- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Dholes from Ironclaw.
The Politics of Tabletop RPGs
- Thread starter mesonoxian
- Start date
The Narrator
Disembodied Voice
- Location
- Somewhere Offscreen
It's called "Mouseguard," I believe.
"After the Bomb" was a Palladium RPG in a post-apocalyptic setting populated by TMNT-style mutant animal people, with no humans. No idea if there's a no-stat-adjustments race option, tho. Races in Palladium games are weird, they still do the race-as-class thing, called RCCs. (Palladium's rule system is famously an absolute shit show.)
IIRC, there's no "Human" species option in the Farscape RPG, since there's only one human in the setting, but Sebaceans are visually indistinguishable from humans (and descendants of ancient humans abducted by aliens) anyway.
Earthdawn has humans and they're still the default stat spread, but in-universe the most common race that rules the kingdom where most of the action takes place is dwarves and Dwarven is the common tongue.
- Location
- The land of moose and men
Hvc Svc Dracon or however it's spelt. There aren't any humans though everyone's a descendant of them in practice.
Most dwarves I see tend to have nothing to do with mining and instead are more in the engineer or slayer mindset these days. Did have a fun setting where the dwarves were a never ending tide (because they could literally be produced on assembly stone carving lines) that descended from the mountains to wage war with armies that were utterly massive by most standards. Though they tended to be less organized and disciplined then other groups. Because they were 'born' as adults with skills but generally didn't do much training before they were sent off to fight in places.
Last edited:
Once again I find validation in my belief that the Dwemer are both the best Elves and the best Dwarves by being identified as both due to certain characteristics while also very clearly being their own, well, everything else really.
- Location
- Texas
The problem is t hat fae are not a "people" in the sense elves, dwarves or humans are, they are basically spirits, with their own sort of reality. Which, sure, also has its place in fantasy if that is what you want, but it's not the same niche as elves.
Anway, the whole elf/dwarf debate here is kinda missing the point. The question is not which race is better, and not even which is more stereotypical. Sure, dwarves are mostly always the same, but even if that were not the case - the problem is you still have one and only one culture for each race. Insted of giving non-human races the same variety as humans. So that you could have "standard" dwarves, but also Spartiate expy dwarves that have nothing to do with them. Or standard Orcs, and also another orc culture that is all about trade and whose members all have at least some human blood (if indeed they aren't just humans).
Instead, many RPG settings in particular (wait, that's even the thread topic) have the approach to simply place a completely new mini-species into this or that area, which of course will then be monocultural as well. It would indeed be better in such cases to place a new culture made up of an already existing race (or more than one).
In general, RPGs should have a distinction (either just in the background, or in chargen as well) between race and culture - with choosing race and culture as two different steps in chargen (if it has impact on chargen).
As always, Tolkien did better than everyone ripping him off. The man went into excruciating detail about the various tribes and cultures and divisions of Elves, the Moriquendi and the Calaquendi, the divisions between the Noldor and the Sindar, and the various sub-divisions in those cultures. Galadriel is a Noldorin Queen married to a Sindarin Prince ruling over a mixed city of Noldor and Green Elves, while Thranduil is running a Sindarin ethnostate and Elrond is a Noldor in charge of a cosmopolitan town of many various Elvish strains. There are genuine political stances which have been taken by which language and dialect an Elf chooses to speak, and speaking of a single 'Elvish' culture is about as silly as speaking of a single 'Human' one.
And that's just the Calaquendi and the Grey Elves! Tolkien lays out that there are entire tribes and nations of Elves in the east of the world which we never see.
Getting into the nitty gritty, or even just explaining that different cultures exist, give your races and your world so much more history than there being a single 'Dwarvish' or 'Elvish' nation and people.
- Location
- The Old Dominion
Tolkien's Dwarves also have subdivisions, the dwarves we see in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings were longbeards while there was also the Broadbeams who had a thing for intimidating masks, and the Firebeards who both appeared in The Silmarillion and then there was the Stonefoots, Ironfists, Stiffbeards and Blacklocks who lived off to the east and don't really appear.
