D&D 5E Humans!?

[Hussar]

Think about elves for a second. Baron McEvilton is oppressing his peasants so the human PC decides to go all Robin Hood and save the peasants. The elf looks at this and thinks, "Well, the Baron is 40 years old now. He's going to likely die in the next twenty years. This problem is self correcting"

Why would an elf care? Bad leaders come and go in the blink of on eye to an elf. Any problem that isn't going to last more than a century isn't really a problem is it?

Culture obviously plays a part too and should not be ignored but species is just as important.

Imagine if Spock, or Worf or Thorin were human. Would they be the same characters?

 

[Celebrim]

The most important differences between the traditional fantasy races are all cultural rather than biological. Sometimes those cultural differences might be informed by biological differences, but a dwarf raised by elves is going to behave a lot more like an elf than like a dwarf.

Why? Are you sure? What is the basis of this observation? I would imagine that the basis of this observation is that the majority of differences between ethnicities, particularly among the ones that aren't trivial like complexion and shape of the nose, are cultural, and it's reasonable to conclude that a person of one ethnicity, if native to a different culture, would have behavioral norms defined by the culture that they were actually raised in.

But this is a false analogy. Of course the differences between two humans are mostly cultural. In biological terms, 99.99% of their genes are shared in common regardless of ethnicity and divergence between ethnic groups is not only biologically recent, but highly dampened through more recent interbreeding leading to shared ancestors in biological blinks of an eye. Dwarves and elves on the other hand are completely different species with completely different natural histories: for example, one was carved out of stone and given life by a chthonic deity, and the other came into being from the drops of blood shed in battle by a sky deity. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that the majority of differences between the two species are cultural, and biologically speaking, with such different origins genetically (assuming genetics exist, and assuming that there is at least some equivalent there of) they share 0% in common.

If you are familiar with literary science fiction traditions, you'll know that exploring this species blindness is one of the main themes of several science fiction authors. Humanity has a tendency to assume that every intelligent species is either fundamentally a human with a few cultural differences (humans with bumps on their forehead) or else a monster. Further, humanity has a tendency to assume that they are average - 'the Mario' - non-specialized, adaptable, generalists and the standard by which everything else is judged by. In fact, we have no real way of knowing that, and it IMO would be an interesting setting where that was not true. Certainly its not true if we compare ourselves to animal species we do know. When we do that, we actual discover that we are hyper-specialized extremists that in almost every quality are at or near the far end of the spectrum (brain to body ratio, percent of hair covering, density of pores in skin, digestive system to body weight ratio, upright locomotion, spatial processing, digital dexterity, etc.). While some concessions may be made to how aliens might physically depart from these norms, rarely do humans really accept that another race may depart from its social norms - and when they do they get really appalled and even angry. I could probably blow up this thread by discussing sentient AI, because people get really passionate when you suggest intelligent things don't have to be human.

Anyway, one of my favorite science-fiction authors, Gordon R. Dickenson, wrote a classic of the genera called 'The Alien Way', and IMO it - despite being a bit dated in some ways - is still one of the best treatments of this concept. In it he postulates a first contact event where humans are allowed to spy on the behavior of another race, a slightly more advanced but similarly predatory race that turns out to be their neighbor. The major theme of the book is that both races believe that they are just acting entirely logically and naturally, when in fact both of them are acting on almost pure instinct in entirely predictable ways and rationalizing their behavior. The 'spy' who is observing the aliens eventually comes to understand them, and in doing so comes to understand what makes him human so that he can then predict and make note of all the irrational things that humans are doing in acting out their own biological imperatives that formerly he would never have even questioned because they are so basic to human behavior he assumed they were universal.

A good example of this is the person who asked me, "So what if you are born an adult. That just means you skip the childhood part of your background.", assuming that if you did skip the childhood portion of your background that it would have no real impact on how you looked at life.

On the other hand, it's still suggesting that there are correct ways for a member of a cultural group to act, and if you don't conform to those stereotypes then you're doing it wrong. You don't necessarily want to promote that sort of thing in your fun fantasy game.

