|
Yeah, Half Orcs have been around since 1E; they were swept under the rug for most of 2E. On the subject of Muls, it's funny that of the two Mul main characters in The Prism Pentad, one of them is born of a romantic relationship between a human woman and a dwarf man. So just because forced breeding is the origin for most Muls, it doesn't have to be the origin for all Muls. Additionally, I think forced breeding isn't as cringe inducing as rape, and it brings with it a neat character motivation: "I want to find my parents."
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 23:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
I was not aware that half-orc was a standard race for 1E. I thought that was 3E invention.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
Der Waffle Mous posted:Okay, this I can get behind. It sounds so much better if I think of it along the same lines as Eberron where the intention is to give a setting and everything afterwards is up to the group. Also: Don't read D&D novels. Your life will be better in every way if you spend your time reading anything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Yeah, Half Orcs have been around since 1E; they were swept under the rug for most of 2E. Is the whole "The mother almost never survives past delivery" bit just some fanon thing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 23:48
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Yeah, Half Orcs have been around since 1E; they were swept under the rug for most of 2E. Forced breeding IS rape
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 23:50
|
|
|
Drox posted:Forced breeding IS rape Its like rape but for both people involved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 23:52
|
|
|
It's not in either box sets' description of the Mul. In fact, the revised box notes that Muls have existed as long as Dwarfs and Humans have intermingled, implying that their origin is much more like that of Half Elves than Half Orcs. On the other hand, Neeva was the biggest bad rear end of that series, and her uterus was probably one of the few sources of iron left on Athas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 23:53
|
|
|
Hm, I'm getting the feeling I've been mislead by some 3E fancruft on the pregnancy part at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 23:54
|
|
|
Drox posted:Forced breeding IS rape You're right. It was silly of me to say that. Edit: As for mom's survivability. I think the canon line is it's very difficult on the mother. Which, of course, most creepy nerds take to mean, "mom dies in a splatter of blood and afterbirth." Double edit: Also, it's ironic that people dwell on the rape part of the Half Orc origin and ignore that arguably D&D's most famous Half Elf, Tanis from Dragonlance, is the child of rape. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Feb 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 23:55
|
|
|
I'm beginning to think much of my initial dislike of Dark Sun can pretty much be blamed on athas.org.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 00:18
|
|
|
There is plenty of crazy poo poo going on, I wouldnt say mul breeding is the worst of it. Slavery in every form, cannibalism, genocide. Cheapness of life is the theme. Life has little value, no rights and no respect on Athas. Tanis's origin in Dragonlance was a source of shame and something that made him different from the rest of the setting. In Dark Sun no one would care. That's the wasteland for you. PeterWeller posted:On the other hand, Neeva was the biggest bad rear end of that series, and her uterus was probably one of the few sources of iron left on Athas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 00:41
|
|
|
According to a single source I am aware of in 2E (the second Dark Sun Monstrous Compendium appendix), human mothers bearing a mul have a 40% chance of surviving pregnancy and, if they do so, a 40% chance of surviving the birth. This is really dumb gygaxian naturalism that I am comfortable assuring you that 4E will ignore, and simply mention--if anything--that it's very difficult and often lethal for a human mother to bring a mul to term, without making it explicitly an 84% mortality rate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
So I'm finally reading through the Veiled Alliance for the first time ever, and holy crap is full of useful information. I could give two shits about the Alliance itself, but the write-ups for the city states are great. I wish I had known this a decade ago! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 05:09
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Double edit: Also, it's ironic that people dwell on the rape part of the Half Orc origin and ignore that arguably D&D's most famous Half Elf, Tanis from Dragonlance, is the child of rape. B... but I thought all Half-Elves were the product of a beautiful elf maiden finally realizing that human men like me were much more brilliant and handsome...
