[Reaver]

The overall premise of the OP is:
"SR stats are racist because they penitalize the cognitive abilities of a minority"

But the premise is flawed due to a small detail: and that is a numerical value for a stat is hard to measure in game world terms.

By that I mean, there is only a rough guideline for what that number represents. Within the rules, it is perfectly possible for ANYONE to have average (3) logic and intuition AND be a top level scientist. He just wouldn't be the Einstein/Bell/Holmes/Edison of his time....

However, once you get into the actual SR world, the way the vast majority of people react to trolls would definately be racist. (which none of us refute)

[Michael Chandra]

Note that only the MAXIMUM is limited, not the actual number. Which has a very insignificant effect on the average. Claiming they always are dumber on top, so applying a penalty as well, would be directly comparable.

[benedictmercury]

What seems to have emerged is a question of just how human metahumanity is.  From there, a further question: if a being isn't fundamentally human, how much equality do we owe them?  And finally, what things MAKE us fundamentally human?

A core tenet of Western ethics' answer thus far is that you can't judge anyone by anything but themselves and their deeds. And however dumb, everyone has equally important emotional lives (though that's a recent idea still fighting for ground). These things--potential, and individual emotional sanctity (presuming an equal sentience)--are what lie behind the word 'humanity,' maybe. Nobody worth listening to has ever argued that physical assets amount to superior species status; no one gives a shit about white people being slower than black people, its the inner features that bind us as 'equal.'

Just a stab; I bet we can do better.

So what happens to that, though, if meta humans are so different as to be not 'human'? You could make the argument that a species with lower average logic, intuition and charisma has less sentience than humans. In fact, I'm unclear on the power of the argument AGAINST that assertion. And then...whoa.

My thing about the slavery resonance aside, I find this question fascinating. All the horns and armor are just cosmetic and only assholes would get hung up on them if inner faculties were comparable. If they AREN'T, and if that design isn't racist because they're NOT human...how obligated are we to treat them as equal at all?

Cause killing an elephant or an ape--and the smartest of each are almost without question smarter and more sentient than the dimmest humans (and I don't even mean severe down's syndrome)--is shitty, but only a tiny eco-minded minority would call it 'murder.'

[Reaver]

Mate, I'd spend less time letting adults know how above their conversation you are and more time rummaging around in the code-name bargain bin for something less hackneyed than 'Dragonslayer.'

*

Meanwhile, ZeConster, Reaver, etc, I'll reiterate that I really don't mean to accuse the game of intentional racism, or you for being fine with the design. Truly. I myself am not comfortable with the similarity between post-human sUbspecies limits and very recent arguments about inferior races, and I find the act of divesting the two of any association at all to be willful, artificial and, for me, too convenient. I do not want to play in a world that incorporates, yes, so many other real-world inequalities, but enshrines as biological fact one of the core discriminations that *led* to those inequalities. So i change my game, problem solved. I just wanted to know what others thought on the subject, and to argue my point. We can do that without going Red/Blue state. If you feel accused because of your allegiance with a thing I object to, that's up to you. I get your arguments: they're different, it's a fact, and no, observing facts is not racism. How we define in-game facts does or does not have political resonance as a creative act; you say nay, I say yea. Many smart people have argued both sides of the question of whether art can ever be apolitical and dwell in a vacuum, and none were therefore racist because of their stance. If you're catching some tone from me, it's probably just because I've found your argumentative style to be a little condescending, absolutist and dismissive of what I think are sticky, interesting questions.

If you do not like something in the rules, house rule the change. That is your right! I do it all the time for things I find "game balance disturbing" from my table's viewpoint.

Just be careful about how you go about it. What looks like an easy fix can/could/will have game balance destroying consequences!
For example: if you take trolls and just remove the mental and social limiters but leave the rest if the stat enhancements in place, then being a troll is a 'no-brainer' you are stronger, hardier, and just as smart as everyone else with the same potential for social conduct... Why be anything else???

If you REALLY want to do away with the stats for a given race, then the probably best solution (as I stated before) is just use the mechanics for baseline humans. No one has an advantage or disadvantage and race now just becomes social fluff. Problem solved.

[benedictmercury]

That may be. It may be a flawed premise--at least the average part. Shaving the top off is still a valid target, I think. It's unclear how the attributes scale, but I've been taking them as being roughly a uniform grade, making the top one-sixth or so represented by a 6.

And while I agree that it's a non-biggie mechanically, I think it has real ramifications. All kinds of opportunities cull from the top. People that enjoy them enjoy the greatest mobility, and then often share their prosperity downward. Lacking top-slice access will societally have a downward-pushing effect on any subgroup.

Why should we assume that the average is still 3 when mathematically its 2.5? Not being snotty, just wondering.

[benedictmercury]

Reaver: you're making a lot of sense. I'm sorry if I flipped you shit.

Do you really think it balances dudes having hulk strength if they have one more die on B/R tests? In hard game mechanics terms I don't really see it. Troll players are likely to be stuffing the physical attributes to the gills, making a L or I choice of 6 extrrrrremely rare (and difficult to swing) case anyway, don't you think? I see plenty of self-regulation there on its own.