That's a cultural value that is being unquestionably misapplied to something that is consciously being created as 'The Other' and which is primarily justified by its differences as 'The Other'. Your so concerned about 'otherification' of your fellow humans - and I'm not in the slightest trivializing how bad it is to dehumanize your fellow humans - that you don't consider that a large part of the power of that fantasy and science fiction have is that they give us a mirror which we can hold up to ourselves and see ourselves more clearly, precisely because without the presence of another, we have no way of contrasting or comparing or distinguishing ourselves. We as a species are in some ways profoundly alone, and we are going to have to learn how to get along with things that are really others along with learning how to stop seeing otherness where it isn't there. Otherwise, we are going to be stuck with if it violates our expectations about what it means to be human/sapient/sophont/intelligent/having a soul, that it must be a monster or monstrous.

 

[Celebrim]

Imagine if Spock, or Worf or Thorin were human. Would they be the same characters?

Possibly, but each is a bad example for a different reason.

Spock is a science fiction elf, and the culture attributed to him is within the range of values attributed to elves. (By contrast, Romulans are 'dark elves'). But Spock as it turns out is a 'half-elf', and so not actually representative of the type (this is a common problem with invented species, where the most deeply explored member of the species is the one least like the norm). So when Spock fails to be alien - and he fails in this regard all the time - there is no way of knowing whether he does so because of bad writing or because Spock is half-human and so seems equally alien to a true Vulcan. Worse, the actual designers of the Vulcan type in my opinion have poor understanding of what emotion actually is that is based on a lot of vague and fuzzy thinking typical of the period regarding what intelligence actually is (namely, that intelligence is a single emergent spontaneous property of complexity that manifests itself alike in everything that is 'intelligent' - see most artificial intelligence search of the period, and in particular see the treatment of AI in the original Star Trek). So when we see actual Vulcans they don't act to the described type of wholly rational and unemotional creatures (again, as to the usual trope, the time we get to spend with them the most is when they are least acting like themselves - the 'pon far').

Even so, I would argue that Spock is by far the best of the three 'aliens' you cited, even if the particular way in which he is alien is a bit inexplicable and inconsistent.

Worf is far worse. At some level he's a science fiction orc, but not even a particularly well realized one. Raised by humans - again with the representative member of the race being a non-representative member of the race - he is presented as basically a human that occasionally growls and ritually boasts, and in contrast to Spock is presented as having no inexplicable or alien values at all. Where Spock in every episode is held up as the strange but loyal alien friend, Worf is in every episode presented as the alien that deep down has all the same problems and feelings we have ourselves. Culturally, Klingons in TNG and on are presented in terms that are entirely within the range of human cultural values (as is typical recently, variations on stereotypical Japanese), except that they are time and again inexplicably less adaptable than humans (once again, humans are 'The Mario', and everyone else is riding the short bus). TNG is Political Correctness as the assumed universal cultural and biological value. At least the original series was able to dabble from time to time into 'It's life Jim, but not as we know it', where that life however alien often proved at some level sympathetic (the Horta, for example). TNG rarely was so daring, with the race that could only communicate in metaphors (Darmok and Jhelad) being one of the few notable exceptions.

Thorin is not presented in sufficient detail to know whether he is alien. I would argue that Thorin is not alien, that his dwarfness plays very little role in his story (except for the unspoken and unreflected upon fact that unlike his human king counterpart, regaining his kingdom involves getting married to his gold rather than a girl), and that fundamentally the story remains the same if Thorin and company were all 'big jobs'.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't agree. Obviously this is all conjectural because we don't have any real world point of comparison, but in my opinion a different species, with a different biology, could have a very different outlook and attitude from ordinary humans. If I could expect to live for hundreds of years, if I was smaller than most other sentient beings, if my body was especially well-suited to live underground, I think it would definitely have a strong influence on my personality.

Really? I find that extremely surprising. The fact that humans live to be 80+ rather than 40ish has not had "strong influence" on personality, people in general still have the same general behavioral patterns they had before. Growth and development on a very long scale is somewhat different, e.g. Erikson's "stages of psychosocial development" may possibly admit the addition of a new stage between adolescence and adulthood covering the modern "college student lingering at/near home," but by and large people have been people regardless, and core personality attributes don't appear to be that much different now than they were in the past.

