesn't make sense in light of other information about the setting. A stereotype can be effective if you think it through and carefully place in the context of your larger setting.

This is very true. Personally I'd like to make a game that somehow represents a sped-up version of cultural time and allows the formation and breakup of empires throughout the course of a campaign. I find the very idea of cultural cycles utterly fascinating and maybe a simple model could be that context which makes these stereotypes more interesting and effective.

In this case, the broad cycle would feature times when tribes bonded together through empire/migration, homogenized and separated through ethnic cleansing, and bonded together through empire.

Quote from: estar;933475One final comment, I opt for few races, many culture to achieve diversity. For example among the humanoids I have only goblins and orcs. But there are distinct cultures among those (as well as dwarves, elves, and humans). So the Orcs of Dearthwood are not the same as the Orcs of the Southern Jungles.

This seems like a solid, manageable approach. Earlier in the thread folks have suggested I make it all humans but with diverging cultures. That would be fun.

Quote from: everloss;933460Orcs are sort of the same, being seen as stupid and lazy by the other races. Even though Orcs can be somewhat smart, they can use that racial bias to their advantage as spies; other people will talk openly around an orc because they don't think the orc is smart enough to remember or use it against them.

Brilliant way to handle it!

Quote from: everloss;933460Nowadays I play other games, but I still generally place communities as more or less a single species, with maybe some traders or mercenaries from other species hangin' out before they return to their own communities. I think it keeps things exotic, while still showing that other stuff exists and providing options for the players.

It works, doesn't it? People have suggested a version of this on this thread, and it lets you roll up a town in a hurry - just need to conceptualize how each race could serve as a minority niche inside another race's territory. And if I was more generous to D&D lore, this is closer to how they present races in the material I've seen.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933499Religion seems to be the best substitute for race for the formation of group identity. I don't have a teleological view of history. Mine is circular, and we are still subject to the same forces the ancients were. We just want to believe the particular phase we're at will last forever. I believe each phase prepares the next.

When it comes to our history, I read that point of view, all I will say is that I disagree with the idea. Which is a topic for a different thread. However when it comes to fictional setting by all means make that a feature. Part of doing this stuff is to explore what ifs. You will be in good company as one of the most well known settings, Middle Earth, has a particular take on history due to the author's views.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933499The Romans became dependent on barbarians and collapsed. Sure, you can point to a phase in their history where Roman citizenship - on paper - was more important than tribe, but in the next phase barbarian refugees stopped assimilating and eventually sacked Rome, and set up de facto kingdoms within the Empire, leading to its dissolution. Meanwhile the Jewish tribes kept their identity and are still going strong today.

My view is that the Roman ideal solidified during the 1st and 2nd century, especially during the time of the Five Good Emperors. It rose because of the necessity of holding their empire together. And for many the Roman way brought considerable material improvements both high and low. And yes there were some, like the Jews, that were the exception.

Note however, the situation with the barbarians is more complex than they didn't assimilate. They wanted the idea of Rome but did not want to submit to Rome. The ideals of Rome shown a powerful light down through the centuries for Western and Southern Europe. Even reached to places like Russia through the Byzantines.

The takeaway for fantasy campaigns, is that more interesting situations are those where there are multiple reason behind what drives individuals and cultures. For example in a 5th century campaign, it is an interesting conflict to have to try to juggle the desire to live of the ideals of your germanic tribe versus the benefits of doing things the Roman way versus exploiting the specific circumstances your find yourself in.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933499EDIT: I'm not sure what caused the end of classical Greece or Persia, other than they were subsumed by other empires. But they had to become internally weak first, I suppose - I just don't know the history.

Persia was taken out by Alexander and Hellenism. What characterized Persia was their willingness to accommodate local customs and laws to a point. However there was no master idea or philosophy united the empire. It still amounted to the threat that the Persians will kick your culture ass if you don't pay the proper respect and tribute to the King of Kings.