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 01:18
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:B... but I thought all Half-Elves were the product of a beautiful elf maiden finally realizing that human men like me were much more brilliant and handsome... Elf-Human love is like Harold and Maude
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 01:23
|
|
|
I always figured it was more likely that elf males saw human females as libertine amazons because elves live so long and are so damned boring that they probably have sex like once every decade or some poo poo, so obviously any woman who wants sex as often as once a month or even once a week is a total nymphomaniac. meanwhile an elf guy manages to talk a human woman into bed and she leaves him shortly thereafter because he won't stop quoting beautiful elven poetry to her and it's just fruity gibberish as far as she can tell and it's really goddamn annoying eleven years down the road- human: "uhhh yes, your father was, uhh, a brave warrior and we were, ahem, very much in love. he was, um, killed by a terrible dragon but the dragon died from its wounds" halfelf:  I WANNA BE AN ADVENTURER LIKE DAD
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 01:28
|
|
|
Half-elves breed true. Their resemblance to both humans and elves is purely coincidental.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 02:06
|
|
|
Male Man posted:Half-elves breed true. Their resemblance to both humans and elves is purely coincidental. They kind of imply this about half-orcs in 4E too, which weirded me out. Like being "first-generation" makes you anomalous enough for it to be an entire background concept unto itself, and most half-orcs are the children of two half-orc parents or something. EDIT: None of which even begins to approach the question of why Half-Elf and Half-Orc racial bonuses in 4E have respectively absolutely nothing and very little to do with their parentage. Does it make me a Gygaxian Naturalist to wonder why Half-Elves are more resilient to illness and injury than either Humans or Elves? Hybrid vigor? Baku fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Feb 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 05:30
|
|
|
What book talks about cannibal halflings? The ones in the original boxed set are just curious normal halflings! I want tiny dudes with sharpened teeth leaping out of trees to eat you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 05:43
|
|
|
What? The Wanderer's Journal, the first fluff book from the first boxed set, describes them as cannibals. Read the sections on the Forest Ridge and Raiding Tribes. The section on Urik mentions the halfling unit that Hamanu hires for terror actions against his enemies. Also, the stat bonuses for Half Elves are supposed to reflect the resilience and force of personality the Half Elf in question develops as an outcast youth. Why Half Elves are all outcasts in their youths is just D&D being D&D.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 05:56
|
|
|
yeah honestly you'd think with humans being willing to hang out with elves and halflings and all kinds of crazy dudes they'd see half-elves and be like "wow slightly prettier humans with neato pointy ears, you can hang out in our clubhouse!!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 05:57
|
|
|
Angry Diplomat posted:yeah honestly you'd think with humans being willing to hang out with elves and halflings and all kinds of crazy dudes they'd see half-elves and be like "wow slightly prettier humans with neato pointy ears, you can hang out in our clubhouse!!" Yeah the half-elf hatred is fairly nonsensical and obviously based on real world fear of the HALF-CASTE transplanted into a much less racist setting. Half-orcs being hated makes a lot more sense, at least if you're playing orcs as inevitably Chaotic Evil elemental savages.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 05:59
|
|
|
I can see the ones staying in elf society getting the kid spock treatment, but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 06:06
|
|
|
yeah I mean half-elves are humanlike in physique but a little leaner and more graceful, with exotic features. basically some random human guy could run into a half-elf and think, "what a handsome foreigner!" but then notice his ears and say, "oh, silly me, he's a half-elf. what a handsome half-elf!" there's literally no reason for any ordinary human to look down on half-elves except for profound and deep-seated racism, and even then the shared characteristics are pretty convincing. you'd have to be getting into some hardcore apartheid fear-of-miscegenation poo poo before humans would refuse to associate with half-elves
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 06:07
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:What? The Wanderer's Journal, the first fluff book from the first boxed set, describes them as cannibals. Read the sections on the Forest Ridge and Raiding Tribes. The section on Urik mentions the halfling unit that Hamanu hires for terror actions against his enemies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 06:08
|
|
|
Aranan posted:Oh, okay. I haven't opened the Wanderer's Journal yet--the Rulebook part of the set describes them as looking like wise and beautiful children who are concerned with inward spiritual connections or some such thing. The feral tribes of halflings are cannibalistic, especially in/around the Ringing Mountains. Traveling halflings or ones you'd find in the city aren't going to be the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 06:54
|
|
|
In 4E half-elves don't default to hated outcasts.  The Player's Handbook posted:Ultimately, half-elves are survivors, able to adapt to almost any situation. They are generally well liked and admired by everyone, not just elves and humans. They are empathetic, better at putting themselves in others’ shoes than most. edit: of course, this is Dark Sun we're talking about, sooo... El Rodento fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Feb 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 08:35
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Also, the stat bonuses for Half Elves are supposed to reflect the resilience and force of personality the Half Elf in question develops as an outcast youth. Why Half Elves are all outcasts in their youths is just D&D being D&D. Pretty much, it's not like there's a whole lot of species mixing in the real world (I mean, the definition of species is pretty much "population that doesn't breed with anything else"), and one of the best examples is a mule, which pretty much have superior characteristics to either parent. Plus old-school 3e and before half-elves are boring as gently caress. "Wow, I can get the crappy benefits of elves and half of some of the good benefits? Sign me up!" is a sentence I have never heard uttered. Muls (and 4e crossbreeds) are at least interesting for their uniqueness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 10:49
|
|
|
