Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Except absolutly nothing you said was even helpfull or would improve my idea. Telling me that "if I won't do it right don't do it at all" isn't adding anything either because nothing but your opinion ever said I was going to be doing it wrong in the first place. Don't come in here and tell me I'm going to be doing something half assed just because you can't read plain english the way it was supposed to be read and expect me not to respond to it. No one else has come to the same conclusion as you and they all read the exact same thing.

As for chaosOxomega he and I had a differance in opinion as to what constituted the "Old West". It was going to turn into one of those pointless arguments where it's what I think vs what he thinks and neither one of us will stop so I ended it plain and simple. And I'm going to do the same here and now, you want to think I'm going to do this half-assed fine think it. It dosen't matter what I or others say that show your opinion to be unfounded you're going to keep on with it. I told you that what you thought was wrong and assured you that it would be done right, if you can't accept that then that's your issue I'm not going to let it bog down my thread anymore.

And for the record the only one who needs to understand something here is you. If you tell someone that you're worried about the way they're going to do something and they assure you that isn't the case then accept it. Don't get in the way of the discussion by going on and on and on about the same thing that you've already been told isn't going to happen, especially when people have shown you that your reasons for your issue don't even support it.

Oh and I love how you ignored Odins comments entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Savage Worlds Deadlands.

http://www.peginc.com/downloads.html#DLR

I'm not saying your ideas are the same just that it would be worth a look as an example of a Fantasy Wild West campaign setting.

I'll deffinitly look into it as inspiration thank you

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:Telling me that "if I won't do it right don't do it at all" isn't adding anything either because nothing but your opinion ever said I was going to be doing it wrong in the first place.

No, you could have said 'I really want to tell exciting, fantastical stories in the old west and see how introducing an ugly part of real history could hurt that tone'. You could have said 'I want this to be a major theme', and then we could have talked about the difficulties of putting such a sensitive subject in a fantasy world (esp my comment above about how you'd actually be building a setting where there were real differences between the races, and how you might then be accidentally reinforcing old ideas of racial difference).

These are things you could have done. They are things you would have done, if you were looking for actual feedback in this thread. Instead we got this shambles, because you have seen the most mild comment as a personal attack.

Don't come in here and tell me I'm going to be doing something half assed just because you can't read plain english the way it was supposed to be read and expect me not to respond to it.

No-one else has commented on it. The fact that you assume this is because everyone else must have understood it and be totally in favour of your idea is a pretty clear example of the problem here. This is the internet, I don't want to be mean but odds are it's because most people didn't bother to read it that closely, they just skimmed, mentioned a property they like that's similar and move on.

Which goes to show you that when someone actually takes the time to read your idea, you should be grateful, not gakky about it.

Oh and I love how you ignored Odins comments entirely.

Missed it, I'll go back and read it and comment if needed.

I'll deffinitly look into it as inspiration thank you

I had mentioned Deadlands to you four or so times already. So either you've had a change of heart about taking other people's suggestions on board, or you weren't even bothering to read my posts (which would at least explain why you so utterly failed to understand what I was saying to you).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Odins Beard wrote:I was going to point this out lastnight but forgot. The obvious interpretation of what Warboss said in his OP is not what you seem to think, it's that segregation will be based off of species instead of race. So yes racism and segregation will exist but they'll exist in the same context that they did in actual history.

Only if you read the first sentence fragment, and assumed nothing else of any value was included in the rest of the paragraph. If you bothered to read anything else, you'd see it included this part "so you could have outlaw gangs consisting of Dwarfs, Humans, Goblins and Centaurs and at the same time have a U.S Marshall that's an Ogre"

That part, by a plain text reading, says you can ignore the limitations of racism in the setting if you want. The way it was intended is only apparent once Warboss explained other points of the setting (even then it isn't that clear).

Kind of being hypocritical when you call someone snippy towards someone who made a comment yet the reason your calling him snippy is because he commented on your post and told you what you where worried about was something that didn't need to be worried about. It's like you made the comment "either do it right or don't do it at all" and expected him not to say anything back positive or negative, especially since nothing but your own opinion said he was going to be doing it wrong.

