Human Dominance

[Ukyo the undead]

Humans are like ice ages. Sometimes they ocuppy the whole world, sometimes they retreat to the far corners of it.

We elves know it, because we saw it countless times: the might humans empires crumbling over it owns weights, the humans receding to small farmlands, almost like the halflings.

It takes a few thousands years, and the humans rebuild their empires. But, as a short lived race they are, they don´t remember they were might, and dont remember why they lost if as well.

Therefore, in a few thousands years they will crumble again, and the circle will begin another time.

Humans do not learn with theirs mistakes, but we elves do, That´s why we never crumble.

 

[Orius]

2) The vast majority of fantasy fiction is humanocentric, even in the case of works which feature non-human protagonists.

I think that's probably one of the biggest reasons. Most fantasy fiction I've read basically center around human worlds. Tolkien is a big influence on D&D and we see that at the start of the Fourth Age humans are on the rise, while the elves and dwarves are fading into memory. Howard is another big influence on the game, but the Hyborian Age, is a fictional lost age set in the distant past of our own world, and is very much a human world.

Even a lot of science fiction is like this. Look at Star Trek, Star Wars, B5, Stargate, etc. They all have a lot of different intelligent species in their respective universes, but which one does each of them tend to focus on? That's right, good 'ole H. sapiens.

 

[Gez]

In the case of movies, it is in no small part because aliens would have to be muppets or CGI, or they are just humans with a lot of latex on them.

And muppets or CGI are often goofy.

Now that I think of it, Dark Crystal is the only movie with a lot of muppets that doesn't look goofy. And that's because there are only muppets. If you had humans wandering among the podlings and skekses, then it would ruin the movie.

Look at Star Wars. Sure, Yoda is OK, but look at the scene in Jabba's palace, with the orchestra...

 

[Nisarg]

Humans are like ice ages. Sometimes they ocuppy the whole world, sometimes they retreat to the far corners of it.

We elves know it, because we saw it countless times: the might humans empires crumbling over it owns weights, the humans receding to small farmlands, almost like the halflings.

It takes a few thousands years, and the humans rebuild their empires. But, as a short lived race they are, they don´t remember they were might, and dont remember why they lost if as well.

Therefore, in a few thousands years they will crumble again, and the circle will begin another time.

Humans do not learn with theirs mistakes, but we elves do, That´s why we never crumble.

Um.. ok...

So this is either some creative writing, or the manifesto of one of those seriously disturbed people who actually believe themselves to be elves or klingons or vampires or whatever.

Nisarg

 

[Nifft]

That´s why we never crumble.

Dude, you undead TOTALLY crumble.

-- N

 

[Tonguez]

Okay leaving discussions of divine intervention for later I think taking an essentially Ecological model is 'facilitated' by the rules and its use of Terrain types (ie Cold:Arctic, Temperate, Warm, Aquatic, Desert, Forest, Hill, Marsh, Mountains, Plains, Underground)

although perhaps never intended these not provide discrete habitats in which each creature is adapted to thrive. Humans of course are adapted to thrive in any land - that is the human advantage) elfs however are limited by Terrain thus:

Elf:
Aquatic: Temperate aquatic
Drow: Any underground
Gray: Temperate forest and mountains
Wild: Temperate and warm forest
Wood: Temperate forest

So grays, wild and wood elfs have some overlap but are not neccesarily competitive (since gray elfs have mountain forest if the Wood elfs occuply the lowlands).

Also magic and divine intervention may play an ecological role and be considered 'extreme environmental change' in DnD too (the Drow are an example)

I think you need to clarify a few things before I can comment on your model:
(a) what aspects of a creature are capable of adapting (ie. changing) physically, mentally and socially? (Socially is an important question because of the way chaotic alignments seem to function as a disability under the system.)