And you play something else because chargen/karma resources to get tank stats leave less to beef skills, etc, right? Is that not internal balance enough?

I'm ready to be wrong on that, as I've never had a troll PC and don't know.

[Michael Chandra]

Oh no, that Logic 6 would happen in a flash when people make mages and hackers that can take more damage.

[benedictmercury]

Oh, right.  Duh.  Of course they would.

My campaign is quite gritty, enough so that there's been no such thing as 'takeable damage' so far.  If you're taking damage at all, you're in a terrible situation and better change it, stat.  But then, we haven't seen any soak rolls of 13 plus armor....

[Crunch]

I'll say again that these are great issues to theme a game around benedict. Using fantasy structure as a way of getting your audience to look at themselves is a classic tool.

If you want some pointers towards some of the literature on fantasy and racism I can send you some pointers by PM (although you might have to go through your local library to get to some of them.)

[benedictmercury]

Yeah, Crunch, hit me up.  I'd be interested to see what the lit has been.  Much thanks.

I do indeed like to hit the players with moral confrontation a lot in the campaign.  I try not to get moralising about it, or to have really any moral stance myself.  Just hard decisions are enough.  (And maybe the occasional reproach when they veer into sociopathy).

I'm disinclined towards race as an issue in my stuff, as I'm not myself very fond of that accusatory witch hunt 'everything is racist!' perspective hyperliberals can sometimes get up to (however my posts here might appear).  Racism is not, in fact, interesting to me at all.  It sucks, don't do it, it fucked some people up good, let's move on and not suck.

But this fantasy-species stuff is fascinating.  I really don't know why it would be obviously wrong to give trolls different legal privileges IF the premise that they have lesser sentience faculties is correct.

[Reaver]

What seems to have emerged is a question of just how human metahumanity is.  From there, a further question: if a being isn't fundamentally human, how much equality do we owe them?  And finally, what things MAKE us fundamentally human?

A core tenet of Western ethics' answer thus far is that you can't judge anyone by anything but themselves and their deeds. And however dumb, everyone has equally important emotional lives (though that's a recent idea still fighting for ground). These things--potential, and individual emotional sanctity (presuming an equal sentience)--are what lie behind the word 'humanity,' maybe. Nobody worth listening to has ever argued that physical assets amount to superior species status; no one gives a shit about white people being slower than black people, its the inner features that bind us as 'equal.'

Just a stab; I bet we can do better.

So what happens to that, though, if meta humans are so different as to be not 'human'? You could make the argument that a species with lower average logic, intuition and charisma has less sentience than humans. In fact, I'm unclear on the power of the argument AGAINST that assertion. And then...whoa.

My thing about the slavery resonance aside, I find this question fascinating. All the horns and armor are just cosmetic and only assholes would get hung up on them if inner faculties were comparable. If they AREN'T, and if that design isn't racist because they're NOT human...how obligated are we to treat them as equal at all?

Cause killing an elephant or an ape--and the smartest of each are almost without question smarter and more sentient than the dimmest humans (and I don't even mean severe down's syndrome)--is shitty, but only a tiny eco-minded minority would call it 'murder.'

Now, you're thinking :p

It is pretty clear that the meta variants ARE different from humans. This is evidenced by not only the difference in stats, but the physical characteristics of each race. Yet it is also clear that they stem FROM humans....

So, does that make them "brothers" to humans? Or "cousins"? Or "red headed step children"?

Don't look to the rule books for a difinative answer to this question as they are intentionally vague.

As for a definatiion of "humanity"... Yea... That word's definition has changed in my 40 year life.... Nevermind the fictional setting of SR! Even in SR there is a huge debate about what is sapient and deserving of rights, protections, and guarantees. Some countries and corps include Naga, AIs, Ghouls and Sasquatch as sapient (and thus 'people'). Others its only humans.... With trolls and orks placed a far, far second.

[benedictmercury]

Okay, take it easy there, Reav.  I just meant your most recent point.  Otherwise I think it's clear where we disagree about the validity of metagame concerns.  In-game, I get it.  I don't LIKE it, but I get it.

What I DO like is this idea of Extract The Troll Scientist, which I am going to write up for a little one-off adventure like right-ass now. 

[Reaver]

Reaver: you're making a lot of sense. I'm sorry if I flipped you shit.

Do you really think it balances dudes having hulk strength if they have one more die on B/R tests? In hard game mechanics terms I don't really see it. Troll players are likely to be stuffing the physical attributes to the gills, making a L or I choice of 6 extrrrrremely rare (and difficult to swing) case anyway, don't you think? I see plenty of self-regulation there on its own.

And you play something else because chargen/karma resources to get tank stats leave less to beef skills, etc, right? Is that not internal balance enough?

I'm ready to be wrong on that, as I've never had a troll PC and don't know.