"Embrace this as a major setting theme or don't include it at all" is a neutral statement.

Second up, I get snippy on this forum all the time, mostly when people spend post after post constructing sillier and sillier reasons not to understand a very simple thing. But my advice to Warboss would only be hypocrisy if I was handing it out as moral advice, which I'm not. I'm telling him he shouldn't be snippy because if he wants to make a go of this game, he will need advice from lots of people in how to get the setting working and get the tone consistent. It is a point of good practice when trying to build something that you are friendly to everyone that talks to you about it, because the more advice you can encourage the better.

The first thing I noticed with this is that you seem to think this whole setting is being created as some kind of game or a world for an RPG. Warboss said in the OP that this wasen't the case and that he's creating this setting for the fun of it but that others could create an RPG or their own stories based off of the setting if they wished.

I know what Warboss said. You've made a big assumption in me saying I've learned stuff from RPGs means I think this will also be an rpg.

I don't know why you made that assumption, either because you're not reading very carefully, or because you're looking really hard for things to catch me on. Either way it's a fail on your part.

The second thing is that you are saying that the way Warboss worded things in his OP led you to believe it would be done half assed and that it won't be consistant.

Well, yeah. I've explained why I've thought a lot. I don't know why you think it would be new information.

This is exactly how he said it, how does this lead anyone to believe that segregation in his setting will be done half-assed? Better yet since you're the only one whose come to this conclusion how could this possibly lead you to believe it will be done half assed or will be inconsistant. All he's said (though he used fewer words) is that in his setting the existance of mythical humanoids has caused segregation to be focused more on species then race.

Again (and I'm guessing again and again and again) the point is not that there will be segregation, the point is how strongly he wants to enforce that within the setting. Will there be towns that centaurs would dare not go? How much is he willing to consider the implications of having racial parallels for groups, and then having species characteristics that might justify how those species are treated (if centaurs really are dumber than other species then their treatment...)

I'm not going to make assumptions about your historical knowledge but the idea that segregation won't apply to every species didn't have to be spelled out in his OP because anyone with a decent grasp of history knows that segregation didn't apply to everyone,

Like Warboss, your understanding of racial issues at the time are very simplistic. To think that you can just say 'it was complicated and didn't apply to everyone' and assume thats enough for a decent examination of the issue is really poor thinking.

So does anyone have anymore sources of referance? I've looked into those suggested and most of them have been pretty usefull and good sources of inspiration so if anyone knows of any more feel free to post them

sebster wrote:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:Telling me that "if I won't do it right don't do it at all" isn't adding anything either because nothing but your opinion ever said I was going to be doing it wrong in the first place.

No, you could have said 'I really want to tell exciting, fantastical stories in the old west and see how introducing an ugly part of real history could hurt that tone'. You could have said 'I want this to be a major theme', and then we could have talked about the difficulties of putting such a sensitive subject in a fantasy world (esp my comment above about how you'd actually be building a setting where there were real differences between the races, and how you might then be accidentally reinforcing old ideas of racial difference).

Warboss said plain and clear that segregation will play as prominant a role in his setting as it did in the Old West. Since it had a pretty major part in the Old West that means you've disrupted his thread because you wanted to force the conversation into something that didn't need to be talked about. You got it in your head that he was going to be doing it half assed and nothing that was said to you would change that.

How about you grow up, if he does do it half assed then fine he does it half assed it's no concern of yours and you made your opinion known. But since he's already said a number of times that it won't be the case how about you quit going on about what he should have done, actually read what is being said to you and get over the fact that what you said is wrong.

These are things you could have done. They are things you would have done, if you were looking for actual feedback in this thread. Instead we got this shambles, because you have seen the most mild comment as a personal attack.

Telling someone they're going to be doing something half assed and then continuing to do so after they've assured you that's not how things are going to be done isn't a mild comment.

Don't come in here and tell me I'm going to be doing something half assed just because you can't read plain english the way it was supposed to be read and expect me not to respond to it.

