Humans in rpgs

[number4096]

Sorry SakSak,but you didn't convince me,look at the post above the one you just wrote to see why.

 

[Zacharine]

To SakSak:

Society was made by having someone dominate others by force(initially)and considering wars,it continued up to about right now(the club was exchanged for a nuke in other words.).

Wrong. Th basis for society is in group behavior. It did not begin with self-procalimed dictators some million years ago, it began with a need for protection. Need for survival.

Mutual benefit.

Read upon behavioral experiments done on chimps. While there are alpha males, any disagreement that begins to get out of hand is mediated upon by a third chimp. And there are cases where these alpha-males have been deposed by the rest of the chimps... All rule is dependant upon the subjects willingness to be ruled.

Even the police keeps order by beating up those who don't follow it

I'm guessing you've never had a discussion with a cop.

(for example,the nazis were beating whoever was not following what they considered order,leading to genocide when they decided that what was against order was other races.).

And this is why I say those who conquer with words do more harm. The germans were spoon-fed lies and propaganda. Hitler promised them jobs. They got jobs. Hitler promised a more stable economy. He made germany into an industrial powerhouse. And when this charismatic leader that has solved the majority of the problems plaquing your country constantly says the Jews are at fault for everything... They either begin to believe it, or stop caring.

And choosing a single madman to represent humanity might not have been a best choice from you, if your point is to try and convince me that humanity as a whole is rotten.

The law is excessively far from flawless(Any country of any era for example.).

Of course. However, these laws are also the best we currently have. When you lack the absolute, you make due with the flawed.

If you want examples of human evil:

Based upon our discussion so far, I think I know more of history than you. and I'm starting to lose respect for you, considering you are siting cracked.com as a source of all things.

 

[number4096]

To Okogamashii:

using a katana with one hand and a wakizashi with the other was done by many samurais and other warriors.

If you want a concrete example,here's Musashi Miyamoto.

 

[number4096]

To SakSak:

Did you read the articles anyway?So that you could tell me what is wrong with them?If you did that i could start honestly believing you.

Also,you seem to under estimate the extent to which fears of retributions affect the behavior in people(animals that can live on their own do so,we live in a group because we are interdependant.Without that,we would behave toward one another the same way tigers do.).

you also under estimate the extent to which education affects the behavior(child soldiers,anyone?then again,with what kids do in schools,it might just come naturally.).

I will however admit that womens are(Usually,with many unfortunate exceptions.)genuinely good.I theorise that they have to be otherwise they would leave their kids to die and th human race would end there.So it is a natural part of them put by evolution.Guys,however,are closer to the big guys in black armor i showed earlier.

You know more about history then me,so i thought you could help me with those dilemmas.You already convinced for one half of humanity.These are the main parts that still bug me.

 

[Zacharine]

To SakSak:

Then let this be my final post to you concerning this topic. I am beginning to think my posts here have been wasted as no one can be so wilfully ignorant. I find myself questioning your sincerity to discuss this topic.

Let me quickly sum up the 'articles'.

ZetaTalk one. Full of unsupported assertions (like "However, the killer instinct adds excitement to the long and frustrating hunts") hence BS and ignored. Lions do not hunt for fun. Wolves do not hunt for fun. Eagles do not hunt for fun. They hunt to eat or protect their chosen territory from threats. The protection battles rarely end up in a kill, as it is faster and easier to scare the intruding animal away.

Cracked.com articles: Misquoted researches. Handpicked researches/studies, while ignoring studies to the contrary. Researches proven to include falsified results. And non-applicable researches (such as studies about mental conditions, and drinking alcohol leading leading to mood swings and aggressiviness. We are talking of general human populace here, not just alcholists or the mentally sick)

So, BS and thus ignored.

",you seem to under estimate which fears of retributions affect the behavior in people"

Proof please. Or I am just going to go and claim you are severly overestimating the level of impact fear of retribution has.

"will however admit that womens are(Usually,with many unfortunate exceptions.)genuinely good" Baseless gender bias. Proof please that all the evidence produced so far apply only to women and not men.

"Guys,however,are closer to the big guys in black armor i showed earlier." Proof please. There is a reason evolution has driven us down the path where both the male and female parent stay together: it maximises survival for our specific species. There are other species where this does not happen. See the spider species where females eat the males after copulation.

"(animals that can live on their own do so" Plain wrong. Go study biology. Several carnivores could live alone but work in packs or groups, for mutual benefit. Same for omnivores and herbivores. Acting in a group simply improves changes of survival, acts as a defence and optimizes food gathering.

I say this is my last post in this thread because you have exhibited the following characteristics:

1. Inability to do even basic research.
2. Citing BS sources without any source criticism.
3. Speaking plain falsehoods, when any 12 yeard old would know them to be false
4. Generalizations are abundand.
5. Inability to produce proof, instead using singular isolated cases to extrapolate for larger, out-of-parameters behaviour.
6. Inability to let go or back up with evidence a pre-discussion bias.

