Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
ReplyAfter some recent events including a long conversation with a few people regarding role-play I walked away from the conversations rather surprised by the vast views others have of the same thing. SO I wondered if a forum post opening it up to everyone would reflect some of the same opinions or if it was too small a group at the table.
The conversation came about because a Player,, felt another player was not actively R/Ping very well. However the players had characters that are vastly different in race. As I listened to the conversation I began to think both of these players knew there own characters's race well, but neither of them knew much about the others race and subcultures.
So here is the question or survey.. you can answer all or none, up to you, but you cannot use more then 5 words or phrases to answer for each race. example:
1.Halflings- stout,merry,annoying,entertaining,furry
2. Gnomes- Sneaky,tinkerers,magical,non-confrontational,intelligent
3. Half Krolvin- Brutal,mercenaries,brutes,strong,wanderers
4. Giants- Huge, strong, varying personalities, generally peaceful
5. Elves- snobbish, intelligent, lithe, political, massive lifespans
1. Halfling
2. Gnome
3. Half krolvin
4. Giants
5. Elves
6. Faendryl Dark elves
7. Dhe'nar
8. Half-elves
9. Dwarves
10. Dark Dwarves
And Ill add this next one in 2 categories as recently there seems to be a distinct separation in the groups
11. Humans
12. Humans such as tehir mostly, but also others that were born behind the wall.
13. Aelioti ( Im sure I spelled that wrong)
14. Sylvans
15. Erethian (probably spelled that wrong too)
I think a lot of people would be surprised at how individuals view the races. And this isnt meant to be a bash a race thing, or provoke arguments. Its just about quick simple thoughts, please do not make it or take to be anything other then just a survey. No side comments needed.
I'm not interested in taking the survey. Sorry! But I will comment.
A player need not conform to available documentation to play a compelling character. Your character is a story unfolding, and the player is the one doing the writing. As long as you conform to policy, the rest is whatever you want it to be! Taking it even further, I don't feel it's necessary for players to know much of anything about anything, really. Oh, there are plenty of reasons why it would be a good idea to know these things - a priestess of Koar should probably know something about Koar, for instance - but maybe you don't care to read all that stuff and simply want to play? Why not? You can roleplay your character's ignorance and discover the world as your character experiences it!
Also, consider that it's possible for characters to make mistakes or to lie regardless of what the player does or doesn't know. Perhaps I know the documentation, but intentionally fudge it in character? People have misconceptions about other races and cultures in real life. Why not in a game? All the more fun if I go in knowing nothing! Perhaps I learned what I know from someone who had no idea what they were talking about? This can be whatever you want it to be.
~Taverkin
A player need not conform to available documentation to play a compelling character. Your character is a story unfolding, and the player is the one doing the writing. As long as you conform to policy, the rest is whatever you want it to be! Taking it even further, I don't feel it's necessary for players to know much of anything about anything, really. Oh, there are plenty of reasons why it would be a good idea to know these things - a priestess of Koar should probably know something about Koar, for instance - but maybe you don't care to read all that stuff and simply want to play? Why not? You can roleplay your character's ignorance and discover the world as your character experiences it!
Also, consider that it's possible for characters to make mistakes or to lie regardless of what the player does or doesn't know. Perhaps I know the documentation, but intentionally fudge it in character? People have misconceptions about other races and cultures in real life. Why not in a game? All the more fun if I go in knowing nothing! Perhaps I learned what I know from someone who had no idea what they were talking about? This can be whatever you want it to be.
~Taverkin
I cant argue with anything you said, other then.. If you read the reason I made the post.. after sitting at a table with a few others, there began to be PVP issues, over interpretations of how Characters behave, because some of the Players felt there were Player conflicts that actually were Not, they were Character disagreements. I also dont think I said it was based on Official docs, thats more the point. I am curious how individuals see others, not askin what they know of the docs.
>there began to be PVP issues, over interpretations of how Characters behave, because some of the Players felt there were Player conflicts that actually were Not, they were Character disagreements.
GILBERTJ26
This isn't a race or character issue. This is a player issue.
A large majority of players can't tell the difference between the character and themselves, can't keep their OOC issues out of the game and don't even do more than a cursory attempt at RP. Instead they play themselves in GS.
A discussion on the forums, or even IG, isn't going to change this from happening. It's just the type of game culture GS has.