No-one else has commented on it. The fact that you assume this is because everyone else must have understood it and be totally in favour of your idea is a pretty clear example of the problem here. This is the internet, I don't want to be mean but odds are it's because most people didn't bother to read it that closely, they just skimmed, mentioned a property they like that's similar and move on.

Now who is making assumptions, I like that you pass the fact that no one has supported your decision that he'll do it half assed by commenting on their short comings which actually dosen't make sense. Given that you've decided to make this a crusade about how badly Warboss will be making his own setting with specifics about segregation it's taken up quiet a bit of space on the thread. So anyone reading your comments would go back and re-read the original posts, if they agreed with you they would comment.

Which goes to show you that when someone actually takes the time to read your idea, you should be grateful, not gakky about it.

He has said thank you to everyone who has actually been helpfull

Odins Beard wrote:

I was going to point this out lastnight but forgot. The obvious interpretation of what Warboss said in his OP is not what you seem to think, it's that segregation will be based off of species instead of race. So yes racism and segregation will exist but they'll exist in the same context that they did in actual history.

Only if you read the first sentence fragment, and assumed nothing else of any value was included in the rest of the paragraph. If you bothered to read anything else, you'd see it included this part "so you could have outlaw gangs consisting of Dwarfs, Humans, Goblins and Centaurs and at the same time have a U.S Marshall that's an Ogre"

That part, by a plain text reading, says you can ignore the limitations of racism in the setting if you want. The way it was intended is only apparent once Warboss explained other points of the setting (even then it isn't that clear).

1. The fact that I pointed out his examples clearly shows that I read the entire paragraph 2. It only became aparent to you after he had to explaine it since you where being so thick about it, he even has someone comment that the understand what he ment .

Kind of being hypocritical when you call someone snippy towards someone who made a comment yet the reason your calling him snippy is because he commented on your post and told you what you where worried about was something that didn't need to be worried about. It's like you made the comment "either do it right or don't do it at all" and expected him not to say anything back positive or negative, especially since nothing but your own opinion said he was going to be doing it wrong.

"Embrace this as a major setting theme or don't include it at all" is a neutral statement.

Second up, I get snippy on this forum all the time, mostly when people spend post after post constructing sillier and sillier reasons not to understand a very simple thing. But my advice to Warboss would only be hypocrisy if I was handing it out as moral advice, which I'm not. I'm telling him he shouldn't be snippy because if he wants to make a go of this game, he will need advice from lots of people in how to get the setting working and get the tone consistent. It is a point of good practice when trying to build something that you are friendly to everyone that talks to you about it, because the more advice you can encourage the better.

1. You just admitted you're being a hypocrit

2. You told him to embrace it as a major theme and he said it already is, so why did you keep badgering him about it

3. You've already been told it's not a game.

4. I seriously doubt taking moral advice from you is a wise thing to do.

The first thing I noticed with this is that you seem to think this whole setting is being created as some kind of game or a world for an RPG. Warboss said in the OP that this wasen't the case and that he's creating this setting for the fun of it but that others could create an RPG or their own stories based off of the setting if they wished.

I know what Warboss said. You've made a big assumption in me saying I've learned stuff from RPGs means I think this will also be an rpg.

So that means that what you've learned from RPGs dosen't eman jack in this thread, nice of you to admit.

I don't know why you made that assumption, either because you're not reading very carefully, or because you're looking really hard for things to catch me on. Either way it's a fail on your part.

Oh yeah I'm the one not reading carefully and it's a fail on my part when you said a few paragraphs up that this is a game after it's already been said it isn't. Again HYPOCRIT.

This is exactly how he said it, how does this lead anyone to believe that segregation in his setting will be done half-assed? Better yet since you're the only one whose come to this conclusion how could this possibly lead you to believe it will be done half assed or will be inconsistant. All he's said (though he used fewer words) is that in his setting the existance of mythical humanoids has caused segregation to be focused more on species then race.

