How would societies be different if I threw genetics out the window?

[Turanil]

I am considering some cultural differences in a campaign world I have in my head.

a) How would things be different if skin colour, hair colour, etc., were not tied to genetics at all? If a causasian looking parent and an asian looking parent could be the biological parents of an african looking child, for instance? I assume that this would eliminate racism (except between fantasy races, like orc vs. elf).

b) How would things be different if 10% of the population were openly gay, 80% were openly bisexual, and 10% were openly straight, and no one was in the closet or latent about anything?

For the record, PC's could choose their own appearance and sexual orientation, as usual.

I am (perhaps in vain) not wishing to start up a conversation about what the real world is like or should be like, but rather am looking at how standard fantasy societies would be constructed and run, from a DM's point of view. Would I have to remember much? Or would this just be window-dressing?

Here are some points to consider. They are not totally accurate as I have no master degree in history or biology, but I think it is reasonable and easily implemented in a game:

a) Let's have a cosmopolitan society where humans of various ethnical background live together, and whose ancestors' various cultures eventually merged together to produce a fantasy culture with many influences. You don't need to threw genetics through the window. There would be African-like people living along Asian-like people living along Caucasian-like people living along metis, and they all would see themselves normal humans all the same.

b) I think that racism has nothing to do with skin color. Those who fear others and/or project their own fears on others will choose people different from themselves to hate, but the fact that it is skin color, religion, or what not does little matter. In RL medieval times, European people didn't know about African or Asian, but were "racists" about those who lived in the next village. It's as simple as that. In a multicultural human society, people prone to racism would chose some people to hate on any kind of absurd or relevant criteria. This could be magic-users, half-orcs, people with red hairs (in medieval times, people believed than being red-haired was to be related to the Devil...).

c) As far as homosexuality goes, in medieval japan it was seen just as a matter of personal preference where sexual tastes were concerned, and nobody did care about it. Samurai could be homosexual or not, openly or not:
nobody cared! You can do the same in your fantasy world.

In fact my opinion is that it will just be window dressing, and the main theme of the campaign should lie somewhere else.

 

[Baron Opal]

IIRC, there have been / are currently cultures who practice group marriage and any resulting children consider all the adults "parents". Groups range from 3-8.

Hrm, iritating I remember some of the details but not the name of the culture that I read about. African, perhaps? Incan? Can't remember.

Another issue that comes up is who takes care of the children? Are their guilds of wet nurses and caretakers who raise the children according to cultural norms? What if someone doesn't want to share their mate?

Inheritance is an issue too. How do you prove who is your parent? Are goods just donated to the state or is there some more formal ritual to determine who gets your stuff when you die? One of the drives that cause people to have children is a desire for immortality. That some part of them lives on after they die, even if it is only a memory of that person. Is that drive absent in these people or is it channeled into other things?

People have a strong need to "belong". Family is a big part of that need. The approval of social groups and peer opinion will become even more important in this setting.

Baron Opal

 

[takyris]

You seem to have the impression that the family structure and sexual practices of human civilization are simple repressive window dressing that are separate from the rest of the culture. They're not. They're amoung the most fundamental foundations of any given society and dramatic alteration in such areas would have to change everything.

Agree.

(And, if you ask me, the society you describe is good for one or two generations at most (assuming that its enemies are few and it enjoys dramatic economic and technological superiority over them) before it collapses under the weight of its own hedonism or is conquered by a different society).

Disagree. Polyamorous relationships might be seen as hedonistic in our current society -- heck, they might be hedonistic in our current society -- but that's at least in part because the people practicing those relationships in this society are the ones who are rebelling against existing societal standards. The polyamorous people are, in United States society, the very liberal-minded rebels who refuse to conform to traditional notions of "family".