-farmer
GILBERTJ26
This isn't a race or character issue. This is a player issue.
A large majority of players can't tell the difference between the character and themselves, can't keep their OOC issues out of the game and don't even do more than a cursory attempt at RP. Instead they play themselves in GS.
A discussion on the forums, or even IG, isn't going to change this from happening. It's just the type of game culture GS has.
-farmer
<<I cant argue with anything you said, other then.. If you read the reason I made the post.. after sitting at a table with a few others, there began to be PVP issues, over interpretations of how Characters behave, because some of the Players felt there were Player conflicts that actually were Not, they were Character disagreements. I also dont think I said it was based on Official docs, thats more the point. I am curious how individuals see others, not askin what they know of the docs.>>
From what you wrote, it seemed clear that the conflict centered upon differences of opinion on how various races SHOULD be played. This suggests to me that some of those involved feel that there is a "correct" way to play a given race. Such an opinion could only be based upon a strict interpretation of official documentation. Hence my response.
The inability of many players to sufficiently separate character from player is another matter, and one we've spent considerable time discussing in this very forum recently. If you like, you might want to look back on the thread that began as a discussion over the merits of the pickpocketing skill but carried over into this topic as a discussion of the distinction between IC/OOC, PvP/CvC. There's a lot of pointless bickering in that thread, but some cogent argument as well that may be relevant to your query.
~Taverkin
From what you wrote, it seemed clear that the conflict centered upon differences of opinion on how various races SHOULD be played. This suggests to me that some of those involved feel that there is a "correct" way to play a given race. Such an opinion could only be based upon a strict interpretation of official documentation. Hence my response.
The inability of many players to sufficiently separate character from player is another matter, and one we've spent considerable time discussing in this very forum recently. If you like, you might want to look back on the thread that began as a discussion over the merits of the pickpocketing skill but carried over into this topic as a discussion of the distinction between IC/OOC, PvP/CvC. There's a lot of pointless bickering in that thread, but some cogent argument as well that may be relevant to your query.
~Taverkin
The other issue is that even if both players were perfectly aware of their own documentation and the others documentation, they would each have their own interpretation of it, which is inevitable since everyone interprets things diffrently.
To add to this, since characters come in infinite varieties (as people do) their character may just be an "exception" to the "general culture" they are a part of.
That being said, what other posters said about simply playing themselves in a diffrent context is true, and in a sense this makes it easier for IC conflicts to bleed into OOC.
I delibritly create a certain distance between my characters and myself because that helps me see what's happening in a slightly more objective light.
I wish more people did this, but have seen from long experience that attempting to police it is counter productive. The only thing that seems to work is giving people an example of the kind of experience that is only possible when you are "roleplaying" in full.
To add to this, since characters come in infinite varieties (as people do) their character may just be an "exception" to the "general culture" they are a part of.
That being said, what other posters said about simply playing themselves in a diffrent context is true, and in a sense this makes it easier for IC conflicts to bleed into OOC.
I delibritly create a certain distance between my characters and myself because that helps me see what's happening in a slightly more objective light.
I wish more people did this, but have seen from long experience that attempting to police it is counter productive. The only thing that seems to work is giving people an example of the kind of experience that is only possible when you are "roleplaying" in full.
You can stereotype the races, sure. It has 0 to do with player characters though. Maybe an entire culture/race acts a certain way, but the way I have always seen PCs is that we are always the exception to the rule. When you type "who" and it says 300 or 400 or 500 logged on, that isn't the entire population of the game(from an RP perspective, obviously it is the population of actual human beings), just the notable population. Read the room descriptions in many places, it is full of people, that as a "hero" you just do not notice.
That being said, any player character should and does differ heavily from the various lores on the races. Some characters try to be as far away from those stereotypes as possible, such as the friendly Dhe'nar or the pauper plain dressing Faendryl. Sure, some of it could be due to not actually knowing the lore, but I know plenty of people that do that stuff with more knowledge of lore than some of the people that try their hardest to be those stereotypes. And then lot of us try our hardest to fall into the stereotypes, but I don't think I have met a character yet that stays within them 100% of the time. And honestly, you shouldn't. When it all comes down to it, we are all human beings behind these dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, dark elves, giants, half-elves, half-krolvins, aelotoi, erithians, and umm... well.. Humans.