Again (and I'm guessing again and again and again) the point is not that there will be segregation, the point is how strongly he wants to enforce that within the setting. Will there be towns that centaurs would dare not go? How much is he willing to consider the implications of having racial parallels for groups, and then having species characteristics that might justify how those species are treated (if centaurs really are dumber than other species then their treatment...)

So you're disrupting the thread because you want him to go into intricate detail on how he'll have segregation in his setting in order to determine wether it meets your standards on how it should be done instead of taking his word for it. Yep you came here to make waves

I'm not going to make assumptions about your historical knowledge but the idea that segregation won't apply to every species didn't have to be spelled out in his OP because anyone with a decent grasp of history knows that segregation didn't apply to everyone,

Like Warboss, your understanding of racial issues at the time are very simplistic. To think that you can just say 'it was complicated and didn't apply to everyone' and assume thats enough for a decent examination of the issue is really poor thinking.

ah ok you're going to be ignored. I pointed out simple errors in your arguments and you come back and I'm sure deliberatly try to insult me. I even made it a piint to be clear that I wasen't assuming anything about your knowledge of history and yet you choose to talk down at me as if I'm less educated then you are.

The FACT is that segregation and racism did not exist everywhere in the U.S and it did not apply to everyone. Saying that does not mean that it woulden't be more evident in the setting, saying that is simply a justification of his examples which woulden't have needed to be justified in the first place if you had any idea of how segregation was handled in the Old West. You're an immature person who has to resort to a condacending attitude when someone won't discuss what you want to have discussed because you won't take their word that it dosen't need to be discussed.

Internet squabbling! Why all the Centaur hate? Mofo's just trying to BLAME THE VICTIM!!!!!

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Internet squabbling! Why all the Centaur hate? Mofo's just trying to BLAME THE VICTIM!!!!!

They are just jealous of a certain... trait the horse people have.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Internet squabbling! Why all the Centaur hate? Mofo's just trying to BLAME THE VICTIM!!!!!

They are just jealous of a certain... trait the horse people have.

You mean the PENIS.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Internet squabbling! Why all the Centaur hate? Mofo's just trying to BLAME THE VICTIM!!!!!

I'm pretty sure that is the first time I've ever seen someone actually use the word Mofo on the site

corpsesarefun wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Internet squabbling! Why all the Centaur hate? Mofo's just trying to BLAME THE VICTIM!!!!!

They are just jealous of a certain... trait the horse people have.

lol easy now that's the kind of humor that could get the thread closed

Anyway this does bring me into how the mythological creatures will be handled themselves. Earlier it was asked why the majority of the Centaur race will be used as slaves vs say Ogres who are seen as stupid. As can be seen I pointed out the differances between the original mythology and modern concepts such as Ogres being unintelligent where as in the original mythology nothing was ever said about their level of intelligence. Or how Centaurs are now thought as wise and noble creatures where in the original greek mythology they wern't described this way.

In my setting I'm going to try and stick a little closer to the original depictions of the various species but I'm not going to stick to them exactly. For instance the popular image for Goblins is having green skin, large noses and ears and as being entirely malevolent. This concept was first introduced by our very own GW and has become the staple for goblins ever since. But in the original mythology their skin color ranged from brown to grey, they wern't known for having large noses and their disposition depended on how they where treated. This is the depiction I'm going to use as the basis for the species.

Another example are Elves, now depending on which mythology you choose Evles have been described as benevolent or malevolent depending on the group. Most of the time they are described as being highly magical and usually beautiful though they aren't always described as being tall and thin with pointed ears. In my setting they will be tall and for the most part thin but they won't all be beautiful. So variable steroeotypes that have been applied to the differant species won't really exist in this setting (such as every Dwarf having a beard)

Another thing that is going to apply to every humanoid race is their morality. As I said before no one race will be entirely "evil" or bad and there won't be a race that's entirely good, in the original mythology Ogres are pretty much described as being bad all around. But in this setting there will be good and bad ogres based off of the choices of the individual and the situations they're placed in. In short a race that's considered entirely evil or entirely good in mythology won't be that way in my setting as each being will have their own personality. So you could have an Elf who is a murderer and is wanted or you could have an Goblin that is a simple farmer and is hospitable to those he meets.