I also think you're vastly playing up the amount of biological difference. Elves are humans that live a really long time--that's it. Dwarves are (slightly) short humans that live longer than we normally expect (I say 'slightly' because some games classify them as "small" like halfings, while others classify them as "medium" like humans). Aesthetically, dwarves may prefer different design because they're shorter, but "averages ~1.5 feet shorter than humans" is going to have about as much effect on culture as "tends to be left-handed." Halflings are more or less equivalent to the pygmy peoples, who are just as much another kind of human, and to the best of my knowledge do not have cultures so alien that you could (to greater degree than chance) distinguish a pygmy from a non-pygmy in a Turing-like test. Again, as I've said several times: basal/physiological needs are the same for essentially all races ("nutrition" though not necessarily "food," air, shelter, regular rest, etc.), logic works the same way for all of them, and (excluding rare quadrupeds like centaurs or sentient bears etc.) they all have identical body plan and near-identical appendages. That constrains the range of physiological changes substantially!

I was already told that simple physiology differences (e.g. tails, presumably stuff like being cold-blooded) aren't what was being discussed. So the only differences I can think of that really deeply matter are:
- Laying eggs, physically constructing/cloning offspring, etc.
- Altered sensory apparatus (lacking eyes, seeing infrared or "magic," internal chronometry, telepathy, etc.)
- Being a non-animal (sentient mineral, construct, plant, etc.)
- Dramatic physical abilities (invisibility, flight, etc.)

Of these, the majority don't apply to most races...so I'll grant you that they should influence behavior, but only for races that would make sense. Wilden and Warforged, for example, are pretty distinctly divergent from the human norm, so I wouldn't be surprised by divergent behavior. But Elves and Dwarves are so close to the human norm that we can approximate them with human beings who adopt particular mannerisms, and mannerisms are exactly the kind of cultural thing I've been talking about all along.

Think about elves for a second. Baron McEvilton is oppressing his peasants so the human PC decides to go all Robin Hood and save the peasants. The elf looks at this and thinks, "Well, the Baron is 40 years old now. He's going to likely die in the next twenty years. This problem is self correcting"

Why would an elf care? Bad leaders come and go in the blink of on eye to an elf. Any problem that isn't going to last more than a century isn't really a problem is it?

And how often does this kind of behavior come from players? Elf Buddy is an NPC--or behaving like one. He has the leeway to decide, "Eh, screw it, I can wait it out." PC adventurers are not nearly so sessile--it is boring to defeat your enemies by outliving them. So this seemingly "super-important" element (lifespan differences) evaporates when inserted into the "we're playing a game" context. Especially if the party isn't all long-lived aloof jerks--and the amount of aloofness and jerkness will, again, be much more dependent on culture than race in particular.

There's also the simple fact that Baron McEvilton can establish a lineage, whether biologically or grooming a successor--or simply being replaced by someone nearly equivalent. So even the long-lived, aloof, uncaring Elf Buddy may have a reason to do something. "You are like blackberries. The individuals may die, but the roots linger and multiply!"

Or, to riff on the words of M. Bison: "For you, the day Elves graced your village was the greatest day of your life. For us, it was pest control."

Culture obviously plays a part too and should not be ignored but species is just as important.

Yeah, I really truly see culture as being substantially more important. Sometimes, that culture will be in part influenced by biology, but the culture itself is where the effect lies. If dragonborn laid eggs, for example, then their attitudes toward child-rearing would probably be different from those of a race that has live birth, and different again from those that don't give birth at all, but (essentially) all playable races will have attitudes about the coming-into-existence and propagation-of-the-species things, and those attitudes will be at least analogous to (albeit not the same as) real Earth cultures. For instance, long-lived, space-conserving races will probably end up displaying long-run behavior like that found in modernized nations e.g. Japan/Europe/USA, where birth rates are low but survival rates are very high.

And whether any given race, long-lived or not, engages in active interference is going to depend far more on their cultural values. Roddenberry's Federation and Banks' Culture are (very roughly) analogous entities, but the former has an EXTREMELY strict non-intervention policy (despite the violations shown on TV) and the latter sees it as their moral duty to make other cultures become more like theirs. Then you have things like the Draenei in WoW: they definitely have a distinct culture, and a light dusting of the "smug superiority" thing that Elves often get...but their superiority usually takes the form of wanting to help "lesser" races improve, though not to the deep-interventionist level of The Culture.

Imagine if Spock, or Worf or Thorin were human. Would they be the same characters?

Sure they would. Amanda Grayson is the equivalent of a woman of one culture marrying into a very different one, and Spock is a man with a dual cultural heritage struggling to reconcile them. A friend of mine, for example, is German-Irish-Hispanic, descended from both conquerors and natives on her mother's side; reconciling her cultural heritages is something she's thought a lot about.

Worf is equivalent to the "dwarf raised by elves" example, which is (essentially) equivalent to cross-cultural adoption. So that's even worse of an example, since you (as I understood it?) conceded the "dwarf raised by elves" thing earlier.

Thorin is already essentially a short human who comes from a culture that espouses a particular set of virtues (being a warrior; industry; hoarded wealth). Can you explain further why you chose him in particular? Because as far as I remember (from the books--I didn't watch beyond the first Hobbit movie), Thorin doesn't have any motives or values that couldn't be found in a (theoretical) Earth culture. Plus, the dwarven lifespan really isn't different from the lifespans humans can (theoretically) enjoy in Middle-Earth anyway. Both are mortal, but at least the Numenoreans and (some of) their descendants could live for centuries and decided when they wanted to die. Aragorn/King Elessar did precisely that, living to be over 200 years old and ruling for 120 of it. (Remember: when he joins the Fellowship, he's 87 years old. Pretty spry if you ask me! )

Edit: I'd also say Gandalf rather neatly pokes a hole in this question. He's not at all human, he should be even more removed from human concerns than an Elf would be since he's a lesser angel in human guise. Yet he loves pipeweed and a good beer, makes fireworks for fun, and for all his vast knowledge he can still be tripped up by simple wordplay. And even for people who know his name, all it takes is slightly playing up his appearance ("You would not part an old man from his walking stick...") to get them to forget that he is a powerful wizard.

 

[Rejuvenator]

Speaking of elves, it's not fair that elves only need 4 hours of sleep. They already have more than enough time on their hands.

Considering that elves aren't any more productive than humans, I have no idea what they do all day with all that extra time.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Considering that elves aren't any more productive than humans, I have no idea what they do all day with all that extra time.

It isn't easy storing up so much disdain, you know. Also, those four hours probably get spent just keeping their hair perfectly coiffed or something.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why? Are you sure? What is the basis of this observation? I would imagine that the basis of this observation is that the majority of differences between ethnicities, particularly among the ones that aren't trivial like complexion and shape of the nose, are cultural, and it's reasonable to conclude that a person of one ethnicity, if native to a different culture, would have behavioral norms defined by the culture that they were actually raised in.

There are two possibilities for why different races might tend to act differently. The first option is that it's mostly cultural, like it is between different human cultures in the real world. The second option is that there is some biological basis - some inherent difference in their anatomy, and how their brain works - which would cause them to act differently.

The second option is highly unlikely, though. Dwarves and elves are too similar in visible, measurable ways, for them to be fundamentally different. It's not like the difference between humans and orks in 40k, where they really are different. Dwarves and elves have similar medical requirements, and give birth in nearly the same way. They eat most of the same foods. They react to physical stimuli in nearly identical manner. Neither one of them is anything like a sentient fungus with communal psychic abilities. There is just nothing about them physically, that would imply they are anything other than humans in some extreme fashion.

Dwarves and elves on the other hand are completely different species with completely different natural histories: for example, one was carved out of stone and given life by a chthonic deity, and the other came into being from the drops of blood shed in battle by a sky deity. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that the majority of differences between the two species are cultural, and biologically speaking, with such different origins genetically (assuming genetics exist, and assuming that there is at least some equivalent there of) they share 0% in common.

That is an extreme example, and not one which I have ever seen in play. Elves and orcs can both inter-breed with humans, as can dwarves in some settings, indicating that they are all the same species at a genetic level. (The questions of elf/orc or elf/dwarf hybrids was not something that was addressed either way, since it wasn't something that would ever arise due to the cultural assumptions of the default setting.) Whatever DNA they have, which governs the formation of their brain structures, is more than 99% similar. What you are describing - one race made from stone, and another from divine blood - are just origin myths, as you would find in any two ancient cultures of real-world humans; it's unlikely that they're actually true, within any given setting.