The spread of Hellenism was more of an idea than threat of force. Alexander empire fragmented after his death, however the sheer craziness of 5th Century BC Greek thought was so compelling that it became a major force. Ultimately it was done in by Rome in the West and a renewed Persia in the East. However both Rome and Persia assimilated much of Greek thought into their respective. Rome especially.

Adapting Hellenism can provide a interesting context to why the good aligned races are what they are. I wrote a mini setting for a LARP where the epic was an elf named Greyhorn. The various races (dwarves, humans, elves, etc) were under a common threat and he united them. A common civilization developed and then he died unexpectedly. The wars for his successors tore the land apart. But his ideals lived on and while the region was never united politically again, there was enough of the spirit of what he accomplished that the various inhabitants of the region still had a natural affinity for each other compared to cultures outside of the region.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933499This is very true. Personally I'd like to make a game that somehow represents a sped-up version of cultural time and allows the formation and breakup of empires throughout the course of a campaign. I find the very idea of cultural cycles utterly fascinating and maybe a simple model could be that context which makes these stereotypes more interesting and effective.

That would a interesting game, however when it comes an RPG campaign it only matters as much as it effect the behavior of a NPC or PC. Where history, culture, religion, meet the metal in the personalities and motivations of the characters both players and non-player. One of the things I tried to do in my campaign and writing is only present things that are important to how character act. In my books and handouts I try to draw a clear connection between the history or ideal to how you would see it manifest in the campaign.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933499In this case, the broad cycle would feature times when tribes bonded together through empire/migration, homogenized and separated through ethnic cleansing, and bonded together through empire.

What I do is start with an initial situation and extrapolate form there. There are constants in that human, elves, dwarves, etc have a norm for their race or culture. However it combines with the specific circumstance to produces what happens. And at the end is yet another set of specific circumstances. The circumstances rarely repeat, but because of what makes an elf an elf, a human a human, there are patterns that occur over and over again in different variations.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933499This seems like a solid, manageable approach. Earlier in the thread folks have suggested I make it all humans but with diverging cultures. That would be fun.

When it comes to fictional setting people at time develop a myopia that I like to call the Star Wars planet. A Star Wars planet is defined by one thing, it a desert world, a jungle world, a storm world, etc. In reality life bearing worlds would have diverse environments even if a single climate dominate the planet. The same for race and culture.

However if you going to run a Star War campaigns, then it makes sense to have Star Wars style planets. It an option only bad if that the only one the referee ever thinks of using.

Quote from: estar;933512That would a interesting game, however when it comes an RPG campaign it only matters as much as it effect the behavior of a NPC or PC. Where history, culture, religion, meet the metal in the personalities and motivations of the characters both players and non-player. One of the things I tried to do in my campaign and writing is only present things that are important to how character act. In my books and handouts I try to draw a clear connection between the history or ideal to how you would see it manifest in the campaign.

If I could achieve it at all, I could achieve it to my satisfaction with minimal effort. I just want to make it so that the richer and safer a city is the less able it is to produce people who can defend it.

Quote from: estar;933512When it comes to fictional setting people at time develop a myopia that I like to call the Star Wars planet. A Star Wars planet is defined by one thing, it a desert world, a jungle world, a storm world, etc. In reality life bearing worlds would have diverse environments even if a single climate dominate the planet. The same for race and culture.

However if you going to run a Star War campaigns, then it makes sense to have Star Wars style planets. It an option only bad if that the only one the referee ever thinks of using.

For quick and dirty instant cultures, it works. I'd like to have a classification system determined by where a city / polity is on its civilizational cycle. I think that would be fun, even if people disagreed with the details.

Quote from: everloss;933460Say what you will, but I grew up playing various Palladium games and those still influence my game today.

Palladium Fantasy 1e rocks.

I'd jump to play in a PF1e campaign in a hot second. That game is great fun.

This latest campaign is the first one where I made a conscious decision to have a major NPC lord come off as a bigot. It incensed the group, and has consumed the Elf warriors entire character arc. He's fomenting an overthrow. The interesting thing is, the bigot NPC isn't so much a hater as he is conpletely ignorant of anything not human. He spent a great deal of time ignoring the non-humans in audience, except when he spoke really....slow....to the halfling character. They hate the guy. Which is fun for me, because lord dumbass isn't the brains behind the outfit. He's just the front.

