# What's the point/purpose of fantasy races? Should I bother having them?



## Peregrine

The reason why I wanted to make a fictional world/setting is because I was heavily inspired by Norse mythology.

I knew that it would be impossible to base my world on Norse Cosmology (Jotunheim, Alfheim, Midgard, Niflheim...) because there's nine worlds for god's sake, and every creature (elf/ettin/vanir...) lives in different worlds, so because of that I needed to make a new world instead.

Tolkien's Middle-Earth was not "Norse" enough for me, even though it is probably the most Norse book that ever existed.

I wanted to make a world that felt Norse (even more Norse than Tolkien), a barbarian hero with a horned helmet that battles ettins like David against Goliath or encounters a dragon (Not the flying, fire-breathing one).

I have only 5 "races".
4 of my "races" are inspired by Norse Mythology.
Elves are not in my world, let alone physical gods.
But now, as I have matured I am less attached to these fictional races just because they look different and I wonder if the physical differences are worth?

Is it worth it including dwarfs just because they are physically different, I mean if I include them they are going to be unique for example instead of emphasizing that they are greatest blacksmiths and miners, my dwarfs are mostly pastoralists which means that most dwarfs are shepherds or goatherds because they live in mountains and agriculture is more suitable in the lowlands.

You don't have to be a dwarf to make a underground city and live in the mountains. Humans can do it also.


----------



## elemtilas

Peregrine said:


> The reason why I wanted to make a fictional world/setting is because I was heavily inspired by Norse mythology.
> 
> I knew that it would be impossible to base my world on Norse Cosmology (Jotunheim, Alfheim, Midgard, Niflheim...) because there's nine worlds for god's sake, and every creature (elf/ettin/vanir...) lives in different worlds, so because of that I needed to make a new world instead.



Okay.

I guess you could make them countries in stead of worlds, though.



> Tolkien's Middle-Earth was not "Norse" enough for me, even though it is probably the most Norse book that ever existed.



 I've seen Tolkien's works described many ways, but I think "not Norse enough for me!" must be a first.



> I wanted to make a world that felt Norse (even more Norse than Tolkien), a barbarian hero with a horned helmet that battles ettins like David against Goliath or encounters a dragon (Not the flying, fire-breathing one).



I didn't think they wore horned helmets, except in Wagner.



> I have only 5 "races".
> 4 of my "races" are inspired by Norse Mythology.
> Elves are not in my world, let alone physical gods.
> But now, as I have matured I am less attached to these fictional races just because they look different and I wonder if the physical differences are worth?



The physical differences usually are just masks for some deeper distinction. I don't suppose you need elfs and dwarfs per se; but you will of course need people who fulfill those roles in the Norse context.



> Is it worth it including dwarfs just because they are physically different, I mean if I include them they are going to be unique for example instead of emphasizing that they are greatest blacksmiths and miners, my dwarfs are mostly pastoralists which means that most dwarfs are shepherds or goatherds because they live in mountains and agriculture is more suitable in the lowlands.
> 
> You don't have to be a dwarf to make a underground city and live in the mountains. Humans can do it also.



Exactly. They can also herd sheep with the best of em! I would suggest only having dwarfs in your world if your world requires that dwarfs exist. Same goes for elfs. Or gods or any other suitably Norse folk. If your aim to write a story, then make sure these other races are there only if your world and the story require that they exist.

For example, *The World* requires that Dwarrows (dwarves) and elves exist (among other kinds of folk). I've never written a story that involves or mentions Dwarrows, but they have to be there all the same. Maybe someday this will happen. Oo, no, I take that back! One story does have an incidental Dwarrow in it.

Otherwise, if you're really not that keen on non-human people, I'd just stick with humans or whatever your focus species happens to be.


----------



## Peregrine

I want to use horned helmets not because I think vikings used it, I don't think the vikings used it and that's Wagner.

I am going to use horned helmets not to show that they are "vikings" or "pseudo-norse" but to emphasize their barbarian culture.

There are no elves or gods in my story, I remove them because 1) they are immortal 2) they look the same as humans.


----------



## Drakevarg

My setting started as a stock D&D-with-serial-numbers-filed-off, but it wasn't long before I dumped all the non-human races with the exception of those who were decidedly _inhuman_, and converted the ones I junked into human ethnic groups. My rule at this point is "no forehead-makeup aliens." Pointy ears, forehead ridges, or a cultural obsession are not enough to warrant a different species in my opinion.

As far as I'm concerned, unless a fantasy race has some particular reason for not being human, including them is basically either out of expectation (which is rather defeating the entire point of fantasy, when you think about it) or cheap exoticism for its own sake.


----------



## Holman

Given that there is enough racial diversity within humankind it does seem redundant to use fantasy races just for the sake of it. My current work in progress will be using a number of racial profiles for want of a better phrase that allow for characters to show prejudice and create "underclasses" and the forming of "ghettos" in the city that the story(ies) are (will be) set. Magic is really a set of "talents" that are a historical precursor/successor to genuine magic - I have no need for magical races so elves are redundant, skilled miners and craftsmen can be replaced by human equivalents - a fantasy novel does not in my opinion require fantasy races.

The above is a bit of a wine-soaked ramble - so apologies if it doesn't flow too well. 

DicK (Drunk in charge (of) Keyboard) - should probably be my signature.


----------



## Peregrine

I have for example the "race" of ettins.

Ettins are simply giants, they look like barbarian humans but much taller, wider and robust, about 235 centimeters tall on average, they are nomadic barbarians, which means that their civilization is less advanced than most humans.

*But why should I make a race of giants, when I can make a human character who has gigantism?*


----------



## Holman

[U said:
			
		

> But why should I make a race of giants, when I can make a human character who has gigantism?[/U]



Or you simply have racial characteristics where the nomadic barbarians are on average 235cm tall - the fantasy element being there is a legend that they are descended from giants (which eveyrone knows don't exist - they are a myth)


----------



## Ban

It is fun.

-Mythic Scribes won't allow me to post only those three words so I type this.


----------



## Steerpike

Seems to me you can just as easily flip the "why" question around and ask "why not?" The "what is the purpose" question strikes me, basically, as a "why" question.

Unless you're writing a fantasy that is set in the real world, your work is taking place somewhere that is entirely separate or distinct from earth. The idea that life came into being there in substantially the same form as on the real earth is pretty far-fetched. If you look at this from that standpoint, it makes a lot more sense to use made-up fantasy races than not to use them. 

But ultimately these questions come down to the writer's aesthetic choices. You use them or not because you like and/or want to use them or not.


----------



## Queshire

I find races to be useful.

When I say "Elf" you suddenly know that 1) Elves are a thing and 2) Start thinking of what you consider to be elf-y stuff to apply to them. Depending on how my elves work compared to other people's elves I'll have to explain that, but that'll just refine your mental image of these elves. Afterwards whenever I say Elves it'll bring up that ready made image.

For an original race, say "Xia" well the reader doesn't know what that is. I'll have to explain what it is from the start and there's not the pre-established connection with "Elves" to play with, but if done right it's useful to give your work a unique flavor.

A lot of time a different race could be replaced with a country without changing the story any. Say "Alphlanders" instead of "Elves." I think people are willing to accept more from different races though. People are fine with Elves being more magical than humans just because they're elves, but you would need to do more to justify some other nation automatically being elite in magic.

There's other things different races can stand in for instead of countries. Most of the ones I can think of tend to be in the same vein though different scales. I could see someone doing a bunch of different races in one country standing in for the melting pot nature of the USA for example, or for a story focused on a single city maybe different races are different scenes. Maybe the vampires are goths while werewolves are metal heads?

Hell, there's a webcomic I read where the whole set up for it is the main character getting transformed into a different race. In that story there's major physical and emotional differences between the races due to them, you know, actually being different species instead of basically humans with pointy ears. The emotions involved in the main character's transformation, difference in how people look at him before and after and challenges dealing with his new body honestly reminds of the sort of challenges that someone who has an accident and winds up disabled would go through.

That said, unless it's a major part of your story I feel that it's better to hew closer to the "humans with pointy ears" style of races. 

It's cool to say that your elves are beings of living light, but it'd take readers out of the story if you glurge on exposition about every little bit of their culture, biology, whatever.


----------



## Holman

The OP was discussing the need in a world that had humans in it - hence the previous response - I would agree with your post and add the following - Why include humans at all? 

The reader needs to relate - would be one answer - but back in the days when I spent hours at weekends with friends playing D&D and WHFRP (I am old enough to have had the basic D&D box set) - we all rarely played humans at all - we can relate to any well written character as long as we can imagine ourselves doing the deeds of that character and looking cool doing it.


----------



## Peregrine

> I have for example the "race" of ettins.
> 
> Ettins are simply giants, they look like barbarian humans but much taller, wider and robust, about 235 centimeters tall on average, they are nomadic barbarians, which means that their civilization is less advanced than most humans.
> 
> *But why should I make a race of giants, when I can make a human character who has gigantism?*



This bothers me a lot.


----------



## Holman

Peregrine said:


> This bothers me a lot.



Ignore me - have giants they are, as a previous poster has said, more fun.


----------



## Queshire

Peregrine said:


> This bothers me a lot.



Well, my first thought reading that was "wouldn't they have a whole bunch of health problems from the gigantism?" Didn't have that when thinking about Ettins.


----------



## ThinkerX

Nonhuman races.

First, my principle worlds were 'terraformed' many millennia ago by aliens (one bunch vaguely resembled meter tall insects, another giant crabs - truly alien entities.)

World terraformed, these aliens began importing lifeforms from other worlds.  Chief among these were the humans (drawn from isolated populations over a period of millennia) and goblins.