Actually, I think it's the petty squabbling that will get the thread closed.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that having the possibility of any member of any race being any alignment has always been around. The reason most elves are "Chaotic Good" in D&D is because that's the culture that they have been brought up in, just like the majority of Drow are neutral evil (at least in 3E) with a few notable exceptions like the third son of house Do'Urden. Having all of the different culture groups having wildly different alignments doesn't seem realistic to me.

Monster Rain wrote: just like the majority of Drow are neutral evil (at least in 3E) with a few notable exceptions like the third son of house Do'Urden.

I thought the majority of Drow were Chaotic Good rebels looking to throw off the reputation of their race?

At least that's how every PC Drow in existence is played when not doing an Evil campaign.

Yeah, well, I meant apart from those guys.

Monster Rain wrote:Actually, I think it's the petty squabbling that will get the thread closed.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that having the possibility of any member of any race being any alignment has always been around. Having all of the different culture groups having wildly different alignments doesn't seem realistic to me.

So are you saying that you think the differant species should have strict moral alignments (i.e Goblins and Ogres are all bad, Elves and Dwarfes are good)? Or are you saying it's more realistic the way I have it? That last sentence kind of threw me lol

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Actually, I think it's the petty squabbling that will get the thread closed.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that having the possibility of any member of any race being any alignment has always been around. Having all of the different culture groups having wildly different alignments doesn't seem realistic to me.

So are you saying that you think the differant species should have strict moral alignments (i.e Goblins and Ogres are all bad, Elves and Dwarfes are good)? Or are you saying it's more realistic the way I have it? That last sentence kind of threw me lol

I think he means individuals within a culture tend to have more or less similar views, however I would disagree with using alignments at all in this scenario.

Yeah I agree with your whole statement, there aren't going to be alignments of Good and Evil. There are going to be good and bad people as well as good and bad creatures. And of course an individuals views will be enfluenced by their culture but cultures can vary, adapt and intermingle which is where it comes in that every creature (human or otherwise) will be a good or bad (or maybe intermediate) person based off of their beliefs, actions and history.

If someone already feels that they have all the right answers and are simply going to dismiss all input as "missing the boat" then why start a thread like this to begin with?

To get the idea out there?

Despite the OP not being the most polite of people I quite like his concept.

CT GAMER wrote:If someone already feels that they have all the right answers and are simply going to dismiss all input as "missing the boat" then why start a thread like this to begin with?

Good question, when I find a thread where someone has done that I'll ask them and let you know what they say

corpsesarefun wrote:To get the idea out there?

^+1 Exactly 100%, that's the purpose of this thread as I've said

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:To hear one's self talk?

^+1 Exactly 100%, that's the purpose of this thread as I've said

Got it...

This thread seems to have outlived its course.

I would suggest the OP research some of the materials that have been mentioned, write some outline background to explain his ideas in more detail, and make a new thread in the RPG forum to discuss them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thread re-opened at Warboss Imbad Ironskull' request.

Everyone please keep on topic.

Thank you KillKrazy I appreciate it

The idea is that magic has always existed in the history of the earth and that our history has been the same just with the addition of magic and mythological creatures. Every human can use magic there isn't a seperate race of wizards or anything but at the same time there aren't a bunch of spells to be learned as every person is born with the a single magical ability that they can use (such as slowing down time, talking to animals, shape shifting etc.) and that develops when they reach puberty.

As I said mythological creatures do exist including humanoids (ogres, dwarfs, goblins but no orcs, elves, centaurs, cyclops, giants etc.) which along with the mythical animals are mostly located in the region of their origin though exportation and immigration have transplanted them into areas where they originally didn't exist (just as in real life). Some animals (such as dragons) did exist at one point but where hunted to extinction or are now very rare (like giants).

Now magic does exist but animals can't use it, mythical humanoids and mythical animals are magical in nature but can't use magic in the same way as humans. From an Evolutionary standpoint humans developed the ability to use magic in order to be able to survive alongside the various mythological creatures. And while the mythological creatures can't use magic they do have extraordinary natural abilities such as those described of the creatures which come from them being magical in nature.

How does the magical nature of these mythological creatures work vs human magical ability? is it in the nature of natual buffs to protect and/or aid hunting?

Is human magic and extra natural abilitiy (that possesed by the mythics) distinct? How so? Flesh this out some more.

Also try find a new name for the mythologicals, myth implies that they do not exist, when in your realm they are obviously part and parcel of the flora and fauna , ergo.....

Mr. Burning wrote:

The idea is that magic has always existed in the history of the earth and that our history has been the same just with the addition of magic and mythological creatures. Every human can use magic there isn't a seperate race of wizards or anything but at the same time there aren't a bunch of spells to be learned as every person is born with the a single magical ability that they can use (such as slowing down time, talking to animals, shape shifting etc.) and that develops when they reach puberty.

As I said mythological creatures do exist including humanoids (ogres, dwarfs, goblins but no orcs, elves, centaurs, cyclops, giants etc.) which along with the mythical animals are mostly located in the region of their origin though exportation and immigration have transplanted them into areas where they originally didn't exist (just as in real life). Some animals (such as dragons) did exist at one point but where hunted to extinction or are now very rare (like giants).

Now magic does exist but animals can't use it, mythical humanoids and mythical animals are magical in nature but can't use magic in the same way as humans. From an Evolutionary standpoint humans developed the ability to use magic in order to be able to survive alongside the various mythological creatures. And while the mythological creatures can't use magic they do have extraordinary natural abilities such as those described of the creatures which come from them being magical in nature.

How does the magical nature of these mythological creatures work vs human magical ability? is it in the nature of natual buffs to protect and/or aid hunting?

What you mean like the creatures are resistant to human magic? If that's the case then no the non-humans aren't any more reststant to magic then any other person though they may be resistant to a specific type of magic depending on their nature.

Is human magic and extra natural abilitiy (that possesed by the mythics) distinct? How so? Flesh this out some more.

The non humans have all the same abilities dependant on their species and these abilities are mostly going to be what their described as having in real world mythology. So for instance all Elves have incredible eye sight, a phoenix will burst into flames when it dies, ogres are able to eat vast amounts of food disproportionate to their size etc. To the mythologicals these are natural abilities that every member of a given species has. If I remember right I believe I mentioned as much in my OP.

Humans on the other hand are more random. Each person is born with a differant power and powers are not hereditary so their children won't have the same power as one of their parents or a combined power. People can be born with the same powers but there is no way of telling what a persons power will be untill they reach puberty. And not everyones power will be as drastic as say being able to transform into an animal, so in alot of ways it's very similar to X-men how the mutants powers develop at random.

Also try find a new name for the mythologicals, myth implies that they do not exist, when in your realm they are obviously part and parcel of the flora and fauna , ergo.....

When I say mythologicals I'm refering to what we call them in real life. In setting they will either be called by their species when talking about a group, their names as individuals and non-humans when talking about them as a whole or in an official manner (such as the U.S government passing laws concerning all non-humans).

I am having trouble coming up with a title for the overall setting though.

Okay.


You dsay that Humans develop Magic as an evolutionary response to mythological creatures powers.

But why would humans evolve magical powers if all an ogre does is eat loads and an elf can see further?

Ogres eating more in one sitting would allow them to gorge when there is food and then go long periods without eating [much like many reptiles], this would prove advantageous in an environment where food is sparse and would lead to a culture of nomads.

As for elves, their superhuman sight would enable them to notice threats or food better than a normal human which obviously makes them better at surviving.

I'm imagining a True Grit/Lord of the Rings hybrid.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:
Except that segregation in actual history did not apply to every single race which is why segregation in my setting won't apply to every single species. And at the same time segregation between races in actual history was not practiced everywhere and it's the same in my setting between the species. I said that segregation would be based on species instead of race, I never said it would apply to every species ya see?