Quote from: cranebump;933538This latest campaign is the first one where I made a conscious decision to have a major NPC lord come off as a bigot. It incensed the group, and has consumed the Elf warriors entire character arc. He's fomenting an overthrow. The interesting thing is, the bigot NPC isn't so much a hater as he is conpletely ignorant of anything not human. He spent a great deal of time ignoring the non-humans in audience, except when he spoke really....slow....to the halfling character. They hate the guy. Which is fun for me, because lord dumbass isn't the brains behind the outfit. He's just the front.

That's a fantastic and effective characterization.

Humans have always had animosity toward our neighbors because we all occupy the same ecological niche and must compete against each other.

Races in D&D seem to have natural affinity for a particular geography where they outperform other races.  Elves in forests, dwarves in mountains, etc.  Thusly, the D&D races generally occupy different ecological niches with limited need to compete.  Since each is relatively isolated within their respective geographical types, trade becomes very important to acquire resources.  However, open warfare is relatively rare since races have no desire to live in the geography of their bordering neighbors.  Warfare is generally between competing tribes within a race.

This is also why humanoids are so dangerous.  They threaten the natural order of the races by attacking across geographical types.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933409Wish I could upvote this, lol.

If I made a game of all human PC's I'd have to have various kinds of humans that had their own little abilities, and slight appearance differences - and then I could do some of this stuff.
Religious conflict fascinates me.

Please don't upvote a post containing words like "classism, arristocratism, religious oppression, caste oppression, ethnic hate", it might trigger someone:p!
And then the whole RPGSite will need new keyboards;).

Quote from: estar;933475In my Majestic Wilderlands, the default is the same as it ever was throughout our history. Not only race caused animosity but culture as well. However there are two major factors present in the Wilderlands that are not in our world as result of using D&D fantasy as the foundation.

And that is, IMO, how it should be:).

The only problem I have with the MW is that I don't have enough info about the City-State. But I guess most people who buy OSR titles know more about the CSotIOL than I do;). But other than that, it strikes me as a rather good, usable setting without a host of things the designer didn't bother to think about, so kudos for writing MW!

Quote from: Old One Eye;933598Humans have always had animosity toward our neighbors because we all occupy the same ecological niche and must compete against each other.

Races in D&D seem to have natural affinity for a particular geography where they outperform other races.  Elves in forests, dwarves in mountains, etc.  Thusly, the D&D races generally occupy different ecological niches with limited need to compete.  Since each is relatively isolated within their respective geographical types, trade becomes very important to acquire resources.  However, open warfare is relatively rare since races have no desire to live in the geography of their bordering neighbors.  Warfare is generally between competing tribes within a race.

This is also why humanoids are so dangerous.  They threaten the natural order of the races by attacking across geographical types.

OK, now I want to write a setting where the invasion of goblin tribes has made the elves emigrate towards human and dwarven cities, and have a hard time finding acceptance there:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;933603OK, now I want to write a setting where the invasion of goblin tribes has made the elves emigrate towards human and dwarven cities, and have a hard time finding acceptance there:D!

Sounds delicious. Model them on the Jews! Highly talented, homeless, and resented.

Quote from: AsenRG;933603The only problem I have with the MW is that I don't have enough info about the City-State. But I guess most people who buy OSR titles know more about the CSotIOL than I do;). But other than that, it strikes me as a rather good, usable setting without a host of things the designer didn't bother to think about, so kudos for writing MW!

Thanks. The point of the book is to be a setting overview hence the lack of local level details. However I did post my raw notes a long time ago which you can look at here. Note they are very raw notes.

Land of the City State (http://www.batintheattic.com/wilderlands/csland.html)

As well as a ma (http://www.batintheattic.com/wilderlands/Map_Key.jpg)p of what my version of City-State is like.

And the rest of the site http://www.batintheattic.com/wilderlands/

I am working on a follow up. The first one will be focusing on magic and is called The Lost Grimoire of Magic.