In a society where polygamy is seen as good and right and proper, an excellent way to combine resources and ensure common loyalty in defense of the weak and defenseless members of the family (the children and the aged, for example), the people you'll find in polyamorous relationships won't be the ones who are rebelling against societal notions of "family" -- you'll find the stalwart traditionalist folks living as third husband in a serial family or something along those lines.

In fact, in a society with a strong polyamorous basis, monogamy might be seen as selfish, shallow, and fearful -- a person who loves his community so little that he must draw away from it, a person who obviously does not have the good of the community at heart.

As you yourself said, Elder-bas, if you say that the traditional form of the family is something radically different, you need to take the societal changes into account. A radically different family will, if the society is to survive, go hand in hand with a radically different set of ethics that allow for the continuation of that sort of family. That could be anything from hippie peacenik free-love stuff to traditional laws and courtship (or even, on a darker end, to a dark wolf-pack-style family, with an alpha male and female and with the weaker members kept in line by force, and with those outside the family either driven off, killed, or captured and forced into the family as a new member).

You can take something like polygamy and make it whatever alignment and efficiency level you like, depending on the world you want to create. I don't believe that polyamory or monogamy is inherently good or evil, effective or decadent. (I'm monogamous, for the record, because I was raised monogamous and because both my wife and I know ourselves well enough to know that trying to change something that ingrained in both of us would be messy and ugly and probably not worth it. That's only our situation. Your mileage may vary. Find something that works for you.)

 

[Particle_Man]

Interesting stuff! So far, I am gleaning some good ideas from you guys. Keep em coming!

I think I will allow for different cultures (which might love or hate each other) but have "color blind casting" with respect to the racial make up of each culture, or each family.

And I think I will follow Takyris's lead with polyamorous families (er...Yoink!), but transfer some of the "drama" from emotions over biological kids to emotions over raised kids (this also handles the inheritance problem, I think), and allow some people to get jealous, etc., even when the society expectation is not to (or at least to talk it out). There could be star-crossed lovers, but their reasons for not getting together would be different (Capulet vs. Montague, as opposed to "She or He is already married). So I think I can do this, but still be able to steal stuff from existing stories to plot adventures for my campaigns. (Hmmmm...PC's kill monsters and steal their stuff, DM's just steal stuff directly)

Anyhow, that is my idea so far, but I look forward to reading more of your comments.

 

[Umbran]

I think this could work, but I am not sure what other ramifications would spring from this.

Okay, well you might want to stop and think about why real-world animals have the setup they do...

First of all - in the real world, variations on human races are largely local adaptation to conditions. Darker skin protects against UV radiation in the tropics, lighter skin allows for vitamin manufacture, and so on. Parents who have a useful trait tend to survive and pass it on to the kids. Your system fails to have that causal mechanism. So, why is there variation? Why are there dark skinned babies and light skinned babies at all?

You mention some largely superficial things - hair, skin, eye color, facial structure, and so on. What about other traits- do strong parents tend to have strong babies? Do tall parents tend to have tall babies? Are you throwing out genetics for cosmetics, or for everything? Think about that carefully, because the answer makes a big difference.

 

[Jehosephat]

This question just boggles my mind that I can't even comprehend it. Not saying it's a bad question but it's pretty deep IMO. I just don't see how it could work. It seems like were it not for genetics women could give birth to trees, or dogs, or lizards, or any of the above. There would be no logic or order to things IMO. I mean I suppose without genetics, we'd all be some kind of ethereal beings, just vast entities without any recognizable shape or form.

 

[Humanophile]

*takes a deep breath*
Wooh, this stab at a hippie utopia is going to open a huge can of worms. But let's at least start by trying to read the label.

First, do try to hit the library and read up on evolutionary psychology. Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene is a good place to start, but several authors have tried their hand at the idea. Simply put, genetics is not just about gross physical cosmetic issues, but everything from species differences to heritable behavior. So from the beginning, you're going to have to throw out a lot of innate human instincts (see Elder_Basilisk's post for the genre tropes that rely on humans having certain built-in reactions), and rewrite from scratch.