~James
Player of Septimius
That being said, any player character should and does differ heavily from the various lores on the races. Some characters try to be as far away from those stereotypes as possible, such as the friendly Dhe'nar or the pauper plain dressing Faendryl. Sure, some of it could be due to not actually knowing the lore, but I know plenty of people that do that stuff with more knowledge of lore than some of the people that try their hardest to be those stereotypes. And then lot of us try our hardest to fall into the stereotypes, but I don't think I have met a character yet that stays within them 100% of the time. And honestly, you shouldn't. When it all comes down to it, we are all human beings behind these dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, dark elves, giants, half-elves, half-krolvins, aelotoi, erithians, and umm... well.. Humans.
~James
Player of Septimius
<<That being said, what other posters said about simply playing themselves in a diffrent context is true, and in a sense this makes it easier for IC conflicts to bleed into OOC.
I delibritly create a certain distance between my characters and myself because that helps me see what's happening in a slightly more objective light.
I wish more people did this, but have seen from long experience that attempting to police it is counter productive. The only thing that seems to work is giving people an example of the kind of experience that is only possible when you are "roleplaying" in full.>>
I agree 100%. This was at the heart of the debate in the earlier thread I referred to. Many players either are oblivious (those who play this game as they might play WoW, for instance) or simply disagree that objectivity and separation between player/character is critical to roleplay. I believe the argument was merely a misunderstanding. Some advanced the position that complete separation is impossible. And they're right, technically speaking. But this misses the point. Whether separation is strictly 100% achievable is irrelevant to the more practical matter at hand: that separation and objectivity are desirable and necessary in a roleplaying environment for the reasons you've stated.
In my opinion, the more the better! Your ability to roleplay can only be improved by objectivity and separation. Some interpreted "separation" and the resulting objectivity to mean a lack of feeling and imagination, as if a character can only be our imagination come-to-life if we literally BECOME the character. Again, this is a misunderstanding. Pouring your imagination into your character does not in any way require you to blur this line. Neither does attempting to maintain strict separation (whether it's possible to do so 100% or not!) rob us of the opportunity to play compelling characters. The very best actors in the world are still aware that they're playing a part, even though they'll go to mental and physical extremes to portray that role to the best of their ability. Are they lacking in imagination, do you think?
The fact of the matter is that IC conflict between characters is only possible when all parties involved maintain a certain degree of objectivity. The moment you interpret another character's actions as OOC in nature (in other words, either party assumes rightly or wrongly that the other party is motivated by a desire to antagonize the other player), the conflict has become OOC. It is now player vs. player rather than character vs. character. The obvious problem with this line of thinking is that there is a world of gray between IC/OOC and we're left to interpret another character's actions as one or the other.
The only way to sort it out is to make assumptions based on the context of the interaction (or to use commands like CHALLENGE, or OOC whisper to clarify what it is you're attempting to do as a player - which can often ruin the interaction from the outset, making it feel contrived or granting the other player an unnecessary OOC out to what otherwise could have been a productive IC interaction!). The reason objectivity is so critical is that it raises the bar, so to speak. If I approach every interaction with an open mind and stay true to my character no matter what happens to him/her, the worst case scenario is that I end up having to end the interaction on the grounds that it is not an IC conflict, but OOC. The best case scenario is that the other player recognizes my willingness to play along and views me, the player, as a like mind, even as our characters engage in conflict with one another.
I refuse to engage in conflict with other players with my character. You can whisper me and we can have it out that way if you like. Or, if you're keeping it IC, you can kill me, spit on me - seriously, do your worst! But the only way I do anything with my characters in the game is IC. OOC is for forums, lnet, and whispers. It has no place in the game for me. I am not my characters and they are not me.
This presents another problem, however. As others pointed out, it's difficult to remain objective when another player is playing by the rules, but without respect for other players. Again, this leaves a huge gray area open for interpretation. How does one determine whether or not the motivations behind another character's actions are IC or OOC? Just because they aren't talking about football scores or the latest movie they saw doesn't mean that they aren't breaking character. Ultimately, it's not 100% possible to tell unless they outright indicate their intentions one way or another.