Then there were the petty dwarves who didn't belong to any of the seven great dwarven clans and only appear in the Silmarillion. They really, really hated the elves likely because if I recall correctly the elves committed a rather though genocide on them because they apparently couldn't figure out, they were sentient beings and viewed them as pests which was a pretty good reason for the petty dwarves to hate the various elvish groups.
Then there were the petty dwarves who didn't belong to any of the seven great dwarven clans and only appear in the Silmarillion. They really, really hated the elves likely because if I recall correctly the elves committed a rather though genocide on them because they apparently couldn't figure out, they were sentient beings and viewed them as pests which was a pretty good reason for the petty dwarves to hate the various elvish groups.
- Location
- Volksstaat Hessen, Deutsches Reich
Well, yes. I mean, I suspect a large part of that is because he just wanted an excuse to have different languages to nerd out about
, but that certainly did help, because that lingual and cultural complexity is a good trait to have in worldbuilding. It is absolutely an improvement over such thing as D&D where every single elf speaks the same racial language and has the same characteristics (lol) - though that also may simply be a low bar. Still, I don't think it is quite as pronounced as you say:Which to me also sort of demonstrates the problem with the set-up, because it seems to me that to a large degree we aren't talking about cultures here, but lineages. At least, that is how I always understood the background - yes, different languages develop, and you even have genuine cultural development, like groups taking on a different language and so on. But it seems to me the major definition of those groups is still always by descent, and even when the Sindarin ruled over the Nandorin the distinction between them was always kept. In fact, that Tolkien places such a great emphasis on lineages, and this whole conceptualization of peoples as branches in, like, a family tree, is itself a bit uncomfortable.
Plus, Elves and Dwarves still have a common origin point each in LoTR. That way, all Elven peoples, be that by culture or descent, can be said to just be branches and parts of wider, uh, elvendom? elvenkind? In a way that just isn't true for the human peoples - Gondor, Rohan, Umbar etc. have basically nothing to do with each other in that way. I mean, I realize that this might be a bit nit-picky when, once again, compared to D&D, but it seems to me it's still the same sort of set-up "just" with an actual, reasonable allowance for how that would have played out over eons of history...
Zap Rowsdower
Ex-cultist vagrant
- Location
- Bright lights, big city
- Pronouns
- He/Him
There have also been like five generations of elf period in Tolkein, so even calling it "lineages" rather than "extended families" is a bit of a stretch. Noldor are Noldor because if they don't personally remember the events that shaped the Noldorin culture, their parents did, for instance, - its still groupings shaped by personally shared history rather than groupings shaped by folkways calling back to mythologized history, as with real world cultural groupings.
Last edited:
samdamandias
Apprentice Plane Wizard
Point of order, the After the Bomb RPG corebook does have humans. As does Mutants in Avalon in the form of SACSUN.
However, the After the Bomb sourcebook for the TMNT RPG doesn't have rules for humans. It's also the first sourcebook for After the Bomb itself, but nobody ever said that Palladium's publishing decisions made sense.
HC SVNT DRACONES
Also known as furry ancap knockoff Eclipse Phase. The first book went so far down the ancap/corporatism rabbit hole that the very first thing the first expansion does is say "the entirety of the history and GM sections in the first book were a lie"
- Location
- Volksstaat Hessen, Deutsches Reich
I don't think you can speak of generations when there is no generational overturn
Which of course makes elf demographics a bit wacky, because that means, in theory, the first elves can just continue to have kids to account for the population growth. Still, apparently there were 144 original elves, and then at least tens of thousands later, if not hundreds, and I am not sure that even with elven immortality that can be achieved in five "generations". And the first divergences of the "branching" happened all the way back with the 144, too.
Axslashel
I am a pessimist not a realist.
- Location
- Land of the Midnight Sun
Depends of what definition of generation you use. It makes total sense in the Familial Generation definition. Only five generations there would imply that there are no elves further removed from the original elves than having them as their great-great-grandparents. Though that definition of course ends up being a bit wacky even for humans when your own uncle for example might be younger than yourself at times.
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Didn't Tolkien write several dialects of the elf language?