Quote from: Old One Eye;933598Humans have always had animosity toward our neighbors because we all occupy the same ecological niche and must compete against each other.

Bingo!  The bedouins get credit for their "Me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me and my cousin against the stranger", but ALL humanity is like that when there is competition for base survival.

Elves and Dwarves really don't compete against each other or humans for land or resources, and they all compete against the humanoids, who are spread out and can really infect any habitat you can think of.  Of course Empires are going to conflict as they begin expansion into other areas, but then you're into political/economic influence more than competition for survival.  

The ones who are going to have problems with humans are the halflings.  Without a civilized diplomacy that will allow halflings to co-exist under the control of humans, they are going to be roflstomped in battle and have to undertake a murderous insurgency or be enslaved.

Take Warhammer.  Reiklanders, Talabeclanders and Middenlanders would rather cut each other's heads off most of the time than share bread.  Not only are they in competition politically, their enmity descends from when they were all barbaric tribes, and to top it off, they have different main deities.  Western Reiklanders might have hostility towards their semi-close foreign neighbors the Bretonnians, while treating visitors from far Kislev as exotic travelers, while Eastern Sudenlanders would be the exact opposite.  All humans however can agree to fight against the Orcs and Beastmen.  Elves and Dwarves are generally treated as "exotic" not "foreign" except in the largest cities where they may have enclaves and compete against the local tradesmen.

In a coastal land where Elven Ships dominate the seas, Elves might be hated by humans.  In mountainous valleys, humans might loathe Dwarves who make them trade food and goods for metals at obscene rates, and hate the Elves who kill humans who stray too far into their forests for wood and hunting, leaving the humans and halflings having to band together against the humanoids.  

Elves and Dwarves might hate each other for sins committed before the time of man, but it might be more fun if the Gnomes just need vast amounts of wood for their war machines, so the last remnants of the Elves and the Halfling refugees they took in are waging guerilla war against the lumber camps while the human Empire leads its Orcish mercenary armies against the Dwarven Strongholds.

Think of Resources, Geography and Gods and you'll have enough warfare and conflict for a thousand years of history and a setting that isn't bog-standard fantasy.

Quote from: HappyDaze;933436Does anybody have the old AD&D UA chart that showed how the races were supposed to get along? I seem to recall that many of them couldn't stand one another.

Oh, and if you have a version of that chart you can post here, I'd love to see it.

Heres a basic summary.

Dwarves didnt like Elves and hate Half orcs. They like Gnomes and Halflings (of the Tallfellow and Stout type.)
Elves dont like Dwarves or Half orcs. They like Half elves and are ok with Halflings.
Gnomes hate Half orcs. They like Dwarves and Halflings and are ok with Elves and Half elves.
Halflings are ok with Dwarves, Elves and Gnomes, and neutral to everyone else.
Half Orcs hate dwarves and Gnomes and dont like Elves or Half elves. They are ok with Humans.
Half elfs dont like Half orcs. They love elves and are ok with Humans and Gnomes.
Humans are ok with Half-elves and neutral to everyone else.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933407. . . PC infighting gets pretty old.

Or it drives a really fun campaign.

Quote from: CRKrueger;933683Elves and Dwarves really don't compete against each other or humans for land or resources . . .

The fuck they don't.

Dwarven forges need charcoal, dwarven mines need timbers, dwarven mills need running water.

Mines will absolutely fuck over a forest, consuming it and leaving behind acres of spoils, stumps, and sediment-choked streams.

Thanks, Estar:)!

Quote from: Ashakyre;933611Sounds delicious. Model them on the Jews! Highly talented, homeless, and resented.

I think that calling Jews "elves" should count as antisemitism, so no, thank you:D!

Unless I'm running Dragon Age, where their two culture as described in the book did strike me as Medieval Jew and Medieval Gypsy, but that's on the designer's conscience, not mine;).

Quote from: Black Vulmea;933754Or it drives a really fun campaign.

Verily. But only when everyone is on for it.

If not then it can, and often will, very quickly become onerous. Or a total game killer.