And again, this is why objectivity is so critical. The idea behind this philosophy is that we put our best foot forward in an act of good faith, with the intention of engaging in IC interaction/conflict. We do so in the hopes that others will recognize our intentions and react in kind. Some consider this outlook naive, but honestly what do you have to lose by following this philosophy? As I said before, the worst case scenario is the other player is a hopeless case who just doesn't understand what you're trying to do. In that case, you just break off the interaction and, if necessary, WARN interact. I've personally never had to do this. It just isn't that big a deal when another player acts like a jerk, assuming you're maintaining objectivity. Keeping in mind that this is all just a game and that not everyone who plays it understands the nature of what we're doing here, why would you get upset? Just chalk it up to ignorance and go play with people who get it, right?
At least, that's how I see it.
~Taverkin
I delibritly create a certain distance between my characters and myself because that helps me see what's happening in a slightly more objective light.
I wish more people did this, but have seen from long experience that attempting to police it is counter productive. The only thing that seems to work is giving people an example of the kind of experience that is only possible when you are "roleplaying" in full.>>
I agree 100%. This was at the heart of the debate in the earlier thread I referred to. Many players either are oblivious (those who play this game as they might play WoW, for instance) or simply disagree that objectivity and separation between player/character is critical to roleplay. I believe the argument was merely a misunderstanding. Some advanced the position that complete separation is impossible. And they're right, technically speaking. But this misses the point. Whether separation is strictly 100% achievable is irrelevant to the more practical matter at hand: that separation and objectivity are desirable and necessary in a roleplaying environment for the reasons you've stated.
In my opinion, the more the better! Your ability to roleplay can only be improved by objectivity and separation. Some interpreted "separation" and the resulting objectivity to mean a lack of feeling and imagination, as if a character can only be our imagination come-to-life if we literally BECOME the character. Again, this is a misunderstanding. Pouring your imagination into your character does not in any way require you to blur this line. Neither does attempting to maintain strict separation (whether it's possible to do so 100% or not!) rob us of the opportunity to play compelling characters. The very best actors in the world are still aware that they're playing a part, even though they'll go to mental and physical extremes to portray that role to the best of their ability. Are they lacking in imagination, do you think?
The fact of the matter is that IC conflict between characters is only possible when all parties involved maintain a certain degree of objectivity. The moment you interpret another character's actions as OOC in nature (in other words, either party assumes rightly or wrongly that the other party is motivated by a desire to antagonize the other player), the conflict has become OOC. It is now player vs. player rather than character vs. character. The obvious problem with this line of thinking is that there is a world of gray between IC/OOC and we're left to interpret another character's actions as one or the other.
The only way to sort it out is to make assumptions based on the context of the interaction (or to use commands like CHALLENGE, or OOC whisper to clarify what it is you're attempting to do as a player - which can often ruin the interaction from the outset, making it feel contrived or granting the other player an unnecessary OOC out to what otherwise could have been a productive IC interaction!). The reason objectivity is so critical is that it raises the bar, so to speak. If I approach every interaction with an open mind and stay true to my character no matter what happens to him/her, the worst case scenario is that I end up having to end the interaction on the grounds that it is not an IC conflict, but OOC. The best case scenario is that the other player recognizes my willingness to play along and views me, the player, as a like mind, even as our characters engage in conflict with one another.
I refuse to engage in conflict with other players with my character. You can whisper me and we can have it out that way if you like. Or, if you're keeping it IC, you can kill me, spit on me - seriously, do your worst! But the only way I do anything with my characters in the game is IC. OOC is for forums, lnet, and whispers. It has no place in the game for me. I am not my characters and they are not me.
This presents another problem, however. As others pointed out, it's difficult to remain objective when another player is playing by the rules, but without respect for other players. Again, this leaves a huge gray area open for interpretation. How does one determine whether or not the motivations behind another character's actions are IC or OOC? Just because they aren't talking about football scores or the latest movie they saw doesn't mean that they aren't breaking character. Ultimately, it's not 100% possible to tell unless they outright indicate their intentions one way or another.
And again, this is why objectivity is so critical. The idea behind this philosophy is that we put our best foot forward in an act of good faith, with the intention of engaging in IC interaction/conflict. We do so in the hopes that others will recognize our intentions and react in kind. Some consider this outlook naive, but honestly what do you have to lose by following this philosophy? As I said before, the worst case scenario is the other player is a hopeless case who just doesn't understand what you're trying to do. In that case, you just break off the interaction and, if necessary, WARN interact. I've personally never had to do this. It just isn't that big a deal when another player acts like a jerk, assuming you're maintaining objectivity. Keeping in mind that this is all just a game and that not everyone who plays it understands the nature of what we're doing here, why would you get upset? Just chalk it up to ignorance and go play with people who get it, right?