And in the Norse sources Dwarves where maggot underworld, cthonic creatures which might be fun to bring back.
And elves where nature spirit beings/ancestor spirits also cool.
Last edited:
Axslashel
I am a pessimist not a realist.
- Location
- Land of the Midnight Sun
If you want to bring them back "accurately" to the way Norse mythology portrays them Dwarfs/Drow and Goblins (Harry Potter depiction) would all be the same beings. And elves, fae and fairies would also be the same. Not to mention that giants, trolls and ents and the gods are basically the same thing.
Chloe Sullivan
Subdefective
- Location
- 1630 Revello Drive, Sunnydale CA
Oh, mod why?
It's Hc Svnt Dracones, and it's terrible.
(Latin for "here be dragons")
- Location
- The Old Dominion
The Germans and Anglo-Saxons also had dwarves as I recall, indeed the earliest written mention of dwarves and for that matter elves apparently come from Anglo-Saxon text medical charms for warding them off which sort of implied dwarves were seen as some sort of night demon or at least caused sleep related illnesses like nightmares while elves were associated with various illnesses in people and livestock that caused things various things like sharp, internal pains and mental disorders.
The Norse myths which were written down later gave two different origins for dwarves one being spawned by mixing the primordial blood of Brimir and the bones of Bláinn and another involving akin to maggots in Ymir's body.
The Norse myths which were written down later gave two different origins for dwarves one being spawned by mixing the primordial blood of Brimir and the bones of Bláinn and another involving akin to maggots in Ymir's body.
Arrou
Pseudo lurker
- Location
- Øknabo hundaræ, Swerike
- Pronouns
- He/She/They
When dealing with folklore, which mythology essentially is, it is wise to note that concepts and beings were usually not as sharply differentiated as modern encyclopedias and retellings would have it. 'Troll' in ancient Scandinavia referred to something magical and probably wicked, but the term wasn't much more specific than that. The same is mostly true for Dwarves or Elves. They probably were not thought of as separate species with clearly defined characteristics and history, but rather as fairly broad concepts. Concepts whose motifs and meaning could often overlap.
The nature of archaic Northern European concepts of supernatural beings is discussed at length in this discussion between Dr. Jackson Crawford and Prof. Ármann Jakobsson:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeZ0iW4FJUc
The nature of archaic Northern European concepts of supernatural beings is discussed at length in this discussion between Dr. Jackson Crawford and Prof. Ármann Jakobsson:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeZ0iW4FJUc
Xexilf
Oblivion Sempiternum Daemonis
Its also important to note that such conception change over time, significantly. Most ancient mythologies didnt have 1 complete nigh-immutable holy text (and look how much christianity changed, which had that), but many stories and tales passed on in different forms in different places. People today may say this or that mythology/religion etc. but when it existed disperesed over a large area for hundreds of years, between different people and so on, there may well be a dozen different takes on the same concept, and far from all is clearly recorded.
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Yep mytholgy is vague and weird especially before widespread communication
- Location
- Texas
Well, yes. I mean, I suspect a large part of that is because he just wanted an excuse to have different languages to nerd out about
Which to me also sort of demonstrates the problem with the set-up, because it seems to me that to a large degree we aren't talking about cultures here, but lineages. At least, that is how I always understood the background - yes, different languages develop, and you even have genuine cultural development, like groups taking on a different language and so on. But it seems to me the major definition of those groups is still always by descent, and even when the Sindarin ruled over the Nandorin the distinction between them was always kept. In fact, that Tolkien places such a great emphasis on lineages, and this whole conceptualization of peoples as branches in, like, a family tree, is itself a bit uncomfortable.
Plus, Elves and Dwarves still have a common origin point each in LoTR. That way, all Elven peoples, be that by culture or descent, can be said to just be branches and parts of wider, uh, elvendom? elvenkind? In a way that just isn't true for the human peoples - Gondor, Rohan, Umbar etc. have basically nothing to do with each other in that way. I mean, I realize that this might be a bit nit-picky when, once again, compared to D&D, but it seems to me it's still the same sort of set-up "just" with an actual, reasonable allowance for how that would have played out over eons of history...