I've been in ones where it was alot of fun. Ive been in ones, and GMed for players for whom it was anything but.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;933755The fuck they don't.

Dwarven forges need charcoal, dwarven mines need timbers, dwarven mills need running water.

Mines will absolutely fuck over a forest, consuming it and leaving behind acres of spoils, stumps, and sediment-choked streams.

Also conflict over mineral deposits too. Elves need gems, silver, gold and all that for their fancy jewelry, arms and armour. And in some settings there may be conflict over subterrene land too. Some of Tolkien's elves lived underground for example and he drew his ideas from older legends of elves under the earth.

I like the gonzo Tunnels and Trolls or Fighting Fantasy approach. A whole menagerie of sentient species all mixed up, but not so much Disneyland, instead there is a gritty or even pychedelic undercurrent. A lot of casual cruelty and violence, sometimes with racial (obviously, not real-world racial) conflict.

Quote from: AsenRG;933776Thanks, Estar:)!



I think that calling Jews "elves" should count as antisemitism, so no, thank you:D!

Unless I'm running Dragon Age, where their two culture as described in the book did strike me as Medieval Jew and Medieval Gypsy, but that's on the designer's conscience, not mine;).

I don't particularly think Elvish culture has anything to do with the Jewish people, but in the particular case described, where they are without a home and competing against skilled artisans, they match the pattern of history that Thomas Sowell describes as "middle minorities." A similar pattern emerged with the Lebanese in North Africa and the Chinese in Malaysia. Of lot of the things that have happened with Jews also happened with the North Africa Lebanese and the "overseas Chinese" - alternating between periods of success and persecution.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;933755The fuck they don't.

Dwarven forges need charcoal, dwarven mines need timbers, dwarven mills need running water.

Mines will absolutely fuck over a forest, consuming it and leaving behind acres of spoils, stumps, and sediment-choked streams.

True, but it all depends on where the Elves are living and how the Dwarves mine.  If the Dwarves have magic, earth or fire elementals, what have you, it might be easier for them to hew or shape the living rock without needing wood supports (or using stone supports).  Grow crystal formations or use mirrors to channel light instead of torches, use natural gas or coal instead of charcoal.  Use Geothermal power. The average Dwarven city might be thousands of years in the making.  Waste might be deposited deep below in underground rivers or caverns or even processed somehow with alchemy.  Humans don't live anywhere near where we mine generally, or the people running the company choosing the methods of mining live in a city somewhere, so turning the area around the mine into a festering shithole wasn't seen as a problem.  Dwarves, by necessity, will choose a different path unless shitting where they eat and calling it dessert is a Dwarven thing.  I doubt it.

Elves may or may not be affected by this, depending on how close they are.  Do the Elves live all across the surfaces of the Dwarven Mountains, then maybe.  If the Dwarves of Moria decide to hire the Woodsmen to go clearcut all of Mirkwood, then at some point, yeah, conflict.

Now if the Dwarves decide to stripmine the mountains like locusts and just shit the products out across the surface like an industrial dystopian allegory, then yeah, big problem, but that's more of a human thing. :D

Quote from: Omega;933781Also conflict over mineral deposits too. Elves need gems, silver, gold and all that for their fancy jewelry, arms and armour. And in some settings there may be conflict over subterrene land too. Some of Tolkien's elves lived underground for example and he drew his ideas from older legends of elves under the earth.

Agreed that it is setting dependent.  But if you're talking standard Tolkienesque D&D Races, Elves needing minerals and Dwarves needing wood is more of a trading thing than a direct competition thing.  The big defining difference between humans and the fantasy races is adaptability vs. specialization.  Humans are more like Orcs in that sense, we thrive everywhere.

Now if your setting has Mountain Elves, River Dwarves, Tree Gnomes and Ice Halflings, more power to you.  If the world is Athas or Glorantha, things obviously will differ.