If you wish to continue this discussion with me any further, I must ask you to stop generalizing and start producing proof for your blanket statements. Anecdotes and singular cases are not proof, the only reason I have used them is because you seem to prefer learning trough them. But this also leaves you extremely vulnerable to extrapolation bias and mistakes, something you seem unwilling to change or even take into consideration.

 

[number4096]

Too bad,thus far you were really close to making me believe you,but history and personal experiences get in the way of believing anything you are saying.

I know too many people who,both historically and from personal experiences,never tried to gain anything from the evils they did,they just did so and smirked about it.

If you could have shown me studies on human behavior ona scientific basis i would have gotten to it but i think i abused of your time and patience too much already.Sorry about that.

back to topic,polearms still work in close quarters.In fact guards used oftenly the handle to push back uninvited guests.You can also pull and grab people with the handle.so it still works in close quarters(unless i'm wrong).

 

[Allstar309]

Yea I afraid I don't agree with most of that, I believe vary depending on the story the RPG is based on.

 

[Alex_P]

-Humans are oftenly shown as magic users,which kind of breaks any forms of resemblance with real humans.They should be called something else at least.

That's a silly quibble. Real people have widely believed in magic for the majority of recorded history. It's hardly odd to make magic a part of their culture. Fantasy fiction is the stuff of symbol and metaphor -- that's why we take the magic and make it real. The biggest problem with fantasy magic is that it's not human enough: too predictable and convenient, too much like technology. There's not enough of the mysterious, transcendent, and divine to it.

-The fixation on swords is impractical and inaccurate.The only useful swords to ever appear were the roman gladius and the japanese katana,and even these had to be paired with a shield or a wakizashi to be useful.Spears and polearms in general were always better than any other melee weapons(Case in point:Honda Tadakatsu and Tomoe Gozen.).

It's funny that you pick out the katana given that historical bushi focused on bow and spear, with swords playing a role similar to their medieval and Renaissance counterparts.

You're right about games overstating the supremacy of the sword. In reality, people used a variety of task-focused weapons. At the same time, though, RPGs also terrible undersell the sword. There's a reason so many different cultures had swords: they're really fucking useful. A sword can cut, thrust, block, and bludgeon. Due to weight distribution, it's more nimble than a mace or an axe. All these factors get neglected in games that just have you standing there swinging over and over. But it's really handy to have all that in one weapon. Sure, maybe you'll pull out a pike, pick, or pollaxe for more a more specific job. But the whole reason the sword stuck around on the battlefield as all this other gear was developed is that it's an awesome secondary weapon to call on when your specialized weaponry isn't right for the job. Moreover, swords evolved themselves: for example, you can get great armor penetration out of a Renaissance-era longsword by half-swording.

RPG combat tends to focus on small fights, not big battles. The player characters are essentially dueling rather than warring. Weapons that are optimal in mass combat aren't necessarily the best choice: the same pikes that are amazing as part of the pike block will make poor single-combat weapons. And, the stupidity of the inventory mechanic aside, characters aren't really depicted as traveling with servants and armorers and a whole wagonload of weapons to pick and choose from. Thus, swords make good primary weapons for RPG characters because they're well-suited to taking on a variety of unknown opponents.

-- Alex

 

[link within]

Well, humans in rpgs aren't the humans seem in real life so its understandable they be different from us.

 

[Angerwing]

This is not so bad until other ethnicities are shown as different species altogether(Redguards,anyone?).

Ya, I thought that was weird too.
I'm surprised as hell there wasn't a big controversy over that.

No no no.

If you noticed there were 4 Human races in Elder Scrolls.

Breton
Imperial
Redguard
Nord

That's not because they're different races, but because they're from different regions, and their cultures focus on completely different things. Bretons and Imperials are almost identical physically, but because of their cultural upbringing, they have different skill sets.

 

[RatRace123]

Well to be fair, humans are often the main villains as well as the plucky heroes, and the badass non human sidekick, and the evil force using the human as a meat puppet, or the human villain is just in the way of the evil force. And who's to say a human isn't balanced compared to an elf or a dwarf.

 

[A Weary Exile]

Really?

I've noticed most humans are the asshole race in RPGs and the most unbalanced of all.

Especially Imperials in Oblivion. Heavy armor and speechcraft you say?! I'll stick with my Argonian thank you very much.

 

[Magnalian]

but I think the lance has a more herioc, knight-ish charm to it.

Lance is also the only weapon with no redeeming qualities outside of a straight-charge mounted combat. A lance is a big, heavy, unwiedly club with a pointed end that depends on having speed and mass behind it.

Seriously, I'd like to see any RPG hero wield that indoors or on foot.

Well, in the 3D Fire Emblem games you could get units called Sentinels who put on quite a show when given a lance or spear. With all kinds of acrobatic feats they'd stab and slash whoever you pointed them at. It should be possible to achieve this in an RPG, if people aren't too hung up on realism.

 

[Magnalian]

-The fixation on swords is impractical and inaccurate...

...Spears and polearms in general were always better than any other melee weapons(Case in point:Honda Tadakatsu and Tomoe Gozen.).Why the fixation on swords?