All men still have a common origin point in Tolkien as well, and the Elves surely see them as branches of the greater 'mankind'. To an elf, the relation between a Noldor and a Teleri is the same as the relation between a Gondorian and a Haradrim — it's just that for the elves, six millennia of separation and linguistic drift is significantly less impactful. And uh, really, we already often sort of conceptualize real world cultures as branches in a family tree, marking descent and relation and intermingling — hell, linguistics is literally academically organized in that way, and Tolkien was himself a linguist first and foremost.
And the various branches of the Elves are both sort of self-chosen and not — they're tribes, basically. Those who went to Valinor became the High Elves and those who stayed behind became the Dark Elves. The High Elves divided themselves into various tribes based on interest and personality at their waking, and those became the Teleri, the Noldor, and the Vanyar — except some of the Teleri stayed behind, so they became the Sindar, or Grey Elves.
(The Grey Elves and the Dark Elves did not, I think, name themselves)
Honestly, I don't see that much removed here from human tribal differences becoming cultural ones over time. How many cultures in the real world are named after who descended from what tribe or followed the sons of whom, or who remained here or went here? Sometimes people called themselves these things and sometimes others called them these things. It's how cultures worked and work.
And including these sorts of nuances, instead of suggesting there's a single universal 'culture' for an entire species, is the kind of thing that makes your world feel alive.
Stop: Rule 2
- Pronouns
- He/Him
rule 2
The insistence that humans must be or code white, that orcs can only ever be analogous to or literally black people, the elements you've assumed are inherent to african-american culture, and the general set of broad assumptions under these posts are all deeply racist. In your attempt to fix issues in your writing you have committed to a variety of bizarre, essentialist viewpoints and I hope reading the reaction to your post helps you move past that in the future.
Regardless, it was rules-violating racism and so has been infracted under rule 2.
The insistence that humans must be or code white, that orcs can only ever be analogous to or literally black people, the elements you've assumed are inherent to african-american culture, and the general set of broad assumptions under these posts are all deeply racist. In your attempt to fix issues in your writing you have committed to a variety of bizarre, essentialist viewpoints and I hope reading the reaction to your post helps you move past that in the future.
Regardless, it was rules-violating racism and so has been infracted under rule 2.
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I think Orcs being portrayed as Mongolian-coded is actually really common see earlier Games Workshop models.
And Tolkien Using "mongloid" like to describe Orks but at the time that referred to Asians in general.
And like the portrayal of Mongolians in pop culture it sometimes seems that people don't know that Mongolians still exist as extent ethnic groups.
And Tolkien Using "mongloid" like to describe Orks but at the time that referred to Asians in general.
And like the portrayal of Mongolians in pop culture it sometimes seems that people don't know that Mongolians still exist as extent ethnic groups.
The Narrator
Disembodied Voice
- Location
- Somewhere Offscreen
In particular, I recall the descriptions of the half-orcs in Return of the King having a lot of that coding.
I think it's interesting that the Mongols were such an incredibly defining event in the history of many, many cultures, but the initial motive force of the Mongols ceased to exist as this apocalyptic threat. They became the Yuan, the Ilkhanate, they integrated into the cultures they conquered and changed them in turn. Which is itself a lesson in how warfare and conquest is not simply supplanting one people or set of values with another, but that doesn't play well with a lot of national narratives so shush.
Mongolia still exists. Mongol people exist. But in a bizarre pollination they were so successful they kinda stopped existing as this continous archetype of 'terrifying unstoppable horde'. They could never continue to live up to the incredible first impression they made on most of the nations they met (in many cases like a sentence meets a full stop). Which makes the Dothraki pretty odd and shallow. When hordes grow powerful enough to conquer nations, they conquer those nations. They take over. They begin governing them. The Great Wall was built to help keep them out, but it was always with the premise that China could eventually squish them if they raided in force. Until, of course, they couldn't. Note that the Song Dynasty stopped existing after that. The idea of these cities that the Dothraki could clearly conquer at any time are not ruled by the Dothraki or have Dothraki upper classes is really weird and doesn't make much sense.
Last edited: