Racial roleplay requirements vs. roleplay "expectations"

[jpariury]

You play the National Packet in conjunction with the cultural/local packet of where your character grew up. Basically... after growing up in the US, your character moved to China. Doesn't mean they' won't be influenced by Chinese culture.. but they're still who they've always been.. unless you have some plot voodoo that does wonkiness to memories and such, but that would be outside the norm.

I thought if you acted like someone from a different race, or otherwise failed to meet the roleplay requirements of your own race, the result was that that Race's elders should seek you out to forcibly race change you?

For instance, if you're an elf but grew up amongst gypsies, and so you decide to wear colorful clothing and talk in an accent and hold Romani as more important than any other fealty, should the proper resolution be to have the gypsies race change you to one of their own, the elf elders to just race change to not-elf, or a marshal to come over and card you for cheating?

Does this change if you're a dark elf?

What about if you're a human?

I mean, if you're a gypsy and you act all quiet and sullen and listen to Lawrence Welk all the time, obviously you should be race changed into a human because you're not play your race correctly. But what about when the roleplay and clothing is all that really makes you your race?

 

[Morganne]

Ack. I can see my wording was tremendously ambiguous. Shoulda known.

I was specifically referring to the race packet when I said "where you grew up", but it was very unclear. If you grew up outside your race, that's a different story.. I meant that your race packet and character history do not change from what they were if you move to a new chapter, the same way a person is still their same self if they move to another continent IRL.

The question I was responding to asked whether when they move to a new chapter, their character stops being from the original chapter and has to play the packet from the new chapter.

 

[jpariury]

Sorry, it wasn't really a direct question in response to your statement, but more something that kinda emerged out of it. I figured a new topic was in order.

There's a lot of discussion on what constitutes "playing your race correctly" vs, well, not. The rulebook explicitly states that even if you were raised in one race, you still should act like you come from the race you take advantages for. But then there's been discussion about "Well, if I don't play my race correctly, what then?" and Mike and I sorta both opined that it should be handled IG by having the racial elder come marching down and giving you a stern talking-to or face the consequences.

And that's rather the crux of the question... how much of racial roleplay is -required- and how much is -expected- by the poobahs of any given race? Talking in an accent and being flamboyant is a requirement of being a gypsy... does that mean non-gypsies should be forbidden from doing those two things? Similarly, being superstitious and wearing furs is a requirement of being a barbarian... does that mean "wild elves" are not permitted to do those things?

 

[Wraith]

Ack. I can see my wording was tremendously ambiguous. Shoulda known.

I was specifically referring to the race packet when I said "where you grew up", but it was very unclear. If you grew up outside your race, that's a different story.. I meant that your race packet and character history do not change from what they were if you move to a new chapter, the same way a person is still their same self if they move to another continent IRL.

The question I was responding to asked whether when they move to a new chapter, their character stops being from the original chapter and has to play the packet from the new chapter.

That is another good question. We'll use my main as an example. So let's take a character that was born a Sarr, under the old Caladore (Kzoo) race packets, then racechanged into a Scavenger, and now plays in Chicago. While I know that the plot team in my home chapter isn't going to hassle me about it for the most part, at what point should I worry about being a 'bad' Wildkin? For example, Shin still refuses to use blunt weaponry, as he was 'never trained to use it properly', and is still just as easily riled as he ever was. (And if the Wildkin 'elders' want to turn him back into a Sarr over it, he'd be the first to agree.)

In other words, if you think it might be an issue, would you reccommend players drop their plot team a line and let them know the whys and wherefores?

 

[Mike Ventrella]

We have to be clear on the difference between culture and race, which is something not everyone gets.

Your race is NOT the same thing as we consider "race" in the real world. Black, white, asian, hispanic -- we're all "human." We have vastly different cultures, however, but you can change. You can actually move and your views will change, and your culture can change.

On Fortannis, you have a race and a culture, and while your culture can change, your race cannot. No matter where you move, if you are a gypsy, you will NEVER decide to be calm, quiet, and dressed in dull colors. A MWE will NEVER allow slavery, no matter what culture the MWE lives in.

These races are as different as a dog is to a cat (like I said in the book). A dog raised with cats may learn to be more tolerant of them, but will never meow or ask for a plate of cream.

 

[jpariury]

No matter where you move, if you are a gypsy, you will NEVER decide to be calm, quiet, and dressed in dull colors. A MWE will NEVER allow slavery, no matter what culture the MWE lives in.

So, a human, elf, or dark elf will never dress up in obnoxious colors and talk in an accent?

Which aspects of "culture" are actually aspects of "race"?

 

[James Trotta]

We have to be clear on the difference between culture and race, which is something not everyone gets....These races are as different as a dog is to a cat (like I said in the book). A dog raised with cats may learn to be more tolerant of them, but will never meow or ask for a plate of cream.

No matter where you move, if you are a gypsy, you will NEVER decide to be calm, quiet, and dressed in dull colors. A MWE will NEVER allow slavery, no matter what culture the MWE lives in.

So, a human, elf, or dark elf will never dress up in obnoxious colors and talk in an accent?

Which aspects of "culture" are actually aspects of "race"?

When I started playing I grabbed my wild elf race packet (the culture) and started gaming. With a helmet on everyone "knew" I was a barbarian. I guess the packet has been changed since then (though I'm not sure) but the point is that some "cultures" from race packets do overlap with racial traits and that was the original question as I understand it. Is an elf with bright clothes and an accent not playing the elven race properly for example?

And I'm not so sure about that dog / cream example. My dogs go nuts for ice cream and yogurt so I presume they would happily beg for actual cream as well...

 

[Jim]

I think that the disconnect often can be attributed to the fact that in the real world things like accent, clothing, ideology/morality are cultural or regional aspects and not race-oriented, but in the world of Fortannis, they are racial traits. I don't think it's an issue if a MWE or a Biata were to wear brightly colored clothes, but what about a human? We had this issue with beards with dwarf vs. bearded human. Thankfully, that was solved. And of course I've heard all kinds of things about the accent as well- can it be a cockney accent? Can it be a southern drawl? Can it be valley girl? (Like, oh my elemental, gag me with a two-hander!).

It can be hard, but once you accept that some cultural ideals in the real world are racial aspects in game, it gets a little easier.

 

[jpariury]

On the cats and dogs thing, I suspect cats and dogs won't ever act like one another in type because they have no shared capacity for complex language.

I get that culture is racial within the context of the Alliance game, what I don't get is which aspects of racial culture are rules that must be enforced and cannot be emulated by other races, and which ones are stereotypes that should be noted as possible to be played against type, but permissible as within the range of variety for that race.

For instance, if someone wanted to play a MWE who deemed that all non-MWE were "inhuman", and therefore could be subjected to Charm spells galore (just not other MWEs), we could not consider them to be breaking the rules of their race, though other MWEs might consider them mad, evil, or whatnot. Otoh, if someone were playing a high ogre and they cast necromancy, it's not just that within the game environment they performed a racially-abhorrent act, they quite simply and strictly violated the rules for playing their race, and should be treated oog accordingly. Even the vilest, evilest, darkest twist of a high ogre simply will not and cannot cast necromancy. I'd guess, by extension, that they can't even be enslaved to cast necromancy, because doing so violates the rules for their race.

Presumably, then, an elf cannot be played as the "I am utterly incapable of casting necromancy", because to do that would violate the "dogs can't act like cats" clause. Similarly, no other race can have a strong dislike for the removal of someone's free will.

So, the rules for roleplaying a human would be something like:

• Must be willing to break their word
• Must be willing in some fashion to cast necromancy
• Must be willing to take away the free will of someone they consider a person
• Cannot be an extreme social darwinist
• Cannot love battle
• Cannot value family above all else

Does that sound right?

Why isn't the inability to cast necromancy part of the racial disadvantages for dryads and high ogres?

 

[markusdark]

On the cats and dogs thing, I suspect cats and dogs won't ever act like one another in type because they have no shared capacity for complex language.

For the record, having worked in animal shelters off and on for the last decade, I have noticed many animals that cross the barriers in various ways - cats that play fetch, rabbits that 'bark' and so on. Animals raised with other animals can take on characteristics of said animals. Of course, when you cut them open, they're different.

I'll admit that sometimes I feel like the human "races" walk a fine line. I find myself often wondering if my gypsy costume is colorful enough or if my human costume has too much fur and leather on it. Most of it, I just simply look at it as 'the intent behind the work' than following a specifically set requirements (you need to have less than 15% black on your costume as a gypsy unless the black has some sort of glitter/sparklies on it). But lately with the anal detail to rules I have been noticing, I can understand such discussions. I just think that they're hilarious, in a very sad way.

 

[Vazhi]

Presumably, then, an elf cannot be played as the "I am utterly incapable of casting necromancy", because to do that would violate the "dogs can't act like cats" clause. Similarly, no other race can have a strong dislike for the removal of someone's free will.

This is a good point and brings me to my question.

Why isn't the inability to cast necromancy part of the racial disadvantages for dryads and high ogres?

Relating to this statement I put forth the question: if forced to by enslavement, or whatever else that is applicable, would these races be *able* to cast necromancy? I have not seen it said that they cannot; it seems more that they would not in the same way that a person would be capable of something horrible and inappropriate, but in the game world Simply Would Not Do It.

If it was stated they cannot that would be an entirely different flavor than if they could. You can't get pregnant as a man; does that imply a deep seeded passion against baby making? I put forth that it does not. If one were a woman against women getting pregnant that could imply stronger feelings because they are choosing not to do something that they can and possibly shunning others for doing so. Also, to explicitly say they are not able to by the rules would prevent situations where they could be forced to against their will.

Could I get on a ruling on if they would technically be able to, if forced, by way of using a scroll and they had the proper skills to read said scroll?

 

[jpariury]

Mark,

TBH, the idea that being a necromancy-using high ogre was outright cheating kinda blew my mind, much like I suspect many MWE players were shocked to discover they could have been Dominating all their enemies if the player wanted to.

 

[Morganne]

This has been very interesting following the two threads on this... there's definitely a lack of clarity around this stuff.. and no two people are going to interpret the rules system in the exact same way.

My personal opinion: an ogre that tosses some necro is not cheating, since they're not breaking a rule. Now, if they *like* casting necro, and don't feel all messed up over it, they're missing the point of the race and may be forcibly race-changed by the elders of their race. However, they have the ability to cast earth magic, and therefore the ability to cast necromancy - so it can be done without breaking any rules. Writing a High Ogre that loves casting necro and does it all the time - well, that's writing the one outsider to your race, and that would be going against the rulebook.

There are only a few hard and fast rules about what a race can and cannot do, the rest comes down to plot/story juju. For example, Biata cannot Read Magic, and therefore cannot cast celestial spells. Some races can't learn how to use certain weapons. There's no getting around it, for whatever reason the race just can't do it. High Ogres and Dryads, on the other hand, have the ability to cast necromancy and therefore can do it pending a remarkable situation where it really makes sense. I don't see this as cheating, I see it as making well-rounded characters that respond dynamically to the world in which they live.

Going too far with it? Gets an IG smack-on-the-hand and having the plot team respond accordingly in ways the player may or may not like.. these situations are so rare, though, and they really do take care of themselves.

 

[markusdark]

Mark,

TBH, the idea that being a necromancy-using high ogre was outright cheating kinda blew my mind, much like I suspect many MWE players were shocked to discover they could have been Dominating all their enemies if the player wanted to.

JP, that is exactly why I will never be an owner or run plots for an Alliance game. I"m of a mindset that if a player actually can meet the requirements of becoming a dragon mage, he should have the chance to do so - with HUGE in game restrictions and punishments for breaking them.

Also, I would suggest people who nitpick the rules reread Mike V's introduction in the Rulebook.

 

[jpariury]

My personal opinion: an ogre that tosses some necro is not cheating, since they're not breaking a rule.

That's what I thought, until I read, among other comments, this:

The key here is that there are some absolute "no" things (biata casting celestial magic, high ogres using necromancy, MWEs charming all their friends) and then there are gray areas.

This statement places high ogres using necromancy on the same level as biata casting celestial magic. Not just aberrant, but outright "you may not do it". Based on Mike's further comments for how to deal with Biata that use Celestial Magic items (losing your racial abilities... clearly an OOG punishment), I would expect that necromancy-casting high ogres would also be expected to lose theirs. If such a hard line is going to be defined for something that I read as "look, this is what a good member of your race is like", it definitely muddies the waters on which racial descriptions are simply expectations to be dealt with in-game vs. which ones are hard and fast rules which should result in loss of racial abilities.

 

[Mobius]

¿why are "cultural norms" considered rules? that is, i can understand that a High Orc not wearing green makeup is breaking the rules, but ¿why is a High Orc pacifist considered on the same level?

i understand that all races have stereotypes and the ARB, National, and Chapter Racial Packets are designed to flesh out the abstract, general, and specific races, respectively. but, ¿why can't individual's wildy diverge from that stereotype? sure, there will be vicious In Game repercussions up to and including Racial Elders coming in with the Oblit-Stick, but ¿why is it considered cheating?

from what i've been told, the line runs that we want the races to be separate in both appearance and deed and so action is as important as make-up. but, upon reflection, ¿doesn't that seem to be unnecessary? would someone really need actions to differentiate a Stone Elf from a Sarr? a Dryad from a High Ogre? other than the distinction between Humans, Gypsies, and Barbarians, every race looks so wildly different that action seems pretty immaterial. one could be confuse an Elf for a Mystic, but the makeup is designed to create that confusion and the race packets even say that Mystics were considered Elves for the longest time

i'm not trying to be argumentative, i really want to know what the original thought behind deciding that normative action was rule-based and not flavour-based. ¿what would be so bad in saying, "this race, as a whole, acts in x,y,z, but your character can act however she wants, so long as you, the player, is willing to accept the In Game Repercussions"?

 

[Mike Ventrella]

I'm just saying what would happen in my chapter It's an IG explanation, not an OOG one. The close proximity of celestial magics have disrupted the biata's ability to resist and break commands or use their mental abilities.

And yeah, I could consider a high ogre or dryad necromancer to be pretty much against everything the Rule Book and race packet say about it. I do not include in this a situation where, in order to save lives (for instance), a dryad or high ogre casts necromancy and then feels tremendous guilt or angst, comes under suspicion by his or her fellows, and brings about great roleplaying because of it. But yeah, no high ogre or dryad should be casting necromancy constantly without consequence. Juts like no MWE should be casting Charms at their friends.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

¿why can't individual's wildy diverge from that stereotype?

Because these are not just green humans or humans with feathers. They are completely separate creatures, as different as birds are from elephants.

Otherwise, why play races at all? Why not just play "cultures"?

 

[Mobius]

¿why can't individual's wildy diverge from that stereotype?

Because these are not just green humans or humans with feathers. They are completely separate creatures, as different as birds are from elephants.

Otherwise, why play races at all? Why not just play "cultures"?

those are make-up decisions. i agree that High Orc should be green and Humans should be pink. a human can't grow feathers, nor can a High Orc grow pointy ears. but, ¿why can't a High Orc choose to be emotionless and logical without her breaking the rules? the races can be distinguished by make-up as hard-rule and a general tendency toward certain actions, but ¿why categorize "general actions" as "hard rules"?

 

[Mike Ventrella]

those are make-up decisions. i agree that High Orc should be green and Humans should be pink. a human can't grow feathers, nor can a High Orc grow pointy ears. but, ¿why can't a High Orc choose to be emotionless and logical without her breaking the rules? the races can be distinguished by make-up as hard-rule and a general tendency toward certain actions, but ¿why categorize "general actions" as "hard rules"?

You seem to be arguing that the races are all merely humans, with human-like emotions and ways of looking at things, except they're green or have feathers, and that is certainly not what the races are in our game.