Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 8803287" data-attributes="member: 6915329">OK, sure, but why does surly and gruff equal -2 Charisma?To be fair, Star Trek is a TV show with a lot of room to explain the various species than Star Wars does. (I admit, I've only watched 8 of the 9 movies, plus Rogue One, and none of the TV shows or any of the books.)But in Star Trek, a lot of the nonhumans are different than the stereotype. We've probably met more Klingons whose idea of honor is really just bravado than we've met truly honorable Klingons (and that's completely ignoring the pre-honor &quot;a running man can slit a thousand throats in a single night&quot; Klingons from TOS). Vulcans very quickly showed that they were less about logic and more about coming up with logical-sounding justifications for not-necessarily logical behavior, even as far back as TOS. Bajorans are spiritual, but we've seen Bajorans who are practically areligious and Bajorans who are fundamentalists. And look at how many Ferengi we've met who don't really care about profit.So the stereotypes in Star Trek is really just stereotypes, about as meaningful and useful as saying &quot;Oh, you're a Capricorn? Well, no wonder you act like that,&quot; not actual facts that can be justified by a stat penalty. It's useful for creating a background character who will appear in one episode, and not that useful for creating interesting reoccurring characters.In Star Wars, however, we don't learn all that much about races. Or at least I didn't, based on what I've seen. Going just by the movies, I couldn't tell you a thing about Wookiees. Which is absolutely fine because it means I can treat Chewbacca as an individual and not as a walking stereotype or a subversion of that stereotype.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Faolyn, post: 8803287, member: 6915329"] OK, sure, but why does surly and gruff equal -2 Charisma? To be fair, Star Trek is a TV show with a lot of room to explain the various species than Star Wars does. (I admit, I've only watched 8 of the 9 movies, plus Rogue One, and [I]none [/I]of the TV shows or any of the books.) But in Star Trek, a [I]lot [/I]of the nonhumans are different than the stereotype. We've probably met more Klingons whose idea of honor is really just bravado than we've met truly honorable Klingons (and that's completely ignoring the pre-honor "a running man can slit a thousand throats in a single night" Klingons from TOS). Vulcans very quickly showed that they were less about logic and more about coming up with logical-sounding justifications for not-necessarily logical behavior, even as far back as TOS. Bajorans are spiritual, but we've seen Bajorans who are practically areligious and Bajorans who are fundamentalists. And look at how many Ferengi we've met who don't really care about profit. So the stereotypes in Star Trek is really just stereotypes, about as meaningful and useful as saying "Oh, you're a Capricorn? Well, no wonder you act like that," not actual [I]facts [/I]that can be justified by a stat penalty. It's useful for creating a background character who will appear in one episode, and not that useful for creating interesting reoccurring characters. In Star Wars, however, we don't learn all that much about races. Or at least I didn't, based on what I've seen. Going just by the movies, I couldn't tell you a thing about Wookiees. Which is absolutely [I]fine [/I]because it means I can treat Chewbacca as an individual and not as a walking stereotype or a subversion of that stereotype. [/QUOTE]

Verification