Ecological Anthropology proposes that cultural traits adapt in reponse to environment and this works for DnD and the elf model. We have established that environmnet change (even subtle shifts to different terrain types) results in physcial and mental adaption in Elfs (resulting in changes in Stat blocks for each subrace) I will then posit that this physical change in combination with terrain pressures leads to Cultural change.
Personally I'd say that a chaotic alignment is a cultural trait and not neccesarily a disadvantage in the model (although it often becomes so in DnD mechanics).

Now unlike the highly mutable Elfs, Humans (because of their Adaptability trait) go through very limited physical change (ie no stat change and only variation in melanin levels) but do go through cultural adaption as a response to new environments (beyond this development of culture is too broad to be expanded here)

(b) are creatures created by the god(s) they worship or is the creation of species done by particular gods with responsibility for more than one species?
(c) if survival factors are contingent upon the environment, aren't gods of particular plants or animals going to have a kind of secondary jurisdiction over the survival of creatures that depend on them?
(d) do the deities of non-sentient life recognize the life forms they patronize as lower in the hierarchy than sentient creatures?
(e) if different creator gods have different agendas, how is their relative success determined?

In Aristotelian physics, the system I apply most frequently to fill gaps in natural philosophy that the rules do not, there is no environmental adaptation. Because there is one god who favours humankind in a sacred natural order, the production of a particular ecological feature like the Nile River is predetermined based on the anticipated needs of the creatures dependent upon it. Because every object has a purpose, what the object does is comprehended in terms of fulfillment of said purpose.

Again the role of gods is too campaign specific but does raise a number of interesting possibilities. Personally I see no reason why an Ecelogical model as I posit should be at variance with either divine intervention or even Aristotelian physics (which admittedly I not familiar with). Must mythologies place human(oids) higher than the beasts with a special purpose. Taking my story as an beginning (Tiki the carver creating humans by imposing his own conception on to nature (rather than with it), we could also assign say Sina goddess of nature (who has responsibility for plants and animals) is the creator of Elfs (again a branch taken from the tree of life) Elfs were created for grace and beauty to live with nature as a part of it (blah blah) - this is why elfs modify to become 'part' of their specific habitat. Dwarfs were created from on of the roots of the tree created with endurance to dig in the earth (blah blah) - each myth creates a specific purpose for the creation which gains expression in the racial traits and drives. Their success depends upon how well they meet the assigned purpose as set by the gods...

If you substitute an essentially ecological order, which you seem to be proposing, there is a real problem: not only must the humans make sense ecologically, the whole D&D system must make sense ecologically. Why would kobolds continue to exist? They are not as well-designed as goblins and hobgoblins and occupy the same ecological niche. Now, if there is a divine order in which kobolds are supposed to live and the created world actively facilitates this, that is one thing but if creation is just a big design competition amongst the gods, why don't some gods just lose?

Again the perponderance of competing species highlights one of the flaws of older versions which persist in 3e but again Terrain types come into play to explain the ecology especially if they are more strictly applied so taking a series of underground races including Kobolds, Goblins, Grimlocks, Gnomes and Dwarfs we find each have other Terrain types that they favour eg Goblins are found underground in Temperate and warm lands whereas Kobolds are found in conjunction with forest. There is overlap but they do not occupy the 'exact same niche' and there may be over factors which allow them to thrive (eg Kobolds association with Dragons is a powerful advantage)



Goblin
Climate/Terrain: Temperate and warm land and underground

[B]Kobold[/B]
Climate/Terrain: [U]Any forest[/U] and underground

[B]Gnome[/B]
Climate/Terrain: [U]Any forest, hill[/U], and underground

Gnomes and Kobolds compete and this is confirmed by Gnomes +1 bonus vs Kobolds.

[B]Grimlocks[/B]
Climate/Terrain: [U]Any mountains [/U] and underground

[B]Dwarf[/B]
Climate/Terrain: [U]Any hill, mountains[/U], and underground

These occupy the same niche and so Dwarfs are probably fighting Grimlocks often (if using Grimlocks ic I'd probably allow a Dwarf to count it as a goblinoid and apply the racial bonus)