Well we are deep into spoilers about the book at this point, but the general thesis is that, if you can't communicate easily with something far away, then none of what humans or indeed any animal would use for diplomacy wouldn't be helpful.  If you spend the requisite hundreds of years communicating with a near neighbor, they could turn into a xenophobic group in between communications and send a Bussard ramjet to detonate your star- and that this is based on the speed of light being insurmountable. 

This is a fine thesis, and could well explain the universe (which is presumably teeming with intelligent life) is so quiet- anyone who tries to make noise is silenced by someone who is afraid of them, and there's always gonna be something afraid of them.

Stripped away of the other stuff in the other books (the first book includes an alien race that wants Earth essentially for its land, contrary to the Dark Forest hypothesis in the second book, and also features individual aliens listening for messages and prepared and empowered unilaterally with the ability to respond, which you would obviously not set up as a species if you believe in said dark forest hypothesis- the third book adds in faster than light travel which totally obviates the dark forest hypothesis, and spends much of the book following unlikable characters and using a ham-fisted barely disguised environmental metaphor to argue for the destruction by suicide of all sentient life), the dark forest hypothesis thesis and book are pretty good. 

It's basically the "environmental niche" idea, but predicated around the idea that it's easy to attack from a distance, but impossible to govern or communicate over the vast distance of space, so therefore any being or civilization detected can only either kill you or fail to discover you on a long enough timescale- so you have to kill them if you detect them.

Where is the defense of biomagic determinism?

Does anyone here doubt that, with enough science, a human being could be genetically engineered that would be, as we call it, evil?  If that were the goal of a mad scientist (or a team of them), could a person who is violent, lacks trust, is fearful, hateful, whatever, be created, a person who, while technically sound enough of mind to function, is genetically predetermined to be awful?

If the answer is "yes", ok.  I think that is correct.  If the answer is "no", however, it's not gonna be because "humans have freedom because of their souls" or "all humans are a blank slate because that's politically convenient and also I hate all hierarchies".  It's gonna be based on some unknown complexity in genes or brains or chemicals.  If humans or other animals could be engineered to be tall or short, strong or weak, then they could also be engineered to be dumb or smart.

If you look at the wikipedia page for "biological determinism", you'll see that it takes a different tact; it's based on the idea that if you hold this to be substantially true already about living humans, then you're some reprobate badguy or whatever. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism

Which isn't anyone's topic in TTRPGs now, nor was it never.  But it does get levied, as an accusation of sin, against anyone who acknowledges that physical reality and state influence the state of mind (keep in mind that many people who get mad about this are also strict materialists philosophically- this contradiction never bothers them though).

Anyway, this phrase is used as an accusation against anyone who creates orcs to be genetically evil and gives them a -2 Int modifier.  It's based on the idea that, if you grant that it's possible at all in any form, technological or supernatural, then you are promoting a harmful ideology (by drawing relatively obvious conclusions from biology, ones not particularly contraindicated by any classic religion). 
From the perspective of tabletop gaming, the idea that there's both biological and magical determinism is just fine- and holding that belief is enough to cause at least two big schisms, "there shouldn't be evil races" people (not particularly popular, but they gained a lot of ground amongst the rule-writers at Paizo, Hasbro, and some others), and the "there shouldn't be racial stat modifiers" people (more popular because all in 5e D&D specifically, having floating +2 stat modifiers gets you a feat four levels early with the generally accepted character build rules, and most of their games end at low level).

These two general movements are not ideas that old school games had any time for, though if you have both these beliefs and go to run a game using B/X through 3.X, you'll very easily be able to establish these rules.  It's extremely easy to sand all the lovingly crafted bonuses and penalties away from all races, and it's exactly one line in your houserule document you hand out, should you choose to do it.  By contrast actually building all the details in requires work and thought.  Similarly, taking races intended to be evil and making them misunderstood is trivial as well.

So adding these two ideas to old school games is easy.  But adding the inverse into a game not designed for them is very hard, and that asymmetry will be used to abuse more traditionally-minded gamers.

Anyway, to the point I started with- I don't recall a recent full-throated defense of the idea that:
1- An evil scientist could create humans that all tend towards selfishness, brutality, or are unusually smart or stupid.
2- An evil god could create an entire race that is loyal to him and his dark principles, compelled to sacrifice virgins or babies or whatever is genre appropriate to him, for, you know, evil.
3- An evil wizard could split the difference here, creating an entire race of sentient slaves, artificially loyal to him (ideally he eventually fucks up and gets eaten by his own creation, but the morality play isn't necessary for the backdrop).

We have seen plenty of recent OSR settings that implement these, such as Worlds Without Number, but it's rare to see it defended explicitly as a thing to defuse the accusations from those looking to smear anyone who builds such worlds or tells such stories.