At least, that's how I see it.
~Taverkin
>I delibritly create a certain distance between my characters and myself because that helps me see what's happening in a slightly more objective light
>And again, this is why objectivity is so critical.
Actually, let me amend that slightly, but not in a "disagreeing" way. I should have used the work "critical" instead of "objective", then explained what I meant by that (I'm using it in the "literary criticism" sense rather than the "criticism of actions" sense).
We are all human, and its easy to get wrapped up in our characters. Being "objective" in that context (or most contexts) is problematic. In fact, my experience is that in alot of conflicts people see themselves as being the rational, objective party while seeing the other party as irrational, and it being this rather an actual difference in opinion, that leads to arguments.
If, on the other hands, you view your own aproach to the game as an opinion people can disagree with for their own reasons and are aware of your own assumptions and try to watch your own tendency to become connected to your character you'll have an easier time discussing things in a free manner. If, in other words, you adopt a critical attitude/perspective towards your own actions while understanding the difficulty in properly gauging and understanding the actions of others, then understanding is easier.
This goes for roleplay in general, but especially as regards the races. In general, all the races are, for lack of a better term, people, with all the complexity and variety that would result from a multitude of individuals even when they are all exposed to a particular cultural heritage. Given that we only have so much documentation to go on, and given the reality of the fact that each of these races represents a varied community, opinions on how to "roleplay" that will differ.
One way or another, however, I wish we all made our choices more coherently and delibritily. I think it makes the game more fun when we do it that way. :)
>And again, this is why objectivity is so critical.
Actually, let me amend that slightly, but not in a "disagreeing" way. I should have used the work "critical" instead of "objective", then explained what I meant by that (I'm using it in the "literary criticism" sense rather than the "criticism of actions" sense).
We are all human, and its easy to get wrapped up in our characters. Being "objective" in that context (or most contexts) is problematic. In fact, my experience is that in alot of conflicts people see themselves as being the rational, objective party while seeing the other party as irrational, and it being this rather an actual difference in opinion, that leads to arguments.
If, on the other hands, you view your own aproach to the game as an opinion people can disagree with for their own reasons and are aware of your own assumptions and try to watch your own tendency to become connected to your character you'll have an easier time discussing things in a free manner. If, in other words, you adopt a critical attitude/perspective towards your own actions while understanding the difficulty in properly gauging and understanding the actions of others, then understanding is easier.
This goes for roleplay in general, but especially as regards the races. In general, all the races are, for lack of a better term, people, with all the complexity and variety that would result from a multitude of individuals even when they are all exposed to a particular cultural heritage. Given that we only have so much documentation to go on, and given the reality of the fact that each of these races represents a varied community, opinions on how to "roleplay" that will differ.
One way or another, however, I wish we all made our choices more coherently and delibritily. I think it makes the game more fun when we do it that way. :)
Let me just say that I think we're in agreement here. It is my position that we each need to take the burden upon ourselves to approach interactions objectively and always make our best effort to give other players the benefit of the doubt even when we suspect that their motivations are purely OOC. When that dark elf spits on Tav and insults him, I know it's the player attempting to portray his character true to his ideals. He's not trying to anger me as a player. And regardless of my response, if it's true to character it is my hope that the other player will understand that and give me the benefit of the doubt. If the circumstances of the interaction dictate that our character be the one to accept defeat either in a physical confrontation or a battle of wits, then we do so gladly because this is about roleplayed interaction, not necessarily "beating" another player and coming out on top. Just as in a movie or a play, the "good guy" (from your perspective, you!) doesn't always win every battle - or even the war!
If everyone could do that, we'd have a fantastic roleplaying environment. As I believe you mentioned earlier, this cannot be enforced. But if YOU can police yourself, then you'll lead by example in every interaction by showing others how to be charitable as a player even while your characters are engaged in conflict.
In the earlier discussion I spent some time discussing the subtle cues we use in roleplaying to signal our intentions to other players without overtly breaking character. Be it introducing a double-meaning into the discussion or perhaps something so simple as a bit of self-deprecating humor to break the tension when you detect the other player is getting a little hot. It demonstrates to the other player that you're here to play along. Once all parties recognize the good intentions of all involved, the interaction is free to go wherever it will without the worry of offending another player and having the interaction devolve into a conflict between players.