Game balance is a HUGE issue that developers of RPGs (PnP, and electronic) struggle with all the time. And sometimes, it's the small things that can really add up to make a huge balance.... Or imbalance.

JUST looking at trolls and limiting this to 4e rules (cause I don't have 5e yet) lets look at their stats for a minute...
+4 Str
+4 body
4 logic limit (note, NOT a -2!)
5 agility limit
Intuition 4 limit
4 charisma limit.
4 willpower limit? (no books, running off memory)
+1 reach (adds 1 die to Melee combat tests)
+1 ballistic/impact armor
45 age max average.

Age is largely a non issue as many players make their characters young to middle aged (also note there is no 'age' penalties to stats)
Everything else leads one to note that trolls excel at soaking damage and dealing massive damage from Melee attacks (+5 dice, +2 damage over a human that invested the same amount of BP in strength), (+5 dice to resist damage over a human, again with same stat investment and gear)

They make 'ok' mages, hackers/riggers and TMs. They won't be as 'Good' as a human, but far from unplayable too (yes, I have played a troll Mage... Up to about 150 karma). But the willpower, logic limiter makes them a little tricky. (-2 dice over a similar human build... Which means 1 less success on average for tests)

Now, if you keep the physical stats the same, but boost the mental stats to 'human' levels....
Trolls are just as good as humans at everything and +5 dice better then humans at absorbing damage, Melee attacking, and +2 DV higher Melee damage (before successes!!) with NO 'limitations'!!! Being a troll goes from 'interesting character choice per concept' all the way to 'no brainer for every archetype!'
I mean, why play anything else BUT trolls with those advantages and no disadvantages?? (except as maybe an interesting character concept...)

Hence the balancing that the Devs have put in by limiting the trolls mental stats as a way to 'steer' the character to the samurai role (where they excel!) and limit their overall power in the arguably more powerful archetypes of riggers/mages...


But really, how much does a logic limit of 4 'handicap' a troll. Well the book says a logic of 4 is university level understanding... Regardless of if the character goes to university! So we can safely say he's 'pretty damn smart!' and capable of doing any job a human can do! Basically that limit of 4 logic means he is -2 dice from any test that a human with the same investment in skills (and MORE investment in logic) is going to be...

In practicle terms, it means on average, the troll is going to get 1 less success per roll (remember also that a single success is all that is needed for most instant tests) and will be 1 to 3 tests behind a human (again with a larger investment logic... Not an inherent bonus!) on extended tests... Meaning he lags behind 'the world's smartest human" by 1 minute (simple extended) to 3 days (extremely hard extended).... Not what I would call a huge handicap considering that human had to invest 55 extra karma to get those +2 dice.

[Reaver]

....

But this fantasy-species stuff is fascinating.  I really don't know why it would be obviously wrong to give trolls different legal privileges IF the premise that they have lesser sentience faculties is correct.

Note: I'm note upset, or even riled up Just enjoying a debate :thumbs up: sorry if I come across differently... On a train so connection is spotty and my posts are not going through at the times I actuall send them (up to 90min delay I noticed)

Well, that would be the argument of almos 20k and humanis policub.. Or Human nation...

While my stance is similar to MOM's :p

There IS a difference... Just not so big of one to make trolls 'retarded' or even 'special education' cases... In fact the difference is really hardly noticeable by the math I posted up top...

Which runs back to the whole 'racist' thing again... Core rules wise, trolls are 'people' no real argument there. They are different then human obviously, but they think, feel, dream, have ambitions, wants desires and all the other emotions and cognitive abilities of humans.... They just happen to be 10 feet tall, weigh 500pounds and snicker politely at humans who claim to be tough and strong...

In essence, they are human... Just different. It's in game that the racist side of things rears its ugly head... All loud, proud and nasty.

[benedictmercury]

Oh, yeah, man, no actual static; just ribbing you for the 'now you're thinking!' line once it sounded like I came around to your view.  (Which, of course, I didn't.)

Yeah, that in-game question is a real headache for me now.  I still find the metagame structural element racist and I don't care how much game balance 'requires' the lower intellect; but if I kept that mechanic anyway, out of deference to the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about and I believe people when they say that balance is a serious concern here?  And the trolls had lesser peak faculties? (And no, I'm still not convinced that the lower ceilings somehow don't mean that the average is also lower, etc).  Then dude...maybe I don't totally disagree with Humanis?  I mean, obviously I do because eww.  But...I mean, if they ARE less intelligent on the whole, do I want my vote and their vote counting the same as to how taxes are allocated....

Yuck.

Cool to think about.  I may run a villain that makes just the above argument.  I mean, I'm gonna make sure a troll rapes him to death, but in the middle acts I'm gonna make him seem as un-villainous as I can.

(Note:  along similar lines?  always thought some post-apocalyptic future where vampires have nations and keep humans as livestock would be cool.  But the livestock would be bred to be, like, super-retarded, and the vampires would trade more or less respectfully with border human nations with high-functioning humans in them.  And the vamps would really not vamp out and get all villain-y.  And so on).