From The Angel In The Black Tower

Do you know what it really takes to make one of my subhumans?  The angel asked.  You have to treat them like they are less than human, it's really as simple as that."

"The schools are key of course.  You've seen the budget items and you know my creatures need to be able to read orders and file reports.  It's so much easier for them to drop a note to condemn their fellows than it is to speak out in public.  Not to mention developing discipline and narrowness of vision.  They need to know what happens to weaklings and fools.  To achieve that I need teachers that can be strict and cruel at need to maintain order, of course, and so, these are drawn from the weaklings and failures, small and bitter they are of little use to the legions but are so apt to take their revenge on the whelps in the class room.  I see to it that the males and females receive their education.  It's all very coeducational and progressive, the mating impulse helps to keep things competitive and directed away from dangerous notions and philosophies.  Most of the females wind up in the breeding chambers where their fickle affections can be used to keep the males hostile and frustrated, but there have always been a few with the vicious streak needed for command in the legions."

Quote from: David Johansen on September 30, 2023, 04:16:34 PM
From The Angel In The Black Tower

Do you know what it really takes to make one of my subhumans?  The angel asked.  You have to treat them like they are less than human, it's really as simple as that."

"The schools are key of course.  You've seen the budget items and you know my creatures need to be able to read orders and file reports.  It's so much easier for them to drop a note to condemn their fellows than it is to speak out in public.  Not to mention developing discipline and narrowness of vision.  They need to know what happens to weaklings and fools.  To achieve that I need teachers that can be strict and cruel at need to maintain order, of course, and so, these are drawn from the weaklings and failures, small and bitter they are of little use to the legions but are so apt to take their revenge on the whelps in the class room.  I see to it that the males and females receive their education.  It's all very coeducational and progressive, the mating impulse helps to keep things competitive and directed away from dangerous notions and philosophies.  Most of the females wind up in the breeding chambers where their fickle affections can be used to keep the males hostile and frustrated, but there have always been a few with the vicious streak needed for command in the legions."

^This sounds like the schools I was forced to attend as a child.

To keep the post on-topic, is this qoute suggesting that bad people are made not born?

It's suggesting you can't just pull an orc out of the breeding pits and expect him to have the nastiness and vicious temperment they are famous for, they have to go to school for that.

Inherently evil races ≠ trite or lowbrow gaming.

They simply lower the hurdle in combat heavy games. No need to parse lore or understand metanarrative. The goblins in the castle are dicks, lets kill them, take their stuff and become heroes. They weren't tricked into being dicks by some demagogue they're goblins that's their thing.

Morally grey scenarios can cause the same analysis paralysis as over inflated lethality in games. It often comes with a side order of in group conflict or hostility among players. Having bad guys and good guys doesn't negate the possibility of good roleplay.

Quote from: Venka on September 30, 2023, 12:10:43 PM
Where is the defense of biomagic determinism?

Does anyone here doubt that, with enough science, a human being could be genetically engineered that would be, as we call it, evil? 

I don't doubt it.  The genetic formula for a sociopath is probably discoverable

Quote from: ForgottenF on September 24, 2023, 07:43:41 PM
...The xenomorph isn't strictly speaking evil; it's just an animal following it's biological imperatives...

We don't know that. If we base it on the first film alone, I think it's more like a really nasty drunk, that knows exactly what he's doing, and doesn't care.

On the question of whether to include evil races, I suggest it's a flawed premise, derived from Tolkien's secondary-world-building extravaganza, which taught us to think of things in terms of sprawling history, sociology, and scientific-like reasoning. If we think of gaming as being more like symbolic fairy tales or dreams or allegories, then we cut past the modern conceits and go back to the primal elements that the Arbiter of Worlds video elaborates on--I would agree that the most vivid and bracing games flow from there.

I'm gonna say that while I'm totally neutral about whether you should or should have not evil races in your games (I prefer generally human-like enemies or untold monstrosities - I kinda scoff at evil-race that could be just as well be played by antagonistic tribe of some Picts, Arabs, Americans or French I can slaughter without any moral problem anyway).

However for more formal thing, I consider this whole ancestral memory of neanderthals to be great bullshit.
Putting even aside we have no signs of some massive terrible war between our kinds, and that in tribal past we speak about scattered small groups where battles are more like modern bar brawns than actual warfare (though of course much bloodier), it's also way more probable the legends about evil humanoids just spring from much more recent memory of wars between various human nations - see Sidhe and Fomori and Ireland and bloody genocide of neolithic people by invading Goidels, Giants of nordic legend or Greek could spring from Hunter-Gatherers who were just bigger than average neolithic farmer. And so on, and so on. Neanderthals are past extremely ancient, I really doubt their memory could survive so long.