Second, you're going to have to decide what traits are heritable, either from parents or as part of a "racial package". This includes instincts as well as things like requisite number of hands and feet. (If none of these issues occurred to you, congratulations. You've just shown how innate and inseperable genetics is to humanity in the real world.) The same way most real-world humans have an instinctive revulsion to sex with animals or harming children, you have to plot out what these beings in your world inherently like/dislike to both keep them going, and to keep them from becoming too alien to yourself and your players.

Third, you have to think about cultural heritability as well. IRL, a society that produces many healthy babies will crowd out one that doesn't invest energy in reproduction/child rearing/other "population growth" activies. The more acquisitive kibbutz-like communities will probably wipe out the others simply by virtue of mathematics; the ones that don't work as hard to collect children will, over successive generations, have less manpower to do things with... doing things like collecting more children, for example. (Also, do read up on kibbutzes. You'll eat that stuff up with a spoon for your setting. Read up on the Bonobo, too, since free love/polyamory fans love pointing to them as nature's embodiment of their ideals.)

And finally, when you have these beings worked out, try to step back and think how you and your players would involve themselves in the setting. Most players are heterosexual and monogamous, for example, so while they'll love the idea of their characters getting as much play as possible, they'll likely chafe at having to have their character make a pass at a same-sex character or have a paramour treat them as just a fling. What you propose involves turning a lot of the basic reasons for human behavior on its head, do be mindful of the risk of creating a race of beings that are difficult, if impossible, to empathize with.

And as an aside to others. Polyamory might, in theory, be a viable system. Heck, the bonobo has it down pat. (Granted, the reasons why are a little darker than your average free-love fanatic would like to admit.) However, in our real genetic world, jealousy serves a valueable purpose; it keeps one from investing time and energy into a child who doesn't carry one's genes, and it enhances one's ability to gain/retain a mate/breeding partner/source of resources. (Interesting fact: when the issue of infidelity comes up, men are generally more bothered about sexual infidelity, while women are usually more bothered by emotional infidelity. That's because historically the man's emotional involvement kept him investing time and effort in the child - what the darwinianly optimized woman wants - while the "optimized" male found "wasting" energy on another's offspring to be abhorrent.) Similarly, homophobia has good evolutionary precedent. (It prevents one from wasting time and effort on a sexual encounter that won't propogate, and note how males - who have far less innate investment in childbirth* - are usually more homophobic than females.) So be wary when hearing about how some culture or other has thrown "society's restrictive norms" out the window and is just dandy without them. Such tales, as well as much we hear about "noble savages" in primitive societies, are usually just urban myths.


*The male has to invest maybe a couple teaspoons of material to breed, and has several convenient ways to skip out on childrearing responsibilities and/or pass them off to someone else. The female has to invest nine months of time, plenty of bodily resources, and has a much harder time passing the childcare buck.)

 

[Particle_Man]

Okay, well you might want to stop and think about why real-world animals have the setup they do...

First of all - in the real world, variations on human races are largely local adaptation to conditions. Darker skin protects against UV radiation in the tropics, lighter skin allows for vitamin manufacture, and so on. Parents who have a useful trait tend to survive and pass it on to the kids. Your system fails to have that causal mechanism. So, why is there variation? Why are there dark skinned babies and light skinned babies at all?

You mention some largely superficial things - hair, skin, eye color, facial structure, and so on. What about other traits- do strong parents tend to have strong babies? Do tall parents tend to have tall babies? Are you throwing out genetics for cosmetics, or for everything? Think about that carefully, because the answer makes a big difference.

Interesting. I think I might have animals go the same way (groups instead of mated pairs) and see how that works. For your second paragraph, I would suppose the motivation would be that the creator-gods liked variety. And I think that variety would continue into other traits, like str, height, etc. There would be a race template (so a race with a -2 str mod would all vary in str between 1 and 16, not between 3 and 18) but variety within that race.