But...niches, specialization, technology/magic, geography, etc. don't have to play out the same way they would between groups of humans.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933886I don't particularly think Elvish culture has anything to do with the Jewish people, but in the particular case described, where they are without a home and competing against skilled artisans, they match the pattern of history that Thomas Sowell describes as "middle minorities." A similar pattern emerged with the Lebanese in North Africa and the Chinese in Malaysia. Of lot of the things that have happened with Jews also happened with the North Africa Lebanese and the "overseas Chinese" - alternating between periods of success and persecution.

In "Cross-Cultural Trade in World History," Curtin refers to these as "trade diasporas"

Quote from: CRKrueger;933999If the Dwarves have magic, earth or fire elementals, what have you, it might be easier for them to hew or shape the living rock without needing wood supports (or using stone supports).  Grow crystal formations or use mirrors to channel light instead of torches, use natural gas or coal instead of charcoal.  Use Geothermal power. The average Dwarven city might be thousands of years in the making.  Waste might be deposited deep below in underground rivers or caverns or even processed somehow with alchemy.  Humans don't live anywhere near where we mine generally, or the people running the company choosing the methods of mining live in a city somewhere, so turning the area around the mine into a festering shithole wasn't seen as a problem.

While I could quibble with some of the details, it's a fair point that, depending on how fantastical your setting is, dwarves may have very different ways of managing resources.

You could adopt a chaos beastmen and/or mongrelmen model and have all the funny looking humans literally be funny looking humans because chaos mutates everyone. Dwarves and elves and centaurs and furries are humans mutated in utero by chaos. This leads to racism becoming solely about appearance because mutations don't always run in families before getting overridden by new mutations. It would explain why such diverse peoples can get along, since they have the same psychology, basic needs and interfertility.

On a related note.

The 5e Forgotten Realms book shows a couple of isolationist kingdoms/cities. And what happens when people try to isolate themselves in a VERY hostile environment. Dwarves seem the worst of it with elves a distant second. One example was a dwarven city that has traps set all over the place because they are so paranoid. And another that used to be a joint human/dwarf settlement untill the surface was razed and the dwarves here too have isolated the place.

Quote from: Ashakyre;933250a resource scarse society

Maybe it shouldn't be a resource scarce society?

Quote from: rawma;934090Maybe it shouldn't be a resource scarce society?

What are you getting at?

Quote from: Ashakyre;933886I don't particularly think Elvish culture has anything to do with the Jewish people, but in the particular case described, where they are without a home and competing against skilled artisans, they match the pattern of history that Thomas Sowell describes as "middle minorities." A similar pattern emerged with the Lebanese in North Africa and the Chinese in Malaysia. Of lot of the things that have happened with Jews also happened with the North Africa Lebanese and the "overseas Chinese" - alternating between periods of success and persecution.

Yeah, I know a bit about the Chinese in Southeastern Asia, but Dragon Age is so obviously based on Europe that it just makes sense to base them on Jewish people. Much to my chagrin, as I had to explain in a previous post that comparing Jews to any elves probably counts as antisemitism:p!

And of course, it's funny that I said that DA elves are split between Jewish and Gypsy, but nobody seemed to question the part about the gypsies;).

Quote from: AsenRG;934170Yeah, I know a bit about the Chinese in Southeastern Asia, but Dragon Age is so obviously based on Europe that it just makes sense to base them on Jewish people. Much to my chagrin, as I had to explain in a previous post that comparing Jews to any elves probably counts as antisemitism:p!

And of course, it's funny that I said that DA elves are split between Jewish and Gypsy, but nobody seemed to question the part about the gypsies;).

However you splice it, it's an interesting pattern of history would be fun, somehow, to bring to the table, whichever fantasy race it applied to.

Quote from: Ashakyre;934092What are you getting at?

If you want PCs and NPCs to have luxury items like racial tolerance, and you don't think it's possible in a resource scarce society, then maybe you should have a different game world that is not a resource scarce society. There are plenty of examples of various degrees in SF: Iain Banks' Culture, Vernor Vinge's Beyond, Farmer's Riverworld, the Federation of Planets come quickly to mind. Fantasy is even more likely to have such; no limit to what magic and gods can provide resource-wise (let alone enforce an otherwise unrealistic social order), and racial identity in a world with reincarnation might not even make sense to the inhabitants. And I've played in various games in which monetary rewards were moot; most often they were mission based with some patron providing for material needs, with the objective being successful missions, not profit.

