jeremy_dnd said:From the writer/roleplayer's perspective:
You are entirely correct, I think. Because a human is creating the role, the role can be nothing more than something intrinsically human, anthropomorphic, if you will.
While surely the tendency is there, I have to question the absolute statement. It carries with it the base assumption that the human mind is incapable of grokking that which is unlike itself. Humans have, time and again, come to understand that which started out as inscruitable.
Orson Scott Card addresses this somewhat in the Ender's Game series. He takes some stuff from Swedish:
Utlännings - are people you are sure you understand. They are of the same species and culture as you are, and getting an idea from your head into his is pretty easy. The guy from the town over the hill is an Utlänning.
Framlings - are of your species, but not your culture. Since you share so many basic elements, you can understand a Framling's point of view with just a bit of effort. For a Medieval European, the Japanese of the same time would have been Framlings.
Ramen - are those who are not of your species or culture, but you are similar or bright enough that you can grasp each other's perspectives well enough to coexist peacefully, with some work. Full Vulcans are ramen to humans. Spock was probably a framling.
Varelse - are those creatures so alien to you that no level of understanding is possible. If it is varelse, it might as well be a force of nature. The thing's processes are so different from your own, you couldn't even say the thing was sentient as you understand the word. Communication between you and them is impossible. If you share resource needs, peaceful coexistance is not possible. The critter from Alien is varelse.
Card rather questions whether anything in the universe is really varelse. He suggests that the human mind is pretty darned flexible and imaginative, and can comprehend very different ideas if given a chance.