A bit about goblins.  Story wise, I was looking for a way to actually justify a race that continually exhibited cruel or aggressive behavior without resorting to the standard AD&D 'they're evil' approach.  What I decided upon was this: Goblin males outnumber females by 100 to 1 or more - yet retain a very strong desire to breed.  Goblins are not born; rather they are 'hatched' in groups of 2 to 20 - give or take.  These groups - 'packs' - form 'family units' with a defined pecking order for each pack.   The females choose their mates (a temporary position).  Hence competition for breeding rights between packs, and even within packs is fierce.  What humans would term murder is (often) acceptable in most goblin societies.  Raiding the neighbors (of any race) is also common.  For more civilized goblins, its (usually) tournaments or duels instead of murder, and agreements with the neighbors are (usually) honored.  Leadership is the top goblins from each of the top packs, with 'input' from the females - though there are also rare 'goblin kings' - near unique beings with formidable magical skills.  Despite their alien biology, a goblin could pass as a short human in poor light, if one overlooked the pig-like noses and four fingered hands. 

Yes, I have elves.  Their ancestors were humans who had alien 'souls' implanted within them as a result of bizarre experimentation by the ancient aliens. Their souls are essentially trapped in this realm of existence. These alien souls altered the bodies physically, giving elves a mystical connection - and an aura which can have strange effects on humans.  (Remember your Tolkien - yes, there were several small nations of elves, with neighbors of other races - but they had very little to do with each other.  Reason: elves were regarded as dangerous to associate with - think what happened to the dwarves in the hobbit when they tried crashing an elf celebration, and Boromir's reservations about another elf nation.)  In my world, these issues resulted in the 'March' a sort of anything goes buffer region between the elf realm proper and the human nations.

Then there are the rachasa, another hybrid creation of the ancient aliens, apparently created to be roving warriors/enforcers.  These are 'cat-people' possessed of near superhero level physical abilities: they can jump straight up for several meters, and with a running start can leap a twenty meter plus chasm.  Fur ranging from white to black (usually brown/tan/gold), three fingered hands and feet with long retractable claws. While there are larger groups - tribes/cities into the thousands, most ae in tiny hamlets or nomadic groups of no more than a few dozen. Not interested in commerce, except in an academic/game sense; not big on making things, though they're fond enough of baubles.  Rachasa dislike fire. They will often keep members of other races around for cooking and making things.   Instead, they are warriors/hunters.  Rachasa enclaves in large, mixed race communities tend towards herders or enforcers.

Or to boil it all down, the needs of the story determine if a new race is needed or not, and what attributes that race should have.

(And yes, I have dwarves...though not the classical game variety)


----------



## skip.knox

A couple of people have made this point, so Captain Redundant here will make it again. When you take humans and exaggerate them, readers immediately start wondering how that would work (the example was gigantism). But if you posit a giant race (ettins), then readers accept the unusual more readily. To put it differently, the former verges on SF while the latter is fantasy. SF is a tough crowd.

It's true that human societies vary quite a bit. Rather than conclude that I can just have humans, I decided that my non-human races ought to exhibit a similar variety. That has led me down some interesting (to me) roads.

For example, gnomes are subservient. It's in their nature. They are almost dog-like in that they feel most comfortable when working around and for others. There are historical reasons for this, but the result is that for every human community you will nearly always find a gnome community. I essentially removed serfs from the human side of the socio-economic equation and used gnomes instead. In later centuries of Altearth this produces some serious social introspection.  But being a gnome has other consequences as well--in how they organize themselves socially, how gnome law intersects with human or dwarf law (elves are a separate matter), and how they get treated when they get conquered by orcs or trolls. 

To offer another example, my elves are a shattered, scattered people. They do not build cities. They have little to do with humans or dwarves. Fisher elves are quite different from wagoneers who differ in turn from field elves. The differences stem from how they came to Europa in the first place. At the same time, though, they share certain characteristics that set them apart from the other peoples.

The world building fun for me has come from finding ways to create diversity within each nation (elf, dwarf, orc, etc) while at the same time coming up with commonalities that make all humans recognizably human rather than elf, for example. In doing so I've been rather surprised to find that the two nations that share the most in common are human and orc. I didn't expect that one. But it helps explain why those two fight more bitterly and for longer than any others.

And, as a final comment to this long post, I don't think I could have achieved this wide of variety had I populated my world only with humans.


----------



## Peregrine

Thanks for advice.

I will have 5 "races".

Actually only two of my "races" are inspired by Norse Mythology, I have the "race" of trolls, but the only thing that is Norse mythology about my trolls is that I named my "race" trolls and nothing else.

HOW DO I MAKE DWARFS AND TROLLS SPECIAL/UNIQUE?

Every "race" is different from each other, but I wonder how do I make the "races" special, I don't mean a unique society/civilization, but inherently/biologically/physically/mentally different? I mean what is the advantage/benefits and abilities of being a dwarf for example?

What makes the ettin race special?
- The ettins are the physically strongest of all "races". (I succeeded in making the ettins unique).

What makes the dwarf race special?
- I don't know...

What makes the troll race special?
- The trolls are more resistant to cold/icy weather than humans or dwarfs. They are so well adapted to cold weather, that they need less clothes than humans or dwarfs.

How do I make my dwarfs special? I am clueless how to make my dwarfs unique (not societies/civilizations but as a biological species).

But there is a problem with trolls, actually trolls are not completely unique because my vampires are completely immune to cold temperature, trolls are not immune to cold weather, they are just better adapted to it.
What can I do? What ability/advantage could trolls have?


----------



## ThinkerX

Peregrine said:


> Thanks for advice.
> 
> I will have 5 "races".
> 
> Actually only two of my "races" are inspired by Norse Mythology, I have the "race" of trolls, but the only thing that is Norse mythology about my trolls is that I named my "race" trolls and nothing else.
> 
> HOW DO I MAKE DWARFS AND TROLLS SPECIAL/UNIQUE?
> 
> Every "race" is different from each other, but I wonder how do I make the "races" special, I don't mean a unique society/civilization, but inherently/biologically/physically/mentally different? I mean what is the advantage/benefits and abilities of being a dwarf for example?
> 
> What makes the ettin race special?
> - The ettins are the physically strongest of all "races". (I succeeded in making the ettins unique).
> 
> What makes the dwarf race special?
> - I don't know...
> 
> What makes the troll race special?
> - The trolls are more resistant to cold/icy weather than humans or dwarfs. They are so well adapted to cold weather, that they need less clothes than humans or dwarfs.
> 
> How do I make my dwarfs special? I am clueless how to make my dwarfs unique (not societies/civilizations but individuals themselves)
> 
> But there is a problem with trolls, actually trolls are not completely unique because my vampires are completely immune to cold temperature, trolls are not immune to cold weather, they are just better adapted to it.
> What can I do? What ability/advantage could trolls have?



You might take another look at the mythology.  'Trolls' in Norse mythology, are noted for being bigger, stronger, and uglier than humans.  But what makes them feared is their skill with magic and dislike of humans.  

Likewise, dwarves in Norse mythology are noted for their magic and dislike of humanity.  They may actually be a variant of elves.

I have 'Trollborn' in my world, descendants of humans who dwelt too long near potent magical sites.  They are noted for their size (usually six foot plus), strength (substantial, but not extreme), homeliness (none will win a beauty contest) and unstable temperament. The 'true strains' - the ones that mutated the most - are reputed to live for centuries and also have reputations as powerful sorcerers. The others often have the potential for magic, but lack the focus to learn more than the simplest spells  - though there are exceptions.  (I have a series of short stories featuring the adventures of Toki Trollborn the mage/thief and his hobgoblin warrior companion Hock-Nar.)

Dwarves in my worlds are merely very short humans who sometimes dwell in enclaves or settlements of their kind.  They are considered to be clever in mind and hand, and are often found as servants/advisors to the powerful, or in large artisan shops.  Their physique pretty much rules out warrior careers, though some enlist in the army anyhow, where they serve as 'specialists.' Apart from their size, the only other thing that distinguishes them from humans is a slightly longer lifespan (a few decades).


----------



## DeathtoTrite

So, I'm rather a fan of human only or human dominated fantasy worlds but fantasy races have their role. What I really, really loathe is "race as culture". Real life humans aren't homogeneous, so why should dwarfs, elves, or orcs be? (they can be, but that should be a major point)

The giantism thing is a good example though. You could have some explanation about a human subspecies that becomes a race of giants... or just call them giants and you've accomplished the same thing much more neatly.


----------



## Annoyingkid

Fantasy races are an easy way to justify superhuman abilities without having to go into a long convoluted explanation/ magic system for why a human being can do whatever. Allows for more freedom in fights. without being burdened by realism, meaning no need to worry about high infection risk, cumulative brain injury with every impact, easily broken bones  vulnerability to temperature change, loud sound, and other human frailties. As individuals, human beings are pretty pathetic. It's as a society, as a collective that the human race comes into it's own.


----------



## ThinkerX

DeathtoTrite said:


> So, I'm rather a fan of human only or human dominated fantasy worlds but fantasy races have their role. What I really, really loathe is "race as culture". Real life humans aren't homogeneous, so why should dwarfs, elves, or orcs be? (they can be, but that should be a major point)
> 
> The giantism thing is a good example though. You could have some explanation about a human subspecies that becomes a race of giants... or just call them giants and you've accomplished the same thing much more neatly.



I had something like this in my 'other world' - a city-state of warriors, 'blessed' with immense size (over a few generations) by their deities (whose priests imposed a 'special diet.')  These giants, numbering into the thousands, embarked on a campaign of conquest.  But leadership squabbles, lack of access to the 'special diet,' and genetic issues pretty much ended that.  Now, they exist as isolated villages and enclaves scattered over a wide area.


----------



## Holman

Reading this again (sans wine) this is actually a very interesting discussion that touches in many ways at the heart of "traditional" fantasy vs some of the more modern works that have become popular - Abercrombie, Brett, Sanderson, Martin, Lawrence

Are we more likely to believe in the abilities of Fantasy races and thus accept the new reality that writers are trying to deliver, or is the grittier human only real-world  (sometimes post apocalyptic) more valid?

Are the writers of "traditional" fantasy lazier because they rely on standards with a little bit of tweaking, compared to the history building and exposition that human only writers have to put in to make the abilities of their "races" more believable?

I think I will leave that out there.