I realize this requires a great deal of faith in others and I know from experience that such faith is often undeserved and frequently goes unrewarded. However, as I said before, what do we have to lose? To do otherwise is to basically throw in the towel on roleplayed conflict. And frankly I have to wonder how it doesn't drive people nuts?
I mean it must be pretty difficult to play this game without getting upset all the time when you assume anyone who does anything remotely unpleasant toward your character must wish YOU distress as a player! Sure, some of them do. But a lot of those will still recognize the right cue if you attempt to reach out and steer the interaction in the right direction. Once a certain degree of trust is achieved between the players involved, the interaction is free to proceed as it will.
It's sort of like if you tried to walk up to people on the street and start acting out lines from a script. If you handed the script to enough people, it's likely most of them would not understand and look at you like you're crazy. But I'll bet a few of them would play along and read a few lines with you. The difference is it's WAY easier than that for us here. These aren't people selected at random. Most of us are here because we're interested in roleplay. If you show them the "script", it shouldn't be difficult to get them to play along.
~Taverkin
If everyone could do that, we'd have a fantastic roleplaying environment. As I believe you mentioned earlier, this cannot be enforced. But if YOU can police yourself, then you'll lead by example in every interaction by showing others how to be charitable as a player even while your characters are engaged in conflict.
In the earlier discussion I spent some time discussing the subtle cues we use in roleplaying to signal our intentions to other players without overtly breaking character. Be it introducing a double-meaning into the discussion or perhaps something so simple as a bit of self-deprecating humor to break the tension when you detect the other player is getting a little hot. It demonstrates to the other player that you're here to play along. Once all parties recognize the good intentions of all involved, the interaction is free to go wherever it will without the worry of offending another player and having the interaction devolve into a conflict between players.
I realize this requires a great deal of faith in others and I know from experience that such faith is often undeserved and frequently goes unrewarded. However, as I said before, what do we have to lose? To do otherwise is to basically throw in the towel on roleplayed conflict. And frankly I have to wonder how it doesn't drive people nuts?
I mean it must be pretty difficult to play this game without getting upset all the time when you assume anyone who does anything remotely unpleasant toward your character must wish YOU distress as a player! Sure, some of them do. But a lot of those will still recognize the right cue if you attempt to reach out and steer the interaction in the right direction. Once a certain degree of trust is achieved between the players involved, the interaction is free to proceed as it will.
It's sort of like if you tried to walk up to people on the street and start acting out lines from a script. If you handed the script to enough people, it's likely most of them would not understand and look at you like you're crazy. But I'll bet a few of them would play along and read a few lines with you. The difference is it's WAY easier than that for us here. These aren't people selected at random. Most of us are here because we're interested in roleplay. If you show them the "script", it shouldn't be difficult to get them to play along.
~Taverkin
I am not going to get into the debate again about role-playing conflicts and such, as that is not what this thread is about. What it is about is that a discussion between players (it matters not whom, and most likely OOC) with differing opinion on how a certain race ought to act, or in fact an opinion of one not playing a race right.
Then it follows that a player walked away realizing that even though the discussion seemed knowledgeable and based on official documentation, there was a wide variety of interpretation of that same documentation, or lack thereof. Is is very reasonable to assume that many players do not know, or never will know the entire documentation of each particular race, nor should anybody need to know all the nuances of each. However, what is being asked here, is a simple poll of opinion on your views of each race, TYPICALLY. Obviously, there are going to be those that go against the typical perception of any particular race, ala good dark elves and whatnot.
To me, I do not adhere that closely to official documentation, unless it is a record of a historical event, or even an ongoing one like those of the GM run story lines, etc. Otherwise, I feel free to create whomever I feel fits into the lands as I imagine them to be. I will do the honor of at least replying to this poll as asked.