And even if you're playing in such a fantastic world that those myths are actually true, in spite of those disparate origins, then the fact that they can inter-breed means that the end result is two races which are biologically nearly identical. It would be like someone in the real world building an artificial human directly out of proteins; if the end result is close enough to a regular human that they can inter-breed, then they're close enough that the biological distinction can safely be ignored.

Of note, D&D explicitly has included really alien races in the past. From what I've heard, 4E included some races that were literally made of crystals, or were sentient plants. Those races would act differently, based solely on their biology.

If you are familiar with literary science fiction traditions, you'll know that exploring this species blindness is one of the main themes of several science fiction authors.
[...]
I could probably blow up this thread by discussing sentient AI, because people get really passionate when you suggest intelligent things don't have to be human.

I'm familiar with some science fiction, and the tropes associated with it. I know that, frequently, aliens are intended to serve as social commentary by being pointy-eared humans who act in a certain way. Star Trek was big on that. I know that humans are usually The Mario because Most Writers Are Human, and it's easier for the audience to relate.

And I know that, if there really are intelligent aliens out there - which seems likely - then they might be really alien. They could be crystals, or oozes, or whatever. To them, every human ever born would be as similar as two peas in the same pod, in spite of whatever differences we might see between ourselves. And if those aliens existed in a fantasy world, then elves and dwarves and orcs would also seem nearly identical to humans, in spite of whatever differences those races might see between themselves.

And just because we acknowledge them as Other, that does not necessarily make them monstrous. We could still be friends, of a sort, if we really wanted to. And we probably will, at some point in the future.

 

[Celebrim]

That is an extreme example, and not one which I have ever seen in play.

If I'm remembering correctly that's the canonical origin story of elves and dwarves in D&D, as presented in the first edition Deities and Demigods. I could probably come up with more extreme examples. One example cosmology I've seen has dwarves starting out as effectively brain parasites of the god of earth, spontaneously generated while she was sleeping, and they set up a kingdom in her head unaware that they are busily tunneling around in "mom". She woke up with headache and shook them out of her ear. Point is, these are fantasy worlds. They aren't governed by genetics, evolution, and shared common descent. Frequently, though Tolkien would be an exception, they don't even share a creator or an origin story. The different races have as different of origins as the North American tribes believed each tribe to have a different origin (since each told a different story about itself and about the origin of the other tribes that made them unrelated to each other).

Elves and orcs can both inter-breed with humans, as can dwarves in some settings, indicating that they are all the same species at a genetic level.

Again, this is a fantasy setting, so the first level assumption is not that scientific/realistic rules apply, but rather that fantasy rules apply. In fantasy, dragons can breed with just about anything, and indeed, just about anything can breed with anything. According to the Greeks, for example, the Minotaur got started when the Queen got infatuated with a bull and had intercourse with it. By your scientific standards, that makes cows and people the same species (and dragons, and what not).

one race made from stone, and another from divine blood - are just origin myths, as you would find in any two ancient cultures of real-world humans; it's unlikely that they're actually true, within any given setting.

On the contrary, in a fantasy story that the myths of the world's creation and ordering are true is generally taken as a given. Those myths are literally true. Zeus really did slay his father, fought a Titanomachy, and there really are Olympians. Thor and Odin really are going to fight in Ragnarok against the frost and fire giants, and live on the other side of the Bifrost bridge.

And even if you're playing in such a fantastic world that those myths are actually true, in spite of those disparate origins, then the fact that they can inter-breed means that the end result is two races which are biologically nearly identical. It would be like someone in the real world building an artificial human directly out of proteins; if the end result is close enough to a regular human that they can inter-breed, then they're close enough that the biological distinction can safely be ignored.

Again, this is all science-y logic that ignores the rest of the setting screaming out, "There are half-dragon gorgons for crying out loud; there are 4 elements. Conservation of Energy gets violated all the time. Your periodic table is of no use to your here. It's not science."

And just because we acknowledge them as Other, that does not necessarily make them monstrous. We could still be friends, of a sort, if we really wanted to. And we probably will, at some point in the future.

Well, that's my hope. But to get there, we have to be comfortable with otherness in a way that we are not. Simply saying, "Oh, well, The Other is just like us in every way that matters", is not the same as being comfortable with otherness and is in fact rather it's opposite.