----------



## Peregrine

Fantasy can be gritty with fantasy races, although not with creatures such as cat-people, mermaids and centaurs.

Nevermind, what physical/inherent/mental/biological  abilities or advantages could the troll "race" have?

My trolls are not better at magic than other "races", please something other than magic.


----------



## Holman

Peregrine said:


> Fantasy can be gritty with fantasy races, although not with creatures such as cat-people, mermaids and centaurs.



Indeed they can be, I was trying (somewhat lazily) to to distinguish between standards using sweeping generalisations.



			
				Nevermind said:
			
		

> Where are they located? What is their environment like? I would suggest that being evolved to live in this place would give you some solutions to these questions. Are they prey? What do they prey upon? What would be an advantage that has allowed to them to fit into the environmental/ecological niche that they occupy?
> 
> I spent an interesting two weeks with a class of 11-year-olds evolving creatures based on their physical features - we discussed what would be useful for various environments that the had designed, thought of issues that they might face and then created some charts that ranked the features that their creatures had in terms of how useful they were to survival - we then went through 6 generations of creatures - creating family trees and interbreeding them between families until we had evolved creatures suitable to the environment - rolling dice to see which attribute a child got from it's mother or father and then whether it survived in the environment in which it lived. Lots of fun and an approach I have taken in past dabblings to create creatures for worlds.


----------



## elemtilas

Peregrine said:


> Fantasy can be gritty with fantasy races, although not with creatures such as cat-people, mermaids and centaurs.



I would hazard the guess that "grittier" is more a style of writing or perspective on setting than it is anything to do with specific kinds of people. Why couldn't werecats or merfolk be in a "gritty" fantasy?



> Nevermind, what physical/inherent/mental/biological  abilities or advantages could the troll "race" have?
> 
> My trolls are not better at magic than other "races", please something other than magic.



Could be anything, of course. In _the World_ there are a couple kinds of "trollish" folks. Yttuun, while in appearance look like classic D&D type Ettins, two-headed club-wielding giants, they really are dab hands with weaving (possibly even spindle magic) and animal husbandry. Also, they are natural poets and tonguecrafters.

Another "trollish" kind are the Turghun (a kind of mixed-breed race). Having a strong Orcish ancestry, they are natural warriors and trackers. But they shine brightest when given a spade, a watering tin and a small shed at the back of the garden, for they turn out to be rather gifted gardeners and tinkerers.


----------



## Holman

I did post an answer previously, but it appears to have gone for moderation. Not sure why though.


----------



## Steerpike

elemtilas said:


> I would hazard the guess that "grittier" is more a style of writing or perspective on setting than it is anything to do with specific kinds of people. Why couldn't werecats or merfolk be in a "gritty" fantasy?



They could be, of course. Whether writing or a world is "gritty" is completely independent of such factors.


----------



## FifthView

I haven't read through the whole thread, so I might be repeating some of what others have said.

Weirdly, I was listening to some old Writing Excuses podcasts yesterday that I have on my iPhone, and one of those asked exactly the same question you asked. Their general answer was because it was fun, fantastic, the sort of thing people coming to fantasy or sci-fi like to see. Except, Sanderson commented that he makes a conscious effort to not include many fantasy races, if any; but, he saw this as a possible deficiency in his work, something to maybe work on.

Really, it just comes down to what you want to do, and why.

I think fictional races offer some opportunities to explore humans better. Culture clashes--in-group and out-group things--and various other psychological and cultural differences. You can do this simply with different tribes and nations of humans, of course. But adding the other races might accentuate the differences. Consider the way sci-fi has done this with extraterrestrial beings. The unknown factors can play havoc with human worldviews. But also, sometimes it's the discovery of similarity between races that is used to reveal something about us, life, the universe, and everything, heh.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

I think the answer can be found with Tolkien. Dwarves and elves aren't randomly there for the hell of it. They are part of the world's creation myth. If they fit your mythology, run with it, if they don't then nix them.

Unless the market you're aiming for are elf and dwarf lovers! In that case, make them fit. There's nothing wrong with serving this audience, it's big, and we're in the entertainment business. So, entertain.

In my world there is a wild array of intelligent species, but the stories are human-centric, some races will probably never show up in the books. Some will go extinct along the timeline. The dwarf-like people are humans, but something of an alternate evolution, the distinction is their affinity to earth magic. Interbreeding with normal humans would diminish this ability, so they remain fairly xenophobic in their mountains and foothills. All the peoples of the world are the result of alternate evolutionary Earths with magic kicked in, not that they or the reader has a clue about this, and so they all fit the mythology. 

And yes, despite some cute and fuzzies, the world and stories are gritty to dark... but like life, they go all over the place too.


----------



## glutton

Peregrine said:


> Fantasy can be gritty with fantasy races, although not with creatures such as cat-people, mermaids and centaurs.
> 
> Nevermind, what physical/inherent/mental/biological  abilities or advantages could the troll "race" have?
> 
> My trolls are not better at magic than other "races", please something other than magic.



Tough skin that is harder to cut/pierce (on a level akin to leather armor or stronger) is a pretty common trait of troll-type creatures in fantasy.


----------



## Steerpike

As an aside:

Would be interesting to see a challenge for gritty/grimdark fantasy using traditional fantasy tropes and races that might not appear to lend themselves to grittiness. What do you guys think?

Looking at the ones mentioned above:

1. Cat-people: cats are predatory animals. Turning a story about cat people into a gritty, violent, and downright nasty story doesn't seem to be much of a stretch;

2. Mermaids: these creatures are physical abominations that imitate human beauty and use the promise of sex to lure people to horrible deaths beneath the waves. Forget gritty fantasy, you could write a straight up horror story about these.

3. Centaurs: powerful creature. Tribal/herd societies. You don't have to run far with that to get to a particularly brutal race of creatures that no one would want to meet. 

Would make for an interesting challenge, I think. Maybe there could be a prize.


----------



## TheKillerBs

Annoyingkid said:


> As individuals, human beings are pretty pathetic. It's as a society, as a collective that the human race comes into it's own.


Yeah, we turned our one-time greatest predator into our best friend because it was the only animal that could sort of keep up with us in terms of endurance. I'm gonna go ahead and say humans are just fine in terms of physical ability. Which brings me to the point. Why not make humans the endurance race if you have multiple races? Rather than being the generalist base type, why not give 'em the advantage we've had in the real world since we realised that walking upright was cooler than doing so on all fours?


----------



## Mythopoet

Peregrine said:


> Tolkien's Middle-Earth was not "Norse" enough for me, even though it is probably the most Norse book that ever existed.



Try some Poul Anderson, especially The Broken Sword. Also Gene Wolfe's The Wizard Knight duology. The Wizard Knight utilizes a basically Norse cosmology. Anything is possible in fantasy as long as you set your imagination free. 


To me, the purpose of having fantasy races is the Sense of Wonder they contribute to. People have been imagining supernatural races ever since storytelling was a thing (which is basically since language was invented). Sentient creatures that are not human are one of those things that almost universally sparks the imagination and creates awe. If you don't personally feel wonder and excitement at the thought of fantasy races, then it's perfectly fine to leave them out. Fantasy doesn't require them. But if you do, it would be silly to leave them out. There's so much storytelling potential when humanity can be compared and contrasted with other sentient beings with different natures.


----------



## FifthView

Steerpike said:


> 2. Mermaids: these creatures are physical abominations that imitate human beauty and use the promise of sex to lure people to horrible deaths beneath the waves. Forget gritty fantasy, you could write a straight up horror story about these.



There are actually modern stories coming out of some areas in Africa about real mermaids in rivers doing this sort of thing. They aren't using sex to lure, but lurk under the waters and grab children and other smallish bodied adults under the water to kill them. I happened upon some of these stories a few months ago. I think one was about the waters near a dam, and another was about workers creating a dam. Killer mermaids.

On a side note....I think that some people do associate grimdark, gritty fantasy with low fantasy; maybe this is just because that's how a lot of it has been written, not that this needs to be the way it's always written.


----------



## skip.knox

Peregrin asked how to make dwarves special. In the descriptions in that post I notice all the characteristics mentioned are physical. I suggest looking beyond the physical to psychology, sociology, even culture. 

Someone mentioned, for example, their trolls are short-tempered, even unstable. How are your dwarves to be around? Are they dour and grim. My dwarves are great ones for rules and ritual and tradition. They do have their fun, but it tends to be organized and orchestrated rather than spontaneous. This sets up a story opportunity for the dwarf who yearns to break out from his carefully regulated life. Moreover, elves are highly individualistic. They look upon dwarves with baffled contempt. They simply do not understand dwarves and dismiss them out of hand. In turn, dwarves regard elves with something like horror. That independence feels like chaos. Oddly enough, dwarves do better with wagoneer elves, who at least have something like a clan structure ("clan and canton" is a foundational notion among dwarves).

That said, there is also room for variation among dwarves. Lots of variation. But in the end, dwarves are clannish. If on their own, they seek out their own. When they build towns, it's for their own kind. They don't exclude outsiders, but neither do they do much to welcome them. This behavior sets a common baseline for dwarves wherever they are.

That's enough, I think, to make the point. The physical differences can be relevant (e.g., tough skin might make them more reckless in battle), but physical traits alone will not be determinant. How do your dwarves live? How do they get along with others? What is their history? As you add layers, your dwarves will start to come alive.


----------



## Steerpike

FifthView said:


> There are actually modern stories coming out of some areas in Africa about real mermaids in rivers doing this sort of thing. They aren't using sex to lure, but lurk under the waters and grab children and other smallish bodied adults under the water to kill them. I happened upon some of these stories a few months ago. I think one was about the waters near a dam, and another was about workers creating a dam. Killer mermaids.
> 
> On a side note....I think that some people do associate grimdark, gritty fantasy with low fantasy; maybe this is just because that's how a lot of it has been written, not that this needs to be the way it's always written.



Those sound like interesting stories. I'll have to look for them.