Keep in mind that during the time period you're basing this world in racial issues were primarily predicated on prejudice, economic stratification, and language barriers. The notion of "separate but equal" segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws didn't come about until the end of the Civil War, and often extended beyond the separation of blacks and whites. to the separation of whites from everyone else (though obviously the black-white divide was the most prominent one in the South).

Instead you would see racial and ethnic groups segregating themselves (even amongst the subdivision "white") from one another, and often enforcing that segregation via a social stigma towards other groups, and those within their own group who sought to violate the norm. In major cities this lead to the formation of ethnic and racial neighborhoods (for example, Chinese, Irish, Cajun, etc.) and in areas experiencing major demographic shifts, even the establishment of ethnic or racial towns. You also have to remember that in many parts of the US American settlers weren't the first people there, but often found themselves moving into established French and Spanish enclaves, which created its own tensions. Then there was the Indian issue, which is probably the closest thing you'll find to institutionalized segregation during the period.

In short, racial issues before the Civil War were far more complicated than they are today, or even during the period of enforced segregation. Its a difficult thing to portray in a nuanced fashion, which is why Western flicks tend to confine themselves to open hostility between settlers and Natives, Chinese work gangs, or other easily conveyed issues. I think this is worth thinking about for a long time though, as its definitely something you could take in interesting ways. For example, if you're going to replace ethnicity and race with species you can end up with some interesting combinations like Spanish Elves, French Dwarves, Centaurs and Satyrs and other "half-breeds" representing Native tribes (perhaps half-breed status makes them more heavily discriminated against), and perhaps African Ogres (it wouldn't be unheard of for a free African to hold position as a Sheriff). Or you could tie the various mythological creatures to their nations of origin.

corpsesarefun wrote:
As for elves, their superhuman sight would enable them to notice threats or food better than a normal human which obviously makes them better at surviving.

Particularly in a world where the majority of fighting is done with projectile weapons.

I am thinking of the evolution of those races rather than the current state of affairs dogma.

The question was why would humans develop magical abilities to combat mundane abilities such as better vision or the ability to eat lots and I answered that by suggesting advantages of those abilities that could potentially make those with them evolutionarily advantaged.

Mr. Burning wrote:Okay.


You say that Humans develop Magic as an evolutionary response to mythological creatures powers.

But why would humans evolve magical powers if all an ogre does is eat loads and an elf can see further?

You're aware that those where just examples and don't cover the entirety of what Elves and Ogres can do, and that there are other creatures with more esoteric abilities. The point is that the mythological creatures (both humanoid or non-humanoid) have abilities that normal humans would have never been able to compete with when it came to survival, in this setting (remember the creatures have existed throughout human history not just the period we're focusing on) the mythological creatures where natural competitors to humans and had early humans not evolved the ability to use magic then mankind may not have survived.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:Okay.


You say that Humans develop Magic as an evolutionary response to mythological creatures powers.

But why would humans evolve magical powers if all an ogre does is eat loads and an elf can see further?

You're aware that those where just examples and don't cover the entirety of what Elves and Ogres can do, and that there are other creatures with more esoteric abilities. The point is that the mythological creatures (both humanoid or non-humanoid) have abilities that normal humans would have never been able to compete with when it came to survival, in this setting (remember the creatures have existed throughout human history not just the period we're focusing on) the mythological creatures where natural competitors to humans and had early humans not evolved the ability to use magic then mankind may not have survived.

Okay, gotcha now.

But I am still confused as to why magic for humans and not natural abilities similar to mythologicals?

Surely the randomness of magic in humans (as you yourself propose) is of no benefit evolutionary wise? surely the weakest and useless traits would be bred out? If there are species based traits surely humans would have evolved to the point that a select few traits would be predominant?

Not saying your idea is wrong, but if you are going to mention something as important as evolution then it needs to be made believable. I need to suspend my disbelief.

Maybe the traits in humans can bear relation to their proximity to certain mythic creatures?

How does having random powers make it unbelievable in terms of evolution? Evolution is random in itself