(To answer the other poster, I would have the creator gods design each fantasy race to biologically create only members of that fantasy race. So no orc babies to elves, and no tree babies (saplings?) to dwarves, etc. So coloration and other traits would vary, but a child of kobold parents would still be a kobold (actually I would likely allow for more variety of coloration in the scales -- "rusty brown to rusty black" could probably use some improvement on that score)).

 

[Particle_Man]

*takes a deep breath*
Simply put, genetics is not just about gross physical cosmetic issues, but everything from species differences to heritable behavior. So from the beginning, you're going to have to throw out a lot of innate human instincts (see Elder_Basilisk's post for the genre tropes that rely on humans having certain built-in reactions), and rewrite from scratch.

Second, you're going to have to decide what traits are heritable, either from parents or as part of a "racial package". This includes instincts as well as things like requisite number of hands and feet. The same way most real-world humans have an instinctive revulsion to sex with animals or harming children, you have to plot out what these beings in your world inherently like/dislike to both keep them going, and to keep them from becoming too alien to yourself and your players.

Third, you have to think about cultural heritability as well.

And finally, when you have these beings worked out, try to step back and think how you and your players would involve themselves in the setting. Most players are heterosexual and monogamous, for example, so while they'll love the idea of their characters getting as much play as possible, they'll likely chafe at having to have their character make a pass at a same-sex character or have a paramour treat them as just a fling. What you propose involves turning a lot of the basic reasons for human behavior on its head, do be mindful of the risk of creating a race of beings that are difficult, if impossible, to empathize with.

Hmmm...well the campaign world I have would have 9 sentient species, each created by a god to be one of the 9 alignments (there has been drift, but that was relatively recent and seen as a great shift). So the original instincts would, I suppose, have been put there by the relevant deity in this world, and alignment would provide a good short-hand for that (perhaps coupled with a general instruction from the god, encoded subconsciously into the souls of the created beings). Perhaps the "Drift" could be an example of culture changing the original package, but I would also manage to have "interference" from other deities count here as well.

I think I would keep things like "anti-beastiality" and "no harming kids" as instincts, in general. I mean, I like to eat while I DM, after all. (The nice thing about creationism in the campaign world -- I can explain things as simply "What the relevant God wanted, perhaps as modified by interference from another God"). Although the CE race (orcs in this case) and quite possibly the NE race (goblins) would have less of the "don't harm kids" instinct, presumably.

I liked Takyris's idea that the polyamorous groups could, but don't have to, be relatively utopic. Some would be nice to live in, some nasty, depending on the society alignment.

Oh, I would also let players choose their character's sexual orientation, which may solve some of the problems above. And I would make it clear how the societies were different in this world, without dropping players into it blind. You are right, that would be a shocker.

So in general, the "genetic instincts" would be replaced by "divinely inspired instincts", cultural forces would have a powerful effect, and "biological kin-protection instinct" would be replaced by "raised child-protection instinct".
That could keep a lot of the fantasy tropes in play. Jealousy would be one instinct that would be reduced, but perhaps not as much as all that (there are other things to be jealous of than partners, after all, and in the CE "wolf pack" society, there would be plenty of room for it). And perhaps there would even be elements of romanic jealousy. Just more rare.

Thanks for the comments. And "The Selfish Gene" was a great book, that I recommend to everyone. But part of what I am trying to do is to get variety in people (a la color-blind casting in movies and plays), while having their race only having existed after being created by a god about 10 000 years previous. And also to do a bit of "what if?"

[wanders off to look up stuff on kibbutz's]

 

[Dogbrain]

Similarly, homophobia has good evolutionary precedent. (It prevents one from wasting time and effort on a sexual encounter that won't propogate,

Now that is just about the most idiotic thing I've seen here, which is really saying something. There is a vast difference between not being interested in homosexual activity and being a homophobe. If you can't see that difference, I suggest several decades of remedial education.