Gritty fantasy does seem to be mostly human-centered, low fantasy (setting aside the Warhammer setting, whence the term grimdark comes I believe). But yes, it could be written to incorporate the trappings of high fantasy, many different races and creatures, etc.


----------



## ThinkerX

> 1. Cat-people: cats are predatory animals. Turning a story about cat people into a gritty, violent, and downright nasty story doesn't seem to be much of a stretch;



That pretty much sums up the rachasa (cat-people) in my worlds.  In one story, a character has nightmares about his times in the (roman style) legions.  They were dug in and ready for the cat warriors, outnumbering them four or five to one - and were still almost wiped out.  In another story, cat-warriors (as part of a larger force) leaped across a twenty meter chasm to take a fortified city (not all made the jump).

On the other hand, individual bands do pay friendly visits to cities and fiefs of other races.



> 2. Mermaids: these creatures are physical abominations that imitate human beauty and use the promise of sex to lure people to horrible deaths beneath the waves. Forget gritty fantasy, you could write a straight up horror story about these.



 Not mermaids specifically, but there are lots of vaguely humanoid aquatic abominations in the mythology.  The Russian version is especially terrifying.


----------



## Steerpike

ThinkerX said:


> Not mermaids specifically, but there are lots of vaguely humanoid aquatic abominations in the mythology.  The Russian version is especially terrifying.



Yes. I have a short story involving a Rusalka. Not nice


----------



## glutton

Peregrine said:


> Fantasy can be gritty with fantasy races, although not with creatures such as cat-people, mermaids and centaurs.



BTW, I don't know about centaurs not belonging in gritty fantasy considering Nessus in the original mythology already tried to rape Heracles' wife and then tricked her into causing his death... which is pretty gritty.


----------



## Annoyingkid

TheKillerBs said:


> Yeah, we turned our one-time greatest predator into our best friend because it was the only animal that could sort of keep up with us in terms of endurance. I'm gonna go ahead and say humans are just fine in terms of physical ability. Which brings me to the point. Why not make humans the endurance race if you have multiple races? Rather than being the generalist base type, why not give 'em the advantage we've had in the real world since we realised that walking upright was cooler than doing so on all fours?




Humans are physically the weakest of the great apes by far. A chimpanzee tore a woman's face off and tore off her hands. That was on Oprah. A bear killed a man by decapitating him with one swipe. That was described on Ray Mears' bushcraft show. Individual humans only do well in fantasy when writers make him quasi superheroes like Paolini did with Roran. Realistically ain't no human general leading from the front. Especially not a King. In terms of endurance, we're good in the real world, but when humans go up against fantasy creatures in general, humans really have to pick their battles and stay in their league to avoid being ROFLstomped.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QdLxF3BjEPQ/VcoDoJhmLJI/AAAAAAAA3Gg/uia6juCi6Kc/s640/bloodthirster.PNG

Because when you start giving humans superhuman abilities like magic etc, you aren't writing humans anymore, you're just writing another fantasy race with the human label.


----------



## Tom

Annoyingkid said:


> Humans are physically the weakest of the great apes by far. A chimpanzee tore a woman's face off and tore off her hands. That was on Oprah. A bear killed a man by decapitating him with one swipe. That was described on Ray Mears' bushcraft show. Individual humans only do well in fantasy when writers make him quasi superheroes like Paolini did with Roran. Realistically ain't no human general leading from the front. Especially not a King. In terms of endurance, we're good in the real world, but when humans go up against fantasy creatures in general, humans really have to pick their battles and stay in their league to avoid being ROFLstomped.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QdLxF3BjEPQ/VcoDoJhmLJI/AAAAAAAA3Gg/uia6juCi6Kc/s640/bloodthirster.PNG
> 
> Because when you start giving humans superhuman abilities like magic etc, you aren't writing humans anymore, you're just writing another fantasy race with the human label.



I think humans are a lot better equipped for fantasy than you give us credit for. We may not be the strongest, but we're incredibly resilient, inventive, and highly adaptable. Those are our main strengths. Despite being unable to go toe-to-toe with larger species like bears or other primates, we have a number of inherent advantages. Endurance is the biggest--our ancestors survived by persistence hunting, a method in which we simply followed prey on foot until it was too exhausted to keep going. Our gaits have a crazy energy curve that allows us to spend less energy switching between gait types for rest, owing to our unique ability to modulate the way we breathe (which is in turn a perk of having no weight-bearing limbs attached to our ribcages). 

In fantasy, we're also not playing with real-world rules. The term human is very subjective in the fantasy genre. People who can use magic are (usually) still seen as human. Humans may live longer, be stronger or faster, or have other inhuman traits, but they can still be considered human. I started a thread going on here a while ago, actually, where we discussed just when fantasy humans stopped being human. It seems you can stretch humanity quite a bit before we become unrecognizable--our most distinctive traits, after all, are not our physical abilities but our psychology. It's true that it can get a bit ridiculous when you take our natural abilities into the realm of the implausible (like Roran in your example), but I think humans can take almost anything the fantasy genre can sling at us with a little grit and ingenuity. 

(Besides, kings and generals have no place leading at the front anyway. That's just some inaccurate ridiculousness, not evidence of human inferiority.)


----------



## TheKillerBs

But see, now you're making assumptions. You're assuming that I mean giving them super-endurance. I don't mean that. I mean give them baseline human endurance, and make that their advantage, meaning that your regular elf or orc or whatever would have less endurance than a typical person. Maybe not a typical modern person due to couch potato syndrome, but you know, someone from before the internal combustion engine ended walking as the primary mode of transportation.

Also, regarding great apes, they may have greater power, but they do not have greater endurance than we do. And if you give me a chimp or even a gorilla with a rock or a human with a rock, I will take the human every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Humans can pitch. We are the only animals that can do so.


----------



## Ban

Annoyingkid said:


> Realistically ain't no human general leading from the front. Especially not a King. I



Tell that to Stonewall Jackson, Erwin Rommel, George Washington, Hannibal Barca and even Julius Caesar on occasion. Annoyingkid, humans really are not as feeble as you think they are.


----------



## TheKillerBs

Banten said:


> Tell that to Stonewall Jackson, Erwin Rommel, George Washington, Hannibal Barca and even Julius Caesar on occasion. Annoyingkid, humans really are not as feeble as you think they are.



I think it's not just him, but lots of people think the same way. I think it's because we don't tend to be impressed by stuff we ourselves can do and I think the portrayal of humans in comparison to other sapients in speculative fiction is a testament to that.  It's also partly why I suggested giving humans their real world advantage in a world with other races. Humanity is awesome and more people need to see that.


----------



## Tom

Hear hear! As someone who just barely decided against becoming an anthropology major, I appreciate it when authors give humanity our due.


----------



## glutton

Tom said:


> (Besides, kings and generals have no place leading at the front anyway. That's just some inaccurate ridiculousness, not evidence of human inferiority.)



But many rulers fought and even died in battle:

Did Kings really fight on the front lines? : history


----------



## Viorp

We have a hell lot of proof that in medieval times Kings were on the battlefield.
Even when Spain had a Queen she was present on the frontline in battle just to lift the spirits of her subordinates.
The practice was not really good from a tactical standpoint, but genious from a psychological one.


----------



## Steerpike

Viorp said:


> We have a hell lot of proof that in medieval times Kings were on the battlefield.
> Even when Spain had a Queen she was present on the frontline in battle just to lift the spirits of her subordinates.
> The practice was not really good from a tactical standpoint, but genious from a psychological one.



I think it is relatively recently that this sort of thing stopped. Early to mid 1800s, with the advent of more modern warfare.


----------



## Annoyingkid

Tom said:


> I think humans are a lot better equipped for fantasy than you give us credit for. We may not be the strongest, but we're incredibly resilient, inventive, and highly adaptable. Those are our main strengths. Despite being unable to go toe-to-toe with larger species like bears or other primates, we have a number of inherent advantages. Endurance is the biggest--our ancestors survived by persistence hunting, a method in which we simply followed prey on foot until it was too exhausted to keep going. Our gaits have a crazy energy curve that allows us to spend less energy switching between gait types for rest, owing to our unique ability to modulate the way we breathe (which is in turn a perk of having no weight-bearing limbs attached to our ribcages).



For a start, many fantasy races are humanoid in form, so already have these listed advantages by default.
As I said before, humans were only able to do this through numbers and teamwork. If you want powerful special characters, humans are the wrong race to pick. You can have a tactical genius, but that's about it. In terms of might, humans are all about the same. Those who specialize in one thing, lose ability in another. 




> In fantasy, we're also not playing with real-world rules. The term human is very subjective in the fantasy genre. People who can use magic are (usually) still seen as human. Humans may live longer, be stronger or faster, or have other inhuman traits, but they can still be considered human.



If you're going to do that, the rationale mentioned earlier for sticking with humans as default becomes weaker the more the enhanced they are.  The topic question becomes incoherent because in terms of story effect there isn't any inherent difference between a superhuman and a fantasy race that can do the exact same things. Only the names are different. You may as well toss a coin then.



> I think humans can take almost anything the fantasy genre can sling at us with a little grit and ingenuity.



In Warhammer 40,000, without The Space Marines, the humans could not have survived. Period.

I know in my own story, humans wouldn't have made it out of book 1. The reason for this is the final battle. First wave is countless monsters each ripped to shreds and three times the height of a man. They're joined by 2 city sinking godzilla sized monsters. Then there's a man, who tough enough to survive atomic bombs with the strength of Superman. Then after that, you have an hour to find the main villain who could be anywhere, and if you don't, he blows up the world. Good luck, humans. LOL. 

In my friend's story, an ancient demon sucks out the souls of mortals just by being anywhere near it. Instant Death.

And then there's this:
https://static.comicvine.com/upload...59-281537_1201837_heat_vizion_super_super.jpg

Truth is there are plenty things in fantasy that can already stomp humans. Much less the things that can be thrown.



> (Besides, kings and generals have no place leading at the front anyway. That's just some inaccurate ridiculousness, not evidence of human inferiority.)