1. Halfling-->mischievous, good-nature, playful, unconscionable, trouble-some
2. Gnome-->very mechanical, serious, self-centered, focused, friendly
3. Half krolvin-->rough, ugly, ill-mannered, argumentative
4. Giants-->good-nature, friendly, helpful, dense, strong!
5. Elves-->snooty, high-brow, opinionated, quick, snobbish
6. Faendryl Dark elves-->even MORE snooty, high-brow, opinionated, quick, snobbish than normal elves
7. Dhe'nar-->quite honestly I put these folks in the same boat as elves and dark elves, and even more obnoxious.
8. Half-elves-->outcast, somber, sorrowful, moody, yet honorable
9. Dwarves-->grumpy, irritable, ill-nature, tough, accident prone
10. Dark Dwarves-->Same as normal dwarves with darker skin, and perhaps even more obnoxious.
And Ill add this next one in 2 categories as recently there seems to be a distinct separation in the groups
11. Humans-->Middle ground of all possible mannerism
12. Humans such as tehir mostly, but also others that were born behind the wall.-->Honestly do not know much of these and treat them no different than other humans
13. Aelotoi ( Im sure I spelled that wrong)-->Fixed the spelling... know next to nothing about these as these are totally new and different race than I am accustom to. I imagine that they are very small fairie like creatures with wings, playful, and good-nature.
14. Sylvans-->Much the same as other elves, but less snooty, high-brow, opinionated, quick, snobbish
15. Erithian (probably spelled that wrong too)-->Fixed the spelling... these folks are a bit of a mystery, and seem to come from a world far from Elanthia. They are quiet and watchful, and very knowledgeable.
--Zizzle
Then it follows that a player walked away realizing that even though the discussion seemed knowledgeable and based on official documentation, there was a wide variety of interpretation of that same documentation, or lack thereof. Is is very reasonable to assume that many players do not know, or never will know the entire documentation of each particular race, nor should anybody need to know all the nuances of each. However, what is being asked here, is a simple poll of opinion on your views of each race, TYPICALLY. Obviously, there are going to be those that go against the typical perception of any particular race, ala good dark elves and whatnot.
To me, I do not adhere that closely to official documentation, unless it is a record of a historical event, or even an ongoing one like those of the GM run story lines, etc. Otherwise, I feel free to create whomever I feel fits into the lands as I imagine them to be. I will do the honor of at least replying to this poll as asked.
1. Halfling-->mischievous, good-nature, playful, unconscionable, trouble-some
2. Gnome-->very mechanical, serious, self-centered, focused, friendly
3. Half krolvin-->rough, ugly, ill-mannered, argumentative
4. Giants-->good-nature, friendly, helpful, dense, strong!
5. Elves-->snooty, high-brow, opinionated, quick, snobbish
6. Faendryl Dark elves-->even MORE snooty, high-brow, opinionated, quick, snobbish than normal elves
7. Dhe'nar-->quite honestly I put these folks in the same boat as elves and dark elves, and even more obnoxious.
8. Half-elves-->outcast, somber, sorrowful, moody, yet honorable
9. Dwarves-->grumpy, irritable, ill-nature, tough, accident prone
10. Dark Dwarves-->Same as normal dwarves with darker skin, and perhaps even more obnoxious.
And Ill add this next one in 2 categories as recently there seems to be a distinct separation in the groups
11. Humans-->Middle ground of all possible mannerism
12. Humans such as tehir mostly, but also others that were born behind the wall.-->Honestly do not know much of these and treat them no different than other humans
13. Aelotoi ( Im sure I spelled that wrong)-->Fixed the spelling... know next to nothing about these as these are totally new and different race than I am accustom to. I imagine that they are very small fairie like creatures with wings, playful, and good-nature.
14. Sylvans-->Much the same as other elves, but less snooty, high-brow, opinionated, quick, snobbish
15. Erithian (probably spelled that wrong too)-->Fixed the spelling... these folks are a bit of a mystery, and seem to come from a world far from Elanthia. They are quiet and watchful, and very knowledgeable.
--Zizzle
<I feel free to create whomever I feel fits into the lands as I imagine them to be. I will do the honor of at least replying to this poll as asked.>
Thank you! I guess the topic of player conflict was still lingering, and although a conflict was what prompted my post, it was not meant to be the focus of it.. I suppose if it makes anyone see what I was asking in a less controversial way I could post the same thing and just change the races to creatures with culture,,
how would you describe Orcs, Goblins, Ogres, or other creatures with personalities. My post was just for curiosity and to see how people in the game view other races. I of course have my own mindset, I just thought it would be interesting to see how others on a day to day basis view the races they encounter.