I have actually been wondering this for a long time. Why is the ultimate weapon in an RPG always a sword? I can see how it would be more suitable for combat in close quarters, as opposed to lances and halberds, and it's faster and more accurate than axes, but I think the lance has a more herioc, knight-ish charm to it...

I've heard that it's because, compared to most other weapons, the sword is the only tool that can only be used to maim and kill other humans. The only other weapons like that are halberds. Guns, bows, and lances can be used for hunting. Axes can be used for firewood and construction. Knives have dozens of uses.

It would be kinda cool to see an RPG hero who's primary weapon of choice is the bow, while he uses knives and such as secondary weapons.

 

[Unrulyhandbag]

I'd probably say that an abmi-dexterous man with good spatial awareness and training could be extremely effective with a pair of full blades. Dual wielding isn't anything special though, throughout history skilled men have fought with a full sword and a shorter blade, it's where the term 'cloak and dagger' came from.

The term 'cloak and dagger' didn't come from using a one-handed sword and a shorter blade, but from the actual use of a cloak and a dagger. The cloak was used to hide the dagger, serve as a distraction, and generally be a minor defense. The tactics, unsurprisingly, revolved around deception.

my mistake, seems it was actually from a popular type of Spanish comidia depicting cloak wearing, sword waving nobles.

 

[zaengo]

a few things bug me with the way humans are shown in rpgs:

-first,humans are shown as a balanced species,when in reality they are probably the most heavily specialised of all animals.

-Humans are shown as more diversified than everyone else,when in reality,animals are just as diversified as humans are from an individual to the other.Any species that reproduce sexually will have this sort of diversity.And as can be seen outside,people tend to copy each other and do the same things,with those behaving differently from the mass being called exceptions,for a reason.

-Humans are oftenly shown as magic users,which kind of breaks any forms of resemblance with real humans.They should be called something else at least.

-Humans are too oftenly shown as english europeans rather than other ethnicities or at least other europeans than english europeans.This is not so bad until other ethnicities are shown as different species altogether(Redguards,anyone?).Or when the very first humans to born are shown as caucasians rather than africans.It is not racist,but it is inaccurate in relation to reality.They should at least be called something else.

-Humans are oftenly shown as the good guys.Look at human history for three seconds.You will see on how many levels this is wrong(Humans should be shown as worthy,powerful villains who make other species tremble in fear if anything.With demons and other evil species being hunted down for sport.).

-The fixation on swords is impractical and inaccurate.The only useful swords to ever appear were the roman gladius and the japanese katana,and even these had to be paired with a shield or a wakizashi to be useful.Spears and polearms in general were always better than any other melee weapons(Case in point:Honda Tadakatsu and Tomoe Gozen.).Why the fixation on swords?Or England?Or goody-two-shoes?Villainous and powerful humans would be both more authentic and more interesting to play than goody-two-shoes.

Sorry,that was long,what do you think?

i dont agree with anything you just said. i really cant do a whole thing right know, but ill try. innacurate? its a role playing game! most likly, it takes place in a magical realm! theres no innacuracy! its magic! if they want, they can make hispanics "conseivurs" or black people "barnacurs" or white people "alterurs" or whatever. "The only useful swords to ever appear were the roman gladius and the japanese katana,and even these had to be paired with a shield or a wakizashi to be useful"? what in the hell are you talking about? the sword is the epitomy of fucking close combat weaponry! and the humans are almost always the heroes? all of the humans ive seen in rpgs were dicks. either dicks when theyre all over the place, or the heroes when their the minority, like in mass effect. and most of the time they are just as prominent as any other race, or more so. im not going to make a page full of complaints, but you arent right. atleast in my opinion.

 

[Premonition]

Really?

I've noticed most humans are the asshole race in RPGs and the most unbalanced of all.

Blood-Elfs are the most asshole-ish of any RPG xD I disagree with the unbalanced thing there tho. Humans are almost always portrayed as Jacks-of-all-trades. Whilst other races are usually more focused, the humans are more varied.

 

[number4096]

About what zaengo said:

First,a spear is more or less a quarterstaff with a metal point,so the handle is just as much of a weapon as the metal point.Therefore,it would work up close just as much as a quarterstaff would.

As for swords and tight melees(close combat)it depends on which swords you are talking about(Gladiuses were made solely for the purpose of fighting in tight crowds,and the wakizashi was also made for close range.).As for swords other than short ones,polearms would almost always win against them because of many factors(Longer reach,the handle allows for more space between each hands giving better control,and both extremities of the spear can attack and defend while the sword has only one extremity to attack with,and defend.)

Also,about races,if the humans were called conseivurs,barnacurs or alterurs instead,then it would explain the differences with real humans by the fact that they are not called humans and therefore are something else entirely(like humes or clavats.).

If i'm wrong anywhere,correct me.

 

[number4096]

Here are some examples of polearm goodness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTZLSg6sCWw
(Appliable parts:From 0:36 to 0:46 and from 1:14 to 1:20.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60u9DTRnc1E
Appliable parts: From 1:17 to 1:20,from 1:40 to 1:46 and(sort of)from 1:58 to 2:03

This will show you how awesome polearms are.

Ignore the parts outside of the appliable parts,they don't make sense.