It ties into what I said earlier about the difficulty of having human special characters that aren't arbitrary. Human leaders  can be at the "front" as a morale token, but they aren't at the front front. They ain't fighting with the men. Maybe a few idiots were, but that's foolishness. The whole idea of this Aragorn type king with the magic sword  who charges in and runs at the enemy first is utter ridiculousness.  Fantasy races can get away with this though as the power scale is open ended. It's possible to have a dwarven king who's ancient and say, a hundred times stronger than the next dwarf.


----------



## Holman

Perhaps the antagonist of the piece needs to be toned down a bit to make the victory more believable for a mere human to defeat it. That said, we are dealing with fantasy, why can't we have Human 2.1 instead of Human 1.0? Isn't that kind of the point? Our heroes may start out as apparently ordinary people and discover their talents to become more - we want to go on that journey. Or they may already start out at their pinnacle and fall from grace in someway before redeeming themselves, again we enjoy the journey. 

The journey is for me more important than the destination - often we believe we are heading in one direction, only to take an unexpected turn and seem to be heading elsewhere. As long as the journey is interesting - a trip along a narrow lane with grass growing in the middle was always more interesting as a child than blasting down the motorway.

I do agree that heroes that can defeat hordes of monsters single-handed can be irritating if there is no journey that explains how they are able to manage it. But again that comes down to the choice of enemy rather than the race of the hero.


----------



## Annoyingkid

Of course one can have Human 2.0, but let's not pretend the writer is being any more realistic or gritty than the writer who uses fantasy race 1.0


----------



## Holman

Annoyingkid said:


> Of course one can have Human 2.0, but let's not pretend the writer is being any more realistic or gritty than the writer who uses fantasy race 1.0



The use of the word gritty, was perhaps a poor word choice. I was trying to distinguish between standardised styles  in a genre that has so many subsidiary labels. Fantasy races associated with High and Epic fantasy, as opposed to other "realistic" (a term I used very loosely as catch-all for fantasy that doesn't have standard fantasy races and focuses more on human races).

There have been "gritty" books in the High fantasy genre - The Malazan Book of The Fallen being one of my favourite series.  Man's inhumanity to man will however always be a theme that is more strongly related in books that don't have fantasy races - this is what I meant by gritty. You can't blame the horrors that happen on a fantasy race of giants, orcs or other monstrosity.


----------



## TheKillerBs

Annoyingkid said:


> For a start, many fantasy races are humanoid in form, so already have these listed advantages by default.
> As I said before, humans were only able to do this through numbers and teamwork. If you want powerful special characters, humans are the wrong race to pick. You can have a tactical genius, but that's about it. In terms of might, humans are all about the same. Those who specialize in one thing, lose ability in another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to do that, the rationale mentioned earlier for sticking with humans as default becomes weaker the more the enhanced they are.  The topic question becomes incoherent because in terms of story effect there isn't any inherent difference between a superhuman and a fantasy race that can do the exact same things. Only the names are different. You may as well toss a coin then.
> 
> 
> 
> In Warhammer 40,000, without The Space Marines, the humans could not have survived. Period.
> 
> I know in my own story, humans wouldn't have made it out of book 1. The reason for this is the final battle. First wave is countless monsters each ripped to shreds and three times the height of a man. They're joined by 2 city sinking godzilla sized monsters. Then there's a man, who tough enough to survive atomic bombs with the strength of Superman. Then after that, you have an hour to find the main villain who could be anywhere, and if you don't, he blows up the world. Good luck, humans. LOL.
> 
> In my friend's story, an ancient demon sucks out the souls of mortals just by being anywhere near it. Instant Death.
> 
> And then there's this:
> https://static.comicvine.com/upload...59-281537_1201837_heat_vizion_super_super.jpg
> 
> Truth is there are plenty things in fantasy that can already stomp humans. Much less the things that can be thrown.
> 
> 
> 
> It ties into what I said earlier about the difficulty of having human special characters that aren't arbitrary. Human leaders  can be at the "front" as a morale token, but they aren't at the front front. They ain't fighting with the men. Maybe a few idiots were, but that's foolishness. The whole idea of this Aragorn type king with the magic sword  who charges in and runs at the enemy first is utter ridiculousness.  Fantasy races can get away with this though as the power scale is open ended. It's possible to have a dwarven king who's ancient and say, a hundred times stronger than the next dwarf.



Again, assumptions. Our gait is only one of the things that gives us our endurance. Another is the type of muscle fibre on our legs, and then there are other factors. There is no reason a fantasy race would necessarily have all our advantages in the endurance department AND other physical advantages as well. If you choose to make your fantasy races stronger, that's your prerogative. Good for you. But please don't pretend that's the only way it can or should be. The other choices are equally valid.


----------



## glutton

Annoyingkid said:


> It ties into what I said earlier about the difficulty of having human special characters that aren't arbitrary. Human leaders  can be at the "front" as a morale token, but they aren't at the front front. They ain't fighting with the men. Maybe a few idiots were, but that's foolishness.



You mean real men/women. Some rulers/cultures would probably consider not fighting at the front if one is able bodied to be cowardice.


----------



## Mythopoet

Annoyingkid said:


> For a start, many fantasy races are humanoid in form, so already have these listed advantages by default.
> As I said before, humans were only able to do this through numbers and teamwork. If you want powerful special characters, humans are the wrong race to pick. You can have a tactical genius, but that's about it. In terms of might, humans are all about the same. Those who specialize in one thing, lose ability in another.



To me this just sounds like someone doesn't have a very interesting imagination.  You can do anything in fantasy. Literally anything. That's the whole point of fantasy.


----------



## Steerpike

Holman said:


> There have been "gritty" books in the High fantasy genre - The Malazan Book of The Fallen being one of my favourite series.  Man's inhumanity to man will however always be a theme that is more strongly related in books that don't have fantasy races - this is what I meant by gritty. You can't blame the horrors that happen on a fantasy race of giants, orcs or other monstrosity.



Yes, I was going to mention the Malayan books as an example. However, even with man's inhumanity to man, you could do it effectively with these other types of fantasy races. Imagine a world where orcs or trolls present a danger to humans, but other humans are still the worst bastards you'll ever meet. You could highlight that inhumanity by setting it up in contrast or comparison to the other races.


----------



## FifthView

Annoyingkid said:


> Human leaders  can be at the "front" as a morale token, but they aren't at the front front. They ain't fighting with the men. Maybe a few idiots were, but that's foolishness. The whole idea of this Aragorn type king with the magic sword  who charges in and runs at the enemy first is utter ridiculousness.



This is simply factually incorrect. It's just wrong, absolutely wrong. Alexander comes to mind; but other commenters  have already given examples.

Montaigne wrote an essay in the 16th C. in which he included considerations of this, the relative benefits and disadvantages of generals fighting in the front and from the back, surveying examples through history. He has some great examples of both. That he would even consider the question signals the fact that, throughout history, both have occurred. (Not that we need his word on this matter; there are plenty of other sources.)

It's true that one of the major advantages of having a king or general fighting at the front was morale. One of the disadvantages was having that morale broken if the leader was killed. But there may have been other advantages, such as having a close view of unfolding circumstances and being able to lead men to where they could accomplish the most during combat. Plus, morale is not nothing. Having men fight harder to defend the leader while going where he directed or led would not have been an insignificant advantage.

Your story and your friend's story are mere examples out of a broad set of potentials. I'd rather think that the overpowered non-human types might be less realistic than resourceful humans who have the endurance and strength to fight on. In fact, those non-human types, with our without super abilities, are by definition fantasy, a mere creation of the author's mind.


----------



## FifthView

Are there examples of fantasy novels in which the non-human races are designed with weaknesses, so that the humans are actually the strongest in the world? I mean, inherent physiological and mental weaknesses, not technology. It could be fun to write that story from the perspective of some of those non-human characters, with the humans as the boogeymen of the story. (I'm not counting Bambi or various other Disney movies. Heck, I suppose _Finding Nemo_ counts, also, among others.)


----------



## glutton

FifthView said:


> Are there examples of fantasy novels in which the non-human races are designed with weaknesses, so that the humans are actually the strongest in the world? I mean, inherent physiological and mental weaknesses, not technology. It could be fun to write that story from the perspective of some of those non-human characters, with the humans as the boogeymen of the story. (I'm not counting Bambi or various other Disney movies. Heck, I suppose _Finding Nemo_ counts, also, among others.)



Well, sort of related - when I've had elves appear in one of my stories, the male elves were compared unfavorably in physical terms to the female human MC. Not sure how much that counts considering how sturdy my female MCs (including that one in particular) tend to be though. She's a boogeywoman who can outfight male boxing, kickboxing and MMA champions for fun, beat up and toss around a 400 lb lizard-ape creature, tank multiple assault rifle bullets, undent her car hood by punching it, etc.


----------



## Annoyingkid

TheKillerBs said:


> Again, assumptions. Our gait is only one of the things that gives us our endurance. Another is the type of muscle fibre on our legs, and then there are other factors. There is no reason a fantasy race would necessarily have all our advantages in the endurance department AND other physical advantages as well. If you choose to make your fantasy races stronger, that's your prerogative. Good for you. But please don't pretend that's the only way it can or should be. The other choices are equally valid.



It's not assumptions. The title of this topic is asking what the purpose of using fantasy races are. The answer is so you don't have to limit the power scaling to human levels.  If you want to you could make your elves weak enough to die with a single punch from a human. Which is a valid way of writing fantasy. But then the question is if you want to play around with the epic power levels, how is an endurance muscle fibre going to help you against oh I don't know, a Great Unclean One  http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net...ean_One.png/revision/latest?cb=20150810201802
Which would ravage the body of any human with every single plague in existence.  The point isn't that this is the only way you can write a fantasy, the point is you'd have to write around human limitations. If you don't want to have to do that, and you need someone to fight things like that, then fantasy races can do it as their limits aren't known factors.