Aranan posted:Oh, okay. I haven't opened the Wanderer's Journal yet--the Rulebook part of the set describes them as looking like wise and beautiful children who are concerned with inward spiritual connections or some such thing. They are, their cultures and traditions go back thousands of years. Halflings have a great respect for their own race and would never harm another of their kind. Too bad that doesnt extend to any other race. The barbarians of the wastes are fair game. Literally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 13:07
|
|
|
Half-elves have a con bonus because they're full of hybrid vigor!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 15:00
|
|
|
It really bothers me that the halflings are described as cannibals. They're clearly not!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 15:28
|
|
|
In the sense of eating their own kind, no, they're explicitly not. But in the sense of being man-eaters, yes, they totally are. Don't fall into etymological fallacy!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 15:30
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:In the sense of eating their own kind, no, they're explicitly not. But in the sense of being man-eaters, yes, they totally are. Don't fall into etymological fallacy! We don't call tigers "cannibals", we call them "man-eaters." Dark Sun halflings are man-eaters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 15:38
|
|
|
Tigers are beasts. Halflings are thinking, society-forming, and have language--and are physically extremely humanlike besides. There's a usage distinction along those lines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 15:47
|
|
|
Angry Diplomat posted:yeah honestly you'd think with humans being willing to hang out with elves and halflings and all kinds of crazy dudes they'd see half-elves and be like "wow slightly prettier humans with neato pointy ears, you can hang out in our clubhouse!!" humans don't generally hang out with elves in dark sun though, they have their own society and even the non-nomadic ones mainly intermingle with humans to trade with/steal from them Angry Diplomat posted:yeah I mean half-elves are humanlike in physique but a little leaner and more graceful, with exotic features. basically some random human guy could run into a half-elf and think, "what a handsome foreigner!" but then notice his ears and say, "oh, silly me, he's a half-elf. what a handsome half-elf!" the only way I can make sense of this post is if I assume you have just never heard of real-world racism, goddamn
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 16:01
|
|
|
yeah dark sun is really its own thing, I was mostly complaining about goofy dms who think being a half-elf is a great reason for every npc ever to look down on a characterJeb Bush 2012 posted:the only way I can make sense of this post is if I assume you have just never heard of real-world racism, goddamn real-world racism is usually predicated upon and triggered by visible characteristics such as skin color, though there are exceptions to this which range into intolerance of other cultures (its own beast entirely). there is a difference between a white guy looking at a black guy and getting nervous and a white guy looking at another white guy and then noticing that he has slightly pointy ears. racism is often bound up quite strongly in the fear of the "other" but if a hypothetical race has almost exactly the same characteristics as yours it is much easier to overcome that instinctive fear, assuming it occurs at all. this is especially true since half-elves are usually pretty good at blending in and working their way into peoples' good graces also D&D's racism has very little to do with skin colour and everything to do with being significantly physically different, like being made of rocks or having a bull head or being an immortal scary angel man. it's especially illogical to think that half-elves, the most humanlike race other than humans, would be highly likely to draw scorn from humans given that humans are very often described as going everywhere and seeing everything and talking to everyone and generally being curious and ambitious to the point of recklessness. joe peasant isn't going to be afraid of half-elves, he's going to be afraid of orcs and minotaurs and goblins and loving harpies or something
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 16:44
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:Tigers are beasts. Halflings are thinking, society-forming, and have language--and are physically extremely humanlike besides. There's a usage distinction along those lines. 'Cannibals' is just plain incorrect, since they don't eat their own kind. 'Anthropophages' would do if you just didn't feel like using 'man-eaters,' but there's no getting around 'cannibals' being the wrong word. What is this 'etymological fallacy' and does it mean the same thing as 'using English correctly'?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:humans don't generally hang out with elves in dark sun though, they have their own society and even the non-nomadic ones mainly intermingle with humans to trade with/steal from them This is it exactly. Dark Sun Half-Elves, are too human to be elves and thus can't be trusted by them, and way too elven to be trusted by humans so that's out. They generally end up with their human parent though because humans are probably the most tolerent of the races on Athas. That's not saying much though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
Gomi posted:'Cannibals' is just plain incorrect, since they don't eat their own kind. 'Anthropophages' would do if you just didn't feel like using 'man-eaters,' but there's no getting around 'cannibals' being the wrong word. What is this 'etymological fallacy' and does it mean the same thing as 'using English correctly'? The etymological fallacy is the belief that historical meanings or etymologically-derived meanings have any bearing on what a word means (or, more bizarrely, "should" mean) in modern usage. People who claim that "decimate" can only mean "eliminate one part in ten of" instead of its modern usage, "wreak significant (or near-complete) destruction upon" are falling to the etymological fallacy. The first page of Google results for etymological fallacy has a small handful of very informative links, but it looks like most of the rest are mostly religious studies content or paywalled journal articles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
Squizzle posted:The etymological fallacy is the belief that historical meanings or etymologically-derived meanings have any bearing on what a word means (or, more bizarrely, "should" mean) in modern usage. People who claim that "decimate" can only mean "eliminate one part in ten of" instead of its modern usage, "wreak significant (or near-complete) destruction upon" are falling to the etymological fallacy. The whole notion of that fallacy is in itself fallacious, since etymology is not an essential structure but rather one as protean as language itself is, and that is intimately and causally linked with meaning. New phonemes are invented and cannibalised from popular usages as often as those usages themselves are popularised. 'Cannibal' for 'creature that eats people', or even 'thinking creature that eats people', is by no means a common or even very popular usage. To claim otherwise wouldn't be descriptivist, it'd be pigheaded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 17:43
|
|