 

[EvanNave55]

I would like to o further build on the discussion of humans and other races being genetically different. In the real world humans closest relatives are apes which we share 99.95% of our DNA with and we are incapable of interbreeding. The fact that humans and elves, dwarves, etc. Can interbreed suggests that they're a lot closer to humans than apes meaning 99.99 some percent DNA shared. I do not think they would be all that different from ourselves, even apes that are taught to communicate through sign language exhibit quite similar thought processes and emotions as us. Hell even plants- one of the most alien living things that exist outside microscopic organisms share about 50% of our DNA.

 

[Celebrim]

Really? I find that extremely surprising. The fact that humans live to be 80+ rather than 40ish has not had "strong influence" on personality, people in general still have the same general behavioral patterns they had before.

First, at least at the cultural level, no they don't - though granted, so many things have changed in the last 150 years that you can't put it all down to increased lifespan. Secondly, you are misinterpreting the statistics here. The vast majority of the increase in average life expectancy is down to the reduced incidence of childhood disease. Even in the middle ages, if you managed to make it to 18, your expected life expectancy was about 47 more years. Increases in the life expectancy of adults has increased far more slowly because the basic biology hasn't changed all that much. It's just are palliative care and antibiotics. And even if we did drastically increase our life, that's not the same as being a species that naturally runs on a slower time.

Elves are humans that live a really long time--that's it.

I disagree. Particularly with elves, though there might be some disagreement over just what makes them different, they are almost always portrayed as being different in some way. For example elves in a science fiction setting, see the Na'vi from Avatar with there whole 'we are in physical union and communion with the ecology of our world'. That's a huge difference from being human with equally huge impact in world view.

Dwarves are (slightly) short humans that live longer than we normally expect (I say 'slightly' because some games classify them as "small" like halfings, while others classify them as "medium" like humans). Aesthetically, dwarves may prefer different design because they're shorter, but "averages ~1.5 feet shorter than humans" is going to have about as much effect on culture as "tends to be left-handed."

In some cases you may be right. But dwarves are often portrayed as having less sexual dichotomy than humans and there are also often the suggestion in some cosmologies that there isn't a near 1:1 ratio between the sexes. Also, almost nobody makes sexuality and romance an important aspect of dwarfish behavior. Imagine a race without sexual passion, sexual politics, or sexual lust of any sort. Just how much human behavior would seem utterly incomprehensible to them?

Sure they would. Amanda Grayson is the equivalent of a woman of one culture marrying into a very different one, and Spock is a man with a dual cultural heritage struggling to reconcile them. A friend of mine, for example, is German-Irish-Hispanic, descended from both conquerors and natives on her mother's side; reconciling her cultural heritages is something she's thought a lot about.

Spock is far more bizarre than that. Despite the superficial similarities in the appearance of Vulcans and Humans, much is made in the original series about how skin deep those similarities really are. Spock has green copper based blood, two symmetrical hearts, organs with no human correspondence and those with a human correspondence are located in different places in his torso. Amanda and Sarek were so dissimilar that they couldn't create a child in the normal manner, but had to resort to advanced genetic engineering to create a hybrid of their genes. TOS makes very clear that Spock is alien.

The reboot by contrast makes very clear that Spock - and even Sarek - is basically human. This is a massive regression in tolerance.

I'd also say Gandalf rather neatly pokes a hole in this question. He's not at all human, he should be even more removed from human concerns than an Elf would be since he's a lesser angel in human guise. Yet he loves pipeweed and a good beer, makes fireworks for fun, and for all his vast knowledge he can still be tripped up by simple wordplay. And even for people who know his name, all it takes is slightly playing up his appearance ("You would not part an old man from his walking stick...") to get them to forget that he is a powerful wizard.

Gandalf's human qualities are the result of him taking human form more or less permanently as result of the charge laid on him by Varda. His natural form doesn't have a body as we'd understand it, and its only when inhabiting a human body that he inevitably began to exhibit human characteristics (as he knew he would, and so feared to take up the charge initially). However, there is a far more salient connection between humanity and the Maiar - both are direct creations of Illuvatar and as such, presumably could share very much in common. In Aule's prayer upon creating the dwarves, he cites this as his most salient point in his defense - "We get our natures from out father. A child can desire to be like his father without mocking him." The various orders of sentient beings are here all some sort of 'children' of Illuvatar.