Elves, why so long to mature?

[glass]

One problem. Dogs and wolves are classified as different species. However, they can create fertile offspring. Therefore elves, orcs, and humans can still be different species and still produce fertile offspring. There is precedent.

Dogs of wolves are not classified are different species (at least, not correctly). The definition of species is based on the ability to interbreed. If they can interbreed, they are the same species, by the definition of the word.

See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=species

glass.

 

[Banshee16]

A really well kept African Grey parrot might live to be about 100. So will a really well kept human. Certain tortoises live longer than humans, but you'll note that they aren't mammals, and so shouldn't be expected to follow similar patterns.

This is true. Reptiles do grow slower than mammals. But parrots can live longer than 100. There's one in particular I read about that's upwards of 120-150. That said, it shouldn't be taken as an example of a norm.

Um, be careful there. In times gone past, the average lifespan of a human being was perhaps 30 years, yes. But it isn't like they died of old age at 30. The average was that low largely due to infant mortality - lots of people dying very young kept the average down. There's reasonable evidence that in those times, if someone made it to maturity, they had a reasonable chance to reach codgerhood of 50 or higher, which is far longer than most mammals live, even when well kept.

We're talking average lifespans. Even as long ago as ancient Greece, some very rare humans lived 60-70 years. Our longer lifespans are largely due to better medicine, etc.

But humans don't actually take 20 years to mature.

This is mostly true. You'll note, though, that it doesn't actually take 20 years for the brain and skull to reach full size. That's already happened in the middle teens.

You are correct. And physically, humans are adult by as young as 13-14. In many places around the world and throughout history except for modern Western civilization, men and women have trades, marriages, and are having children by that age. It's our culture which makes children dependent upon their parents until age 20-25.

Oh? Go back and reread the definition of Charisma in the beginning of the PHB (3e or 3.5e, they are the similar). Physical attractiveness is listed in the definition.

Mind you, some folk don't like to include it. This is why I said, "If you don't like to link Charisma and beauty..."

Yes, Charisma is listed as one factor, among six, and it's the last one. The others include force of personality, magnetism, etc. I remember also reading that a character with CHA 18 could be unattractive, but really great at his personal skills, and how he talks with others, whereas a character with CHA 10 could have average social skills but be highly attractive.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

Dogs of wolves are not classified are different species (at least, not correctly). The definition of species is based on the ability to interbreed. If they can interbreed, they are the same species, by the definition of the word.

See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=species

glass.

Are ligers and Tions fertile?

These are achieved by breeding a lion with a tiger....if it's a male tiger with a female lion you get one, and if you breed a female tiger with a male lion you get the other.

http://www.sierrasafarizoo.com/animals/liger.htm

Interestingly, it mentions that sterility is not a 100% rule with crossbreeds.

The ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring is not the only manner of judging whether two animals are the same species.

Wolves and dogs are different species, but likely, they didn't evolve apart *that* long ago, evolutionarily speaking.

I don't think you can take the idea of humans in D&D breeding with orcs, elves, halflings, and whatnot as a good example. It's just magic....and the game creators thinking "wouldn't it create cool opportunities if we crossbreed these two races?".

Banshee

 

[Umbran]

In FR, orogs (underdark orcs) get +2 to charisma, and they're ugly as sin.

Orogs don't seem to be in MoF, so I don't have the listing. Does it explicitly say they are ugly as sin? If not, maybe they all look like Antonio Banderas

Seriously, though, neither I, nor the core rules, say that physical attractiveness is the sole determiner. It is merely one on the list. If the orog is ugly, but has high charisma, that simply means that other aspects of Charisma (force of personality, persuasiveness, etc) are all the more impressive to compensate.

I've never been a fan of "high charisma equals physical beauty" mainly because standards of beauty vary by race, culture, and such.

Nobody said "equals". It's a common overstatement when this topic arises. The rules, as written, allow you to have a whole planet full of high-charisma people who are ugly or plain to the eye, and one person who has all the personality of a wet noodle, but is so attractive to the eye that they demand attention and approval.

You are free to play it as you want. Honestly, I tend to downplay the physical attractiveness thing as well. However, a statement that "Beauty is not realated to Charisma bonuses in 3E" simply is not supported by the definition of Charisma given in the core rulebook.

 

[Umbran]

We're talking average lifespans. Even as long ago as ancient Greece, some very rare humans lived 60-70 years. Our longer lifespans are largely due to better medicine, etc.

My point is that we aren't really talking about average lifespans. It seems to me we're more talking about potential lifespan.

People like to point out that the "average lifespan" of folks in Europe during the Middle Ages was around 30. But that includes infant mortality, death by accident and violence, which have major impact on the average, but little to do with our discussion. Really, we should be talking about the lifespan of those who don't die due to those causes.

For every baby who dies in it's first year (and these were common), died young in war, etc, there had to be individuals and groups of individuals who lived well past the average. This would imply that those 60 year old ancient Greeks were probably not all that uncommon. Every village had it's old codgers.

Also, when we speak of the aid of medicine, we must be careful. Medicine for pregnant mothers and infants increases our average lifespan relative to the past, yes. However, much of the medicine we think of as extending our lives as we get old is actually fixing problems that didn't occur much in the past. Ancienct Greeks and Europeans of the Middle Ages didn't smoke tobacco. Nor did they have high-cholesterol, high-sodium diets and inactive lives.