Another "trick" to justify a racially coherent society is the gods. If the gods are split between Good and Evil or Law and Chaos, then the gods would have their clerics preach the wholeness of Red Team vs. the unholiness of Blue Team. Thus, the dwarf, elf and humans may not love each other, but certainly tolerate each other because the gods are tangibly real.

Even more coherence would be formed by a single pantheon worshiped by all the PC races.

Quote from: rawma;934343If you want PCs and NPCs to have luxury items like racial tolerance, and you don't think it's possible in a resource scarce society, then maybe you should have a different game world that is not a resource scarce society. There are plenty of examples of various degrees in SF: Iain Banks' Culture, Vernor Vinge's Beyond, Farmer's Riverworld, the Federation of Planets come quickly to mind. Fantasy is even more likely to have such; no limit to what magic and gods can provide resource-wise (let alone enforce an otherwise unrealistic social order), and racial identity in a world with reincarnation might not even make sense to the inhabitants. And I've played in various games in which monetary rewards were moot; most often they were mission based with some patron providing for material needs, with the objective being successful missions, not profit.

Ah, ok.

My setting is already a resource scarse one and that to me is more interesting than the usual panoply of races. I think having the playable races being much more similar to each other than the non playable ones will help. Either way, I'm not bummed out by not having different races - yet. Well see.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;934042It would explain why such diverse peoples can get along, since they have the same psychology, basic needs and interfertility.

Or, to riff on that, what if the only way to have children was via coupling with a member of a different race? "chaos mutation" (and one should really look for something thats isn't a direct Warhammer rip-off) leaves demihumans infertile, or for some general reason infertility is rampant, and its only be combining the gene pools of two different demihumans that the genes are strong enough to enable procreation.

Just one note since people are talking about history and racial/tribal/ethnic conflict vs religious conflicts. Viewing historical religious conflict´s in a kind of a "Theological Identity OnlyTM" is not very historical but abstract and very much a western post-modern detached way of seeing it (sounding like a bit of a jack-ass cultural relativist here. But wait! There is is more!). It can be very appealing to fantasize today when dreaming about Multiculti-topia that race relations where much more "tolerant" in a different age, and so delude one self by arguing "you know in the middle ages people did not care about race/ethnicity/tribal heritage so why should we today?" when trying to make an implicit modern day identity-political comment. And thus putting the "icky" parts of history down the memory hole for the sake of an argument.

For example regarding muslim invasions of Europe and european the crusades in return: cristianity vs islam were only one (main factor) layer on the conflict. But they did fight the muhammedans (or christians) as much as they also fought "saracens" ( brown and comes from the middle-east/north-Africa = saracen) vs "franks" ( white/european = franks in the eyes of the muslims). Skipping the geopolitical aspects for now. My main point is that you can´t always regard religion vs race/nation/region/etnicity/tribe as two very different things because in most cases even universalist religions also becomes part of such an identity.

Just like the conflicts of Northen Ireland with catholic´s vs protestant´s has not very much to do with the actual thesis of Martin Luther anymore (compared to the political implications) or christianity becoming a part of "the white mans burden" during the age of colonialism.

This could of course also be relevant in fanstasy rpg worlds if one strives for that a kind of "realist" approach to collective conflicts of different peoples.

Yes, it is useful to think of layers of identity as acetate transparencies to overlay each other. That way you get a delightfully more complex, and dynamic, mix of potential encounters (which don't always have to be violent or poor). One of the reasons I liked Birthright's deconstruction of power into 5 major aspects: military, law, faith, trade, mana. Overlapping domains press boundaries and interests into each other, which in turn brainstorms encounters.

Or you could go with the simple solution that there are pockets of co-operation and everywhere else there isnt.

Or something like Thunder Rift where theres very much not co-operation untill some external threat unifies everyone. And once that threat is gone they go right back at it against eachother.