Also while neadnerthal was bulkier and more durable, I really doubt they were actual terror for Homo sapiens. We are not talking about such incredible advantage as man vs bear or gorilla, just pinch stronger, and neanderthals were much less tribal, so really bigger tribes of invading Hss were not that threatened by scatterd Hsn family clans. If anything - we were source of horror for them.

Quote from: Scooter on September 30, 2023, 07:22:59 PMI don't doubt it.  The genetic formula for a sociopath is probably discoverable

It is known that ASPD has a genetic component. I'm not up-to-date on the literature, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone had figured out what the relevant genes are, or at least a subset of them.

Yes, there should be evil races, if anything else it just helps provide some short hand for game mechanics.  And if you want to do morally gray antagonistic stuff, you can do that with the species/races available for player characters to choose from.  Like, if you want to do some morality story about overcoming differences, it should be done with like.. dwarves being aggressive and trying to attack human lands or something like that, and then you can have those differences resolved.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 09, 2023, 01:13:04 PM
However for more formal thing, I consider this whole ancestral memory of neanderthals to be great bullshit.
Putting even aside we have no signs of some massive terrible war between our kinds, and that in tribal past we speak about scattered small groups where battles are more like modern bar brawns than actual warfare (though of course much bloodier), it's also way more probable the legends about evil humanoids just spring from much more recent memory of wars between various human nations - see Sidhe and Fomori and Ireland and bloody genocide of neolithic people by invading Goidels, Giants of nordic legend or Greek could spring from Hunter-Gatherers who were just bigger than average neolithic farmer. And so on, and so on. Neanderthals are past extremely ancient, I really doubt their memory could survive so long.

Also while neadnerthal was bulkier and more durable, I really doubt they were actual terror for Homo sapiens. We are not talking about such incredible advantage as man vs bear or gorilla, just pinch stronger, and neanderthals were much less tribal, so really bigger tribes of invading Hss were not that threatened by scatterd Hsn family clans. If anything - we were source of horror for them.

Yeah, I found the whole thing shaky. I focused earlier on why that prehistory should dictate anything about how I play my elf-games now.

But even the whole angle of it seems weird. I'm willing to grant possible ancestral memory that long - it's weird, but not impossible. But as you say, the evidence for a all-out two-sided war was slim. Humans likely had more to fear from other humans than from Neanderthals. And Neanderthals weren't giants - they were if anything shorter - just stocky compared to relatively lanky HSS.

QuoteAnd Neanderthals weren't giants - they were if anything shorter - just stocky compared to relatively lanky HSS.

IIRC they were of simmilar height than co-existing Hss. Now of course till modern times most Hss were shorter than their full potential allowed - possibly neanderthals too.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 13, 2023, 06:44:37 PM

QuoteAnd Neanderthals weren't giants - they were if anything shorter - just stocky compared to relatively lanky HSS.

IIRC they were of simmilar height than co-existing Hss. Now of course till modern times most Hss were shorter than their full potential allowed - possibly neanderthals too.

As I understand it, ancient HSS weren't uniformly shorter. There is evidence that early hunter-gatherers were taller than early farmers. Not that their lives were good, but possibly they got more protein in their diet if they survived.

https://modernfarmer.com/2022/04/farming-made-our-ancestors-shorter/

There doesn't seem to be an absolute answer, as there is significant variation of height within populations and we only have limited bones. Still, say, this is an illustration of common ancestor HSH (Heidelburgensis) compared to Neanderthal (HSN) and Cro-Magnon (HSS).



Source: https://www.sci.news/othersciences/anthropology/article00369.html

Quote from: jhkim on November 13, 2023, 08:31:03 PM

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 13, 2023, 06:44:37 PM

QuoteAnd Neanderthals weren't giants - they were if anything shorter - just stocky compared to relatively lanky HSS.

IIRC they were of simmilar height than co-existing Hss. Now of course till modern times most Hss were shorter than their full potential allowed - possibly neanderthals too.

As I understand it, ancient HSS weren't uniformly shorter. There is evidence that early hunter-gatherers were taller than early farmers. Not that their lives were good, but possibly they got more protein in their diet if they survived.

https://modernfarmer.com/2022/04/farming-made-our-ancestors-shorter/

There doesn't seem to be an absolute answer, as there is significant variation of height within populations and we only have limited bones. Still, say, this is an illustration of common ancestor HSH (Heidelburgensis) compared to Neanderthal (HSN) and Cro-Magnon (HSS).



Source: https://www.sci.news/othersciences/anthropology/article00369.html

I'm pretty sure the guy in the middle is a very successful podcast host, and ex-MMA fighter.