----------



## FifthView

glutton said:


> Well, sort of related - when I've had elves appear in one of my stories, the male elves were compared unfavorably in physical terms to the female human MC. Not sure how much that counts considering how sturdy my female MCs (including that one in particular) tend to be though. She's a boogeywoman who can outfight male boxing, kickboxing and MMA champions for fun, beat up and toss around a 400 lb lizard-ape creature, tank multiple assault rifle bullets, undent her car hood by punching it, etc.



Not sure if that counts. 

I was thinking about this thread yesterday and I remembered the Warcraft movie and how ridiculous the sight of humans going mano a mano with _those_ orcs. The Warcraft orcs are basically what might be created if Tolkien's orcs mated with the Incredible Hulk, heh.

So I started wondering how to equalize things. Maybe not with those particular orcs, but a different race of orcs. I thought that maybe giving them great burst energy but poor endurance/stamina might work. I thought about making elves agile but physically somewhat weak, perhaps with less dense/strong bone structure. And so forth. It was an idle brainstorming; I don't plan on doing something like this, at least not for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Holman

FifthView said:


> Are there examples of fantasy novels in which the non-human races are designed with weaknesses, so that the humans are actually the strongest in the world? I mean, inherent physiological and mental weaknesses, not technology. It could be fun to write that story from the perspective of some of those non-human characters, with the humans as the boogeymen of the story. (I'm not counting Bambi or various other Disney movies. Heck, I suppose _Finding Nemo_ counts, also, among others.)



Slightly into the Sci-Fi genre, Edgar Rice-Burroughs wrote the John Carter of Mars series in which the hero is a human that is stronger than the aliens.


----------



## Annoyingkid

FifthView said:


> This is simply factually incorrect. It's just wrong, absolutely wrong. Alexander comes to mind; but other commenters  have already given examples.
> 
> Montaigne wrote an essay in the 16th C. in which he included considerations of this, the relative benefits and disadvantages of generals fighting in the front and from the back, surveying examples through history. He has some great examples of both. That he would even consider the question signals the fact that, throughout history, both have occurred. (Not that we need his word on this matter; there are plenty of other sources.)
> 
> It's true that one of the major advantages of having a king or general fighting at the front was morale. One of the disadvantages was having that morale broken if the leader was killed. But there may have been other advantages, such as having a close view of unfolding circumstances and being able to lead men to where they could accomplish the most during combat. Plus, morale is not nothing. Having men fight harder to defend the leader while going where he directed or led would not have been an insignificant advantage.
> 
> Your story and your friend's story are mere examples out of a broad set of potentials. I'd rather think that the overpowered non-human types might be less realistic than resourceful humans who have the endurance and strength to fight on. In fact, those non-human types, with our without super abilities, are by definition fantasy, a mere creation of the author's mind.



Overpowered non humans can be more realistic than humans as their powers are not their personality. Fundamentals of drama are still adhered to with bigger power stakes. 

You admit this as you give it, that the morale boost is a double edged sword. Seeing the king killed can cause an army to be routed, and given the chaotic brutality of close combat it's highly likely that would happen. The human king doesn't add
 much in the way of combat itself not unless he has alot of magical equipment, which he could let someone else use. One has to balance that against the benefit of a strategic overview of the battle which is by far the most common and standard way wars were fought by rulers.


----------



## FifthView

Annoyingkid said:


> The title of this topic is asking what the purpose of using fantasy races are. The answer is so you don't have to limit the power scaling to human levels.



I think that's only one possible answer among many. It's not the _definitive_ answer. However, I do think that might be one of the prevailing reasons of many approaches that have already come before.

This issue of scale affects many genres. One does not simply design an action hero without giving him a whole cartel to fight, heh.


----------



## FifthView

Annoyingkid said:


> Overpowered non humans can be more realistic than humans as their powers are not their personality. Fundamentals of drama are still adhered to with bigger power stakes.
> 
> You admit this as you give it, that the morale boost is a double edged sword. Seeing the king killed can cause an army to be routed, and given the chaotic brutality of close combat it's highly likely that would happen. The human king doesn't add
> much in the way of combat itself not unless he has alot of magical equipment, which he could let someone else use. One has to balance that against the benefit of a strategic overview of the battle which is by far the most common and standard way wars were fought by rulers.



Historical examples are all human v human. The advantages of having a leader fight up front would take this into account. But that doesn't mean that ignoring all of history simply to make a point about fantasy worlds—largely products of imagination—is an incredibly persuasive argument.

You say, "as their powers are not their personality," and imply that there is a fundamental physical superiority in the non-human races. But this is all by design and might not be designed in such a way. There is no "fundamental" reality there, because it's all fantasy.

On the topic of realism, we could also add a consideration of the most realistic development of civilizations on a world populated by multiple intelligent races in close proximity with one another. Realistically, if the physical and mental advantages of one race far outstripped those of another race, chances are good that the stronger races would have already come to dominate the world. Realistically for such a world, if you are going to have a human civilization, then some balancing factors would need to be created.

One might use magic for those balancing factors, or technology. But I don't think those need to be the only two possibilities.


----------



## glutton

FifthView said:


> Not sure if that counts.



Well, it's an example of a peak human of that world being physically superior to members of a fantasy race, but a closer example might be the story I'm planning where the elves explicitly have hollow bones and are thus much lighter (and easier to knock/toss around) than a human of equivalent height. Of course the elf MC will also be paired with a stocky 5'10 180+ lb female human companion nicknamed "Mare" (more similar to my usual heroines) for contrast and for the latter to poke fun at the elf's puniness and have her ride around on her shoulder etc.


----------



## Steerpike

There are plenty of fantasy books/movies/shows with OP humans. It's something you can choose to do instead of using fantasy races to fill in those gaps.


----------



## Annoyingkid

FifthView said:


> Historical examples are all human v human. The advantages of having a leader fight up front would take this into account. But that doesn't mean that ignoring all of history simply to make a point about fantasy worlds—largely products of imagination—is an incredibly persuasive argument.



I don't see why its relevant that historical examples were all human v human. The same principle applies. Through all of history generals and kings almost always stayed back in order to strategically direct the battle. In order for it to be justifiable for a king to join melee, that king need to bring something to combat that outweighs his strategic utility or any morale that can be gained simply from his presence on the field. In real world close combat he's almost as easily killed as any other soldier. If you give him things like magic armour and weapons than maybe, but then again you're just making him a superhero then. So that he's human becomes a moot point.



> You say, "as their powers are not their personality," and imply that there is a fundamental physical superiority in the non-human races. But this is all by design and might not be designed in such a way. There is no "fundamental" reality there, because it's all fantasy.



That's not my position. _There is no fundamental physical superiority in non human races_. There's no fundamental ANYTHING in non human races. That's the point. You don't have to write around known limits. 

R





> ealistically for such a world, if you are going to have a human civilization, then some balancing factors would need to be created.



Usually numbers is the balancing factor. Humans outnumber fantasy races. I said that from the beginning, that humans are strong as a society and a collective. Not individually really.



> One might use magic for those balancing factors, or technology. But I don't think those need to be the only two possibilities.



One could use magic yes but again, I would question the line between human and fantasy race if you do so. It blurs the line.


----------



## glutton

Annoyingkid said:


> In order for it to be justifiable for a king to join melee, that king need to bring something to combat that outweighs his strategic utility or any morale that can be gained simply from his presence on the field.



But that's blatantly wrong since there are many examples of rulers going into battle without being superhuman. Cultural norms or personal pride can easily factor into this as well.

Why are you so singleminded in insisting there is only one "right" way to do things even when there are real life examples of the opposite, do you realize that is really offputting? It's like if I insisted everyone else should write their female MCs as superhuman warrior badasses who can shrug off impalement, high caliber gunfire (or the fantasy equivalent), falling hundreds of feet, divine/dark lord level magic, etc.


----------



## Tom

Annoyingkid said:


> For a start, many fantasy races are humanoid in form, so already have these listed advantages by default.
> As I said before, humans were only able to do this through numbers and teamwork. If you want powerful special characters, humans are the wrong race to pick. You can have a tactical genius, but that's about it. In terms of might, humans are all about the same. Those who specialize in one thing, lose ability in another.



If by specialization you mean what I think you mean, you're not entirely correct. The human body can be trained in multiple skills without losing ability. I'm a weightlifter and a fencer who fights in two disciplines--epee and foil. For weightlifting, I need to be strong. For fencing foil, I need to be fast and agile. For epee, I need exceptional endurance. A friend of mine is a soccer player, a rower, and a saber fencer--three different sports that require very different skill sets. He and I can do these things because we've trained our bodies to have a combination of traits. Specialization doesn't always mean sacrificing versatility. 



> If you're going to do that, the rationale mentioned earlier for sticking with humans as default becomes weaker the more the enhanced they are.  The topic question becomes incoherent because in terms of story effect there isn't any inherent difference between a superhuman and a fantasy race that can do the exact same things. Only the names are different. You may as well toss a coin then.



This is not necessarily true. A human with better-than-average physical abilities is still human. A human with magic is still human. In fantasy, you can do a lot to alter the baseline of what is considered "human" without having to call them by a different name. Without the real-world constraints of other genres, we have more freedom to play fast and loose with our species. What I'm trying to say is that assuming fantasy races are necessary by dismissing humans outright is just plain unimaginative.  



> In Warhammer 40,000, without The Space Marines, the humans could not have survived. Period.
> 
> I know in my own story, humans wouldn't have made it out of book 1. The reason for this is the final battle. First wave is countless monsters each ripped to shreds and three times the height of a man. They're joined by 2 city sinking godzilla sized monsters. Then there's a man, who tough enough to survive atomic bombs with the strength of Superman. Then after that, you have an hour to find the main villain who could be anywhere, and if you don't, he blows up the world. Good luck, humans. LOL.
> 
> In my friend's story, an ancient demon sucks out the souls of mortals just by being anywhere near it. Instant Death.
> 
> And then there's this:
> https://static.comicvine.com/upload...59-281537_1201837_heat_vizion_super_super.jpg
> 
> Truth is there are plenty things in fantasy that can already stomp humans. Much less the things that can be thrown.