Thunder Rift though shows a good reason why you want to try to co-operate in a fantasy setting. The environment is so hostile that in-fighting only weakens you. Leaving you open to attacks from external threats. And probably is the reason why so many fantasy settings are so sparsely populated. One of the mainstays of some fantasy settings is that goblinoids and especially dragons would take over IF they werent so busy fighting eachother. Council of Wyrms shows what happens when dragons do cooperate.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;934367Or, to riff on that, what if the only way to have children was via coupling with a member of a different race? "chaos mutation" (and one should really look for something thats isn't a direct Warhammer rip-off) leaves demihumans infertile, or for some general reason infertility is rampant, and its only be combining the gene pools of two different demihumans that the genes are strong enough to enable procreation.

Warhammer ripsoff Elric of Melniboné.

There's also the assumption here that all races are going to be in competition for the same resources, which is in no way necessarily true. Assuming we're not talking about an industrialized world where one race - presumably humans - are exploding in population, there's no reason to assume an elven conclave somewhere deep in a forest is in anyway in competition with a human village somewhere on the coast, anymore than in the middle ages a village in Logres could realistically be said to be in competition for resources with a hamlet in Scotland.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;934497Warhammer ripsoff Elric of Melniboné.

Warhammer ripped off everyone, but then took it and made it their own. I'm just saying at this point there some things people cant get away with taking without just being "more of the same again".

Quote from: Ashakyre;934172However you splice it, it's an interesting pattern of history would be fun, somehow, to bring to the table, whichever fantasy race it applied to.

I bet the designers of Dragon Age agreed;).

Quote from: Teodrik;934411Just one note since people are talking about history and racial/tribal/ethnic conflict vs religious conflicts. Viewing historical religious conflict´s in a kind of a "Theological Identity OnlyTM" is not very historical but abstract and very much a western post-modern detached way of seeing it (sounding like a bit of a jack-ass cultural relativist here. But wait! There is is more!). It can be very appealing to fantasize today when dreaming about Multiculti-topia that race relations where much more "tolerant" in a different age, and so delude one self by arguing "you know in the middle ages people did not care about race/ethnicity/tribal heritage so why should we today?" when trying to make an implicit modern day identity-political comment. And thus putting the "icky" parts of history down the memory hole for the sake of an argument.

For example regarding muslim invasions of Europe and european the crusades in return: cristianity vs islam were only one (main factor) layer on the conflict. But they did fight the muhammedans (or christians) as much as they also fought "saracens" ( brown and comes from the middle-east/north-Africa = saracen) vs "franks" ( white/european = franks in the eyes of the muslims). Skipping the geopolitical aspects for now. My main point is that you can´t always regard religion vs race/nation/region/etnicity/tribe as two very different things because in most cases even universalist religions also becomes part of such an identity.

Just like the conflicts of Northen Ireland with catholic´s vs protestant´s has not very much to do with the actual thesis of Martin Luther anymore (compared to the political implications) or christianity becoming a part of "the white mans burden" during the age of colonialism.

This could of course also be relevant in fanstasy rpg worlds if one strives for that a kind of "realist" approach to collective conflicts of different peoples.

I find it's easier to think of it as "if you're the wrong religion, it's not enough to be of the right ethnicity":D.
OTOH, there is a Saracen knight in Le Morte d'Arthur, and tales of knights behaving honourably towards captured Muslim warriors, so class might well have been more important even than religion.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;934507Warhammer ripped off everyone, but then took it and made it their own. I'm just saying at this point there some things people cant get away with taking without just being "more of the same again".

Chaos mutation is a direct copy of the Broo from Runquest and the beasts of chaos from earlier editions of D&D. It's not unique to Warhammer and is a setting fixture in Exalted, Mazes & Minotaurs and every other setting with a chaos faction. What else are you going to call mutations and monsters created by the forces of chaos? Wyld mutations and wyld mutants? Eldritch mutations and mutants? If it is identical to a duck, it is a duck. It neatly explains the presence of so many monsters if mad wizards become overused.