 

[reiella]

I'm sure it's been posted a thousand times in a thousand different places but why do elves take so long to mature? Are they slow learners? Are their kids born really stupid? I jest but really why do they take so long? Is there any definitive reason for this? I know what the PHB says but there has to be better explanations of this out there? Anyone?

Well the reason I get is that they're lazy for the most part.

They live longer so they're more flightly and have a more open childhood.

Of course, I have no clue what it results with Drow...

 

[reiella]

We're talking average lifespans. Even as long ago as ancient Greece, some very rare humans lived 60-70 years. Our longer lifespans are largely due to better medicine, etc.

Banshee

Erm.... I'd be real hesitant about that argument, because it really means that the average lifespan for characters in D&D is sitting at Adulthood (ie, under 35).

The number you want to look for is the Expected Lifespan, as that shows how long a folk should be able to live, baring "The Unforunate" [ie, death by non-natural causes].

Of course, when you consider medicinal differences. For a fantasy world, you must also consider that they kinda flat-out trump the Modern Era for effective medicine. Cleric with cure disease/poison is far more effective... [and an issue with a Magical Society]

 

[Dark Jezter]

Orogs don't seem to be in MoF, so I don't have the listing. Does it explicitly say they are ugly as sin? If not, maybe they all look like Antonio Banderas

Seriously, though, neither I, nor the core rules, say that physical attractiveness is the sole determiner. It is merely one on the list. If the orog is ugly, but has high charisma, that simply means that other aspects of Charisma (force of personality, persuasiveness, etc) are all the more impressive to compensate.

Nobody said "equals". It's a common overstatement when this topic arises. The rules, as written, allow you to have a whole planet full of high-charisma people who are ugly or plain to the eye, and one person who has all the personality of a wet noodle, but is so attractive to the eye that they demand attention and approval.

You are free to play it as you want. Honestly, I tend to downplay the physical attractiveness thing as well. However, a statement that "Beauty is not realated to Charisma bonuses in 3E" simply is not supported by the definition of Charisma given in the core rulebook.

Heh, sorry if I gave you the impression that I thought you were saying beauty always equals charisma. I was just expanding on your statement that many people (like myself) don't like to link physical attractiveness with charisma.

Oh, and orogs are found in Races of Faerun.

 

[Banshee16]

Erm.... I'd be real hesitant about that argument, because it really means that the average lifespan for characters in D&D is sitting at Adulthood (ie, under 35).

The number you want to look for is the Expected Lifespan, as that shows how long a folk should be able to live, baring "The Unforunate" [ie, death by non-natural causes].

Of course, when you consider medicinal differences. For a fantasy world, you must also consider that they kinda flat-out trump the Modern Era for effective medicine. Cleric with cure disease/poison is far more effective... [and an issue with a Magical Society]

Absolutely, magical cures are better than modern medicine. And to how many people are they available?

How many D&D settings provide medical insurance to peasants? A Cure Disease spell would cost a peasant their entire earnings for like 3 years, would it not?

That tells me that though 100% effective magical medicines are available, 95% of the population won't benefit from them..

Our current lifespans are due to medical procedures and care and understanding of cleanliness etc. that just weren't available not too long ago. In the absence of that, you have plagues, diseases, and people flat out aging faster due to wear and tear that didn't used to exist. All our medicine allows us to do is have longer old-age years, IMO. It's not like all the medicine in the world is keeping our hair from going gray until an older age, or wrinkles from appearing, unless you want to count cosmetic surgery and hair colouring, which are not the same thing.

We still physically mature and age at roughly the same rate as we did 1500 years ago.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

My point is that we aren't really talking about average lifespans. It seems to me we're more talking about potential lifespan.

People like to point out that the "average lifespan" of folks in Europe during the Middle Ages was around 30. But that includes infant mortality, death by accident and violence, which have major impact on the average, but little to do with our discussion. Really, we should be talking about the lifespan of those who don't die due to those causes.

For every baby who dies in it's first year (and these were common), died young in war, etc, there had to be individuals and groups of individuals who lived well past the average. This would imply that those 60 year old ancient Greeks were probably not all that uncommon. Every village had it's old codgers.

Also, when we speak of the aid of medicine, we must be careful. Medicine for pregnant mothers and infants increases our average lifespan relative to the past, yes. However, much of the medicine we think of as extending our lives as we get old is actually fixing problems that didn't occur much in the past. Ancienct Greeks and Europeans of the Middle Ages didn't smoke tobacco. Nor did they have high-cholesterol, high-sodium diets and inactive lives.

Of course they had high-cholesterol, among other things. It's not like people didn't eat meat until this century. Back then, they didn't *know* to avoid those foods.

The only difference is that North Americans live more sedentary lifestyles than our ancestors did, and as a result, the damage caused by those diets isn't counteracted by activity.

I agree with you....absolutely the Greeks had their old codgers etc....but a far higher percentage of their society didn't live that long. And I think it would be an error to claim that you have to filter out only those killed by violence or accident or whatever to measure lifespan. Disease was a huge reason why people didn't live that long also....but disease is a natural factor and balance. It keeps populations in check, as horrible as it sounds. And that factor helped keep the average age of mortality down as well.

Still need to address the rate of maturation...

Banshee