You seem to have a very misanthropic outlook, friend. And some very overpowered enemies. Of course humans aren't going to do well in a situation like that--what you've set up is a world in which fantasy races are needed because the sheer scale of the conflict is so stacked against humans. _Not all fantasy worlds are like this._ Humans still have their place in fantasy. 

In my own WIP, humans are the only race. They face mass extinction by ancient, corrupted magic that is starting to tear the world apart at the seams. Up against suddenly hostile forests that are starting to awaken, as well as giant magical monsters and sorcerers who have become more than human, they may seem weak and easily defeated. But that's the point of my story. Human tenacity is enough to keep them fighting; they don't confront the danger directly but rather find and exploit its weaknesses, strategize in unorthodox ways, and do all they can to keep out of its way until they have a method to neutralize it. 



> It ties into what I said earlier about the difficulty of having human special characters that aren't arbitrary. Human leaders  can be at the "front" as a morale token, but they aren't at the front front. They ain't fighting with the men. Maybe a few idiots were, but that's foolishness. The whole idea of this Aragorn type king with the magic sword  who charges in and runs at the enemy first is utter ridiculousness.  Fantasy races can get away with this though as the power scale is open ended. It's possible to have a dwarven king who's ancient and say, a hundred times stronger than the next dwarf.



Mm. This still falls into the assumption that kings would do this regularly. As some other people have pointed out, real-world leaders in bygone eras did fight alongside their men. However, in a fantasy world where the enemies are so much more powerful than humans, it's not realistic to assume this. Aragorn is not a great example because his role in the final battle was to rally the armies of the free world against the enemy. This was a last-ditch effort to distract Sauron from the Ring. No one was expecting to come out of it alive.


----------



## Malik

Annoyingkid said:


> The title of this topic is asking what the purpose of using fantasy races are. The answer is so you don't have to limit the power scaling to human levels.



First off, it's not your place to tell people what the purpose of anything in literature is. That's not how writing works. You can use any character or plot device for whatever the hell you want; this is imagery, symbolism, and allegory, which are three of the basic building blocks of all human stories. Things in stories often represent other things. Cain and Abel as the introduction of violence to society. The apple symbolizing sin in the whole Adam and Eve thing. The shark in _Jaws_ as representative of primordial conflict. That's how stories work. Words mean stuff, but stuff often means other stuff. Stories can tell their own stories.

Secondly, I'm fairly sure that the sole purpose of fantasy races is not "power scaling." Maybe it is to you, and that's great.

Getting back to words meaning other stuff, one common literary purpose behind fantasy races is to give viewpoints on the story from others in the story who may not see things the way that humans do. This means that the only "wrong" way to use fantasy races is to represent them as physically different from humans (or maybe more "power scaled"), while representing them as emotionally and psychologically indistinct. And even that's not wrong, I guess. It is, however, wasteful.

Fantasy races are ideal tools to create a sharper shift in character voice than you could get from another human. They don't have to be used this way, of course, and I'm not going to tell you that it's their "purpose." But they sure work good for this.

More on fantasy races here.

To see this in action, I have a piece on fantasy languages, conlanging, and characterization here. I spent a couple of years building a functional language for the Faerie in my series that reflects how they experience the world, because the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is a thing. 

And if you don't understand character vs. narrative voice vs. POV, I have a piece explaining it all here. 

These three posts together should give you some ideas of what other purposes for fantasy races can be.


----------



## skip.knox

This thread is veering off into _ad hominem_ attacks, so I remind everyone of the rules of civil discourse. Try leaving the second-person singular pronouns out of it, okay?

As a medieval historian I have to insist that it is not correct to say this: "Through all of history generals and kings almost always stayed back in order to strategically direct the battle."

As someone else pointed out, prior to the French Revolution or thereabouts, exactly the reverse of this was true, at least for Europe, which is the only historical timeline I can speak about with any authority. The specific examples are so numerous it would be tedious to recite them all, but I can also demonstrate from the reverse case. For example, Philip II of France was often criticized because he in fact did lead from the rear. Doing so violated the cultural norms of the warrior aristocracy of his day.


----------



## Queshire

Suddenly so many posts in this thread since I last looked at it! = 0

In my pet setting humans regularly reach over 200 years old before they need to start worrying about old age and can reach Olympic levels with just basic training. This is before you add in magic, supernatural martial arts and numerous gods that can lead to them reaching truly superhuman levels.

This is the result of genetic engineering way back when before the heavens burned.

Due to all the magic, supernatural martial arts, etc and that you generally don't wind up in a position of authority in that setting if you're not strong winds up with those closest to what could be called kings serving as WMDs. Generally they have to work cats paws and loyal subordinates instead of fighting on the front themselves  because when they move it causes others on their level to move as well, but when they DO show up on the battlefield, massive destruction ensures.


----------



## Simpson17866

The point/purpose of fantasy races is to see how a scenario with fantasy races involved would be different from a scenario with only humans.

The don't need a point, *they are the point*


----------



## D. Gray Warrior

I had one world that was Mesoamerican/South American themed, and I took the standard fantasy races and tweaked them to fit the setting. For example, the dwarves of my world were loosely based on the Incans and Andean cultures, and had similar ethnic features. I also decided that they should have an Athenian styled democracy as their form of government, as I just tend to make my dwarven societies into republics or democracies for some reason. Unlike the standard dwarves, they were adept with magic, particularly shamanism.

The stand-ins for the elves were a rainforest tribe, since elves are forest dwellers, and I decided their home resembles that of the Amazon. They were a warlike tribe that war plumed masks to instill fear into their prey and they practiced cannibalism. However, I started seeing them less like savage elves, and more like humans who, for the most part, remain untouched by civilization, so that ended up being one of the unsolved mysteries, whether they were actually human or not since outsiders never see without their masks. They ended up being an rainforest version of Tusken Raiders.

What bothers me about races are those that are human/animal hybrids like centaurs and mermaids. One of the biggest mysteries of the universe for me is how in the world a centaur sleeps. Does his human half lop forward or something? Also, we see them as half man, half horse, but how would they see humans?

Do mermaids have lungs, gills, or both?

I toyed with the idea of making races figurative. For example, maybe Centaurs are a human culture known for riding horses into battle, and maybe the people who are often attacked by Centaurs do not have horses for some reason, and think they are hybrids.


----------



## Mythopoet

D. Gray Warrior said:


> I had one world that was Mesoamerican/South American themed, and I took the standard fantasy races and tweaked them to fit the setting. For example, the dwarves of my world were loosely based on the Incans and Andean cultures, and had similar ethnic features. I also decided that they should have an Athenian styled democracy as their form of government, as I just tend to make my dwarven societies into republics or democracies for some reason. Unlike the standard dwarves, they were adept with magic, particularly shamanism.
> 
> The stand-ins for the elves were a rainforest tribe, since elves are forest dwellers, and I decided their home resembles that of the Amazon. They were a warlike tribe that war plumed masks to instill fear into their prey and they practiced cannibalism. However, I started seeing them less like savage elves, and more like humans who, for the most part, remain untouched by civilization, so that ended up being one of the unsolved mysteries, whether they were actually human or not since outsiders never see without their masks. They ended up being an rainforest version of Tusken Raiders.



This all sounds really interesting! Do you still write in that world? 



D. Gray Warrior said:


> What bothers me about races are those that are human/animal hybrids like centaurs and mermaids. One of the biggest mysteries of the universe for me is how in the world a centaur sleeps. Does his human half lop forward or something? Also, we see them as half man, half horse, but how would they see humans?
> 
> Do mermaids have lungs, gills, or both?
> 
> I toyed with the idea of making races figurative. For example, maybe Centaurs are a human culture known for riding horses into battle, and maybe the people who are often attacked by Centaurs do not have horses for some reason, and think they are hybrids.



I think races like that generally work best in fantasy worlds that are full of mystery left to the reader's imagination.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson

Peregrine said:


> The reason why I wanted to make a fictional world/setting is because I was heavily inspired by Norse mythology.
> 
> I knew that it would be impossible to base my world on Norse Cosmology (Jotunheim, Alfheim, Midgard, Niflheim...) because there's nine worlds for god's sake, and every creature (elf/ettin/vanir...) lives in different worlds, so because of that I needed to make a new world instead.
> 
> Tolkien's Middle-Earth was not "Norse" enough for me, even though it is probably the most Norse book that ever existed.
> 
> I wanted to make a world that felt Norse (even more Norse than Tolkien), a barbarian hero with a horned helmet that battles ettins like David against Goliath or encounters a dragon (Not the flying, fire-breathing one).
> 
> I have only 5 "races".
> 4 of my "races" are inspired by Norse Mythology.
> Elves are not in my world, let alone physical gods.
> But now, as I have matured I am less attached to these fictional races just because they look different and I wonder if the physical differences are worth?
> 
> Is it worth it including dwarfs just because they are physically different, I mean if I include them they are going to be unique for example instead of emphasizing that they are greatest blacksmiths and miners, my dwarfs are mostly pastoralists which means that most dwarfs are shepherds or goatherds because they live in mountains and agriculture is more suitable in the lowlands.
> 
> You don't have to be a dwarf to make a underground city and live in the mountains. Humans can do it also.



There have been a good many discussions on these forums regarding the benefits and detriments of doing a lot of world building before writing the story. I think some of those discussions could help in this discussion.

I've always been in the group that loves doing world building, sometimes without even having a story in mind to go with the world being built. Others have said how they find extensive world building to be largely a waste of time without a story to go with it. For anyone whose primary interest is in story telling, I can agree with the other camp, especially in a case like this.

So, in alignment what those others have said in other forums/threads (without having read every post in this lengthy and seemingly controversial thread), I'd recommend making a decision about the story you want to tell, and then determining what races will best help you tell that tale. The point/purpose of having fantasy races is because there is a purpose for them to serve in the story. Purposes vary widely, depending on the story being told.

In my WIP, I have fantasy races because I want something I can contrast against humans. So for me, the purpose to have the fantasy races is because I want something distinctly not human, to compare against something distinctly human, to spotlight their differences, and thus shine a brighter light on that aspect of humanity. I wanted to take certain aspects of humanity to an extreme for contrasting, so I use a fantasy race for this.

Even if you aren't contrasting human vs fantasy, a fantasy race can add color to a story. I have no elf characters that actually show up in my WIP, but they are mentioned relatively often. I say little about them in this story, but I've decided they do exist in the world, so they get mentioned when it makes sense, and I might include some elven characters in later stories based in the same world. For now, in this WIP, just mentioning them gives depth to the world. (Note: I might change the name of the race to something other than elf before I'm done, but for now, I'm calling them elves because it's convenient.)


----------



## X Equestris

Annoyingkid said:


> I don't see why its relevant that historical examples were all human v human. The same principle applies. Through all of history generals and kings almost always stayed back in order to strategically direct the battle. In order for it to be justifiable for a king to join melee, that king need to bring something to combat that outweighs his strategic utility or any morale that can be gained simply from his presence on the field. In real world close combat he's almost as easily killed as any other soldier. If you give him things like magic armour and weapons than maybe, but then again you're just making him a superhero then. So that he's human becomes a moot point.



That may make sense from a cold hard logic perspective, but many pre-modern cultures had leaders who personally entered the melee.  Sure there were people who criticized the concept, but leading from the rear took a long time to become the norm.  Alexander the Great lead from the front and had a fair number of brushes with death; he's also amount the few who can claim to have never lost a battle (though that depends whether you count the Persian Gates as one battle or two).  On a lesser known note, his half-sister Cynane behaved similarly.  According to Polyaenaus:

"Cynane, the daughter of Philip was famous for her military knowledge: she conducted armies, and in the field charged at the head of them. In an engagement with the Illyrians, she with her own hand slew Caeria their queen; and with great slaughter defeated the Illyrian army."

To address the title of the thread, I'd say that they have a number of purposes.  Allegory, pure speculation (humanity never had to deal with another intelligent species on its home world, unless you count the Neanderthals as one), the list goes on.  The only thing I'd caution against is only including them "because it's fantasy".  Whether you should have them or not is entirely dependent on what you're going for with a specific fantasy work.


----------



## Peat

Honestly, I'm increasingly of the opinion of "Why not" and "Because they're cool".

Which isn't to say there's a lot of cool thematic stuff you can do with them - using elves to represent the struggles of perfectionism, or as an allegory for the elite, or using inter-species bigotry to talk about real world bigotry with a bit of distance to allow people to view the subject easier, or really honourable dwarves to show a society that never lies and so on. If we are talking literary worth, then the great virtue of fantasy is it can invent things that never existed to use as tools to examine the human condition. Other races are one of those tools.

But I'm beginning to tire of the idea that all fiction must be worthy and realistic all the time. That we can't blend the fantastic with the realism, escapism with examination of our world, and so on. Or just write pieces that are simply interesting stories full of wonder and whimsy. I'd be all down for some books with some well written elves in the woods and dwarves in the mountains.


----------



## Steerpike

You can certainly write stories of whimsy, wonder, and escapism. People do this. A story doesn't have to be realistic. Threads like this are useful for people wanting to achieve a specific outcome and not of use as broad prescriptions for how to write. It's just a matter of keeping the thread in context.


----------



## Malik

Annoyingkid said:


> Through all of history generals and kings almost always stayed back in order to strategically direct the battle.



Besides Alexander the Great, there weren't many. 

Oh, wait. There were a few.

Off the top of my head: King David, Queen Zenobia, Phillip II, Darius III, Xerxes, Leonidas, Lysander, Aegisilaus, Gaius Maurius, Julius Caesar, Pyrrhus, Marcus Marcellus, Hannibal, Jugurtha, Mark Antony, Magister Militum Flavius Stilicho, Edward Longshanks, Robert the Bruce, Alaric the Bold, Erik the Red, Attila the Hun, Krum the Horrible, Vlad the Impaler, Ragnar Lothbrok, Khalid Ibn al-Walid, Genghis Khan, William of Orange, George Washington, Robert Rogers, Andrew Jackson led an army of goddamn _pirates_ at the battle of New Orleans, Stonewall Jackson among dozens of his contemporaries -- in the Civil War, generals on both sides literally stood in a firing line with their troops -- Custer, Patton, Teddy Roosevelt, Nikola Zrinski, General Gavin parachuted into Normandy with his troopers, Rommel ("The Desert Fox"), Ord Wingate, Lord Nelson (and for that matter, damn near every naval commander who has ever lived), Santa Anna, Che Guevara, Charlemagne, and Obi-Wan Kenobi. 

In feudal Japan, it wasn't uncommon for commanders and warlords to slug it out one to one on the field, which is what generals and warlords do in the world that I created for my series.

King Abdullah II of Jordan led a combat mission to beat the crap out of ISIS a few years ago after they burned one of his pilots alive. As if that wasn't badass enough, he's the head of his nation's Special Operations Command and acts as their jumpmaster during training exercises; they train side by side with U.S. Special Forces and Navy SEALs and he's out there huffing and puffing beside them at the ripe old age of 53. 

Coming in a close second, the Brits' Prince Henry flew an Apache attack helicopter in Afghanistan.

Leaders lead. That's why they're called leaders.


----------



## elemtilas

Malik said:


> King Abdullah II of Jordan led a combat mission to beat the crap out of ISIS a few years ago after they burned one of his pilots alive. As if that wasn't badass enough...



Wow! Now thÃ¡t is a HOS deserving of respect! Prince Harry, too, though he ain't HOS. Yeah, I'd say that's plenty badass! No standing at the sidelines handing out "guidance" for him!




> Leaders lead. That's why they're called leaders.



Yep.


----------



## Malik

There's a whole other side to this, too, which is resident in the way that militaries work, and also, in what it is that soldiers and officers do. 

The general as we see him today is more or less historically singular. In the modern military it may take 25+ years of experience to become a general. Compare this to the Civil War, when it was possible for an officer to be promoted to general within a matter of months. 

We typically don't put generals on the line because these days, they're expensive and irreplaceable. More than that, they're not necessarily combat leaders; they're groomed for the responsibilities of command via extensive training in leadership and management, with skill at arms as a secondary consideration. The modern general is a highly specialized and educated leader akin to a CEO or a senior board member; not all of them are experts in combat arms. I know generals whom I wouldn't want standing in the same grid square with me downrange. My current commanding general, however, can outshoot me and can probably kick my ass; both of which are no mean trick, if I say so myself. Still, we don't put him into harm's way. He stays back and makes life and death decisions affecting thousands of people, because he's way smarter than we are and the Army is set up to work that way. Generals decide what needs to happen organizationally; senior officers delineate the responsibility; officers take responsibility for seeing that the delineated steps handed to them are accomplished; and sergeants and warrants determine the best way to do it and then handle the hands-on management while the soldiers get it done. (This is a gross oversimplification, but for more on this, read Von Steuben's _The Blue Book_, which set up the way the U.S. Army works. I recommend that you then compare and contrast it with Von Clausewitz's _On War,_ and _De Re Militari _by Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus.)

We don't have commanding generals on the field anymore because we don't make war that way anymore. It doesn't make it wrong, and while it may make for less of a heroic literary figure, it doesn't necessarily make the modern general any less of a leader. We often refer to the GWOT / OEF / OIR as a "sergeant's war," because the actions of one team-level leader -- a sergeant in charge of perhaps three other people -- can shift the entire battlespace and literally change the world in an hour. This is partially a function of advancements in weapons technology, but it also correlates to the vagaries of asymmetric warfare. We don't need generals on the field when a sergeant can retake or lose a strategic objective because they deployed a weapons system on the right instead of the left.

All that said, depending on the time period and the society you're modeling your world after, it is completely plausible for people to be literally born into a military leadership position, or achieve it with a modicum of skill as opposed to a lifetime of service and training and eventual selection. The sons or daughters of a king or a great warlord, for instance, might be raised to be warlords or generals themselves. Also, historically, it was often possible to buy a commission to become an officer with rank commensurate upon the amount of money that you or your parents contributed to the war effort.

A person in such a position might either A.) Enjoy combat; B.) Discover they have a knack for it -- violence, like music, writing, or dance, requires a rare aptitude in order to excel, which is why most never exceed the fundamental mechanical requirements; C.) Have something to prove, whether to mommy and daddy, or their sweetheart, or the soldiers under them, or their bosses, or themselves; or D.) possess some combination of any of the above. Such a military leader would sure as shit be out there doing the hard thing.

What I'm getting at, here, is that it wasn't unusual at all for generals or leaders -- going all the way back to the days when war consisted of tribes throwing rocks at each other and the leader was the one with the most good ideas -- to be right out there kicking in skulls beside their subordinates. 

Build your worlds however you want, but understand that  there's no reason to consider the modern general -- or the professional politician in uniform -- as the only possibility.

TL;DR: Read it anyway.


----------



## skip.knox

Just echoing Malik here. He mentioned Alexander. He commanded the left wing of his father's army at Chaeronea and personally led the charge that broke the Theban line.


----------



## D. Gray Warrior

Mythopoet said:


> This all sounds really interesting! Do you still write in that world?
> 
> 
> 
> I think races like that generally work best in fantasy worlds that are full of mystery left to the reader's imagination.



I no longer write in that world, though I still add a bit of a mesoamerican influence in otherwise pseudo-medieval European setting.


----------



## Russ

> Quote Originally Posted by Annoyingkid  View Post
> Through all of history generals and kings almost always stayed back in order to strategically direct the battle.



This is patently untrue.  In fact I would argue that throughout history, before the gunpowder era, there was more leading from the front than otherwise.  There were also plenty after war changed as well.

Malik, sometime you will have to buy me a beer and I can tell you all about King Abdullah's military career and what he really did and does.


----------



## Malik

Russ said:


> Malik, sometime you will have to buy me a beer and I can tell you all about King Abdullah's military career and what he really did and does.



I figured it best to just stick to the official narrative. We definitely need to have a beer or six someday, though.


----------

