TNE and Centaurs

[Elennsar]

I commented (less than 45% serious) that I find the implication that killing a centaur for chow instead of your horse (if one rides centaurs instead of horses) is more acceptable (poor horse etc.) hillarious.

But I think interpeting

So, put simply, I feel less guilt when poisoning a centaur than when poisoning a horse. Centaurs are sentient, so they'd likely share at least some of the blame for a situation where harming them becomes a good idea. That makes doing unpleasant things to them easier to justify.

as capable of being taken to the point of being pro-cannibalism and anti-horse eating might be a little extreme, after thinking it over.

But that's how it came up, at any rate.

As for the ledge: If humans are forced to turn sideways, then yes. But something like that is pretty nearly "accessible? Not so you'd notice."

[ckafrica]

This thread is dedicated to discussing why a centaur type player character can or cannot exist in TNE, according to Frank’s subjective goals. It is my assertion that it is possible to create rules for TNE which create a setting which allows for individual player choice, without a centaur ever existing in a game which Frank plays in. I will prove this to be true, using supporting evidence from Frank himself. To Elennsar: Please do not post in this thread, I will not respond, or even read any of your posts. In this particular thread, I ask people: please do not respond to any derailings. Thank you.

[Elennsar]

Your quote tag is broken. More to the point, discussing centaurs is not off topic.

Unless this is solely about how PL and a couple others are blind to anything that makes centaurs impractical PCs and not necessarily viable setting additions at all and nothing that discusses why we would even want them or what we would do with them can be mentioned ever.

So the evidence does not indicate they benefit TNE for them to be included.

Shame.

[Username17]

Honestly, I have been working on the assumption that this was a ledge that normal humans had to turn sideways to pass. If the humans are reduced to that, I don't see the ogre making it.

How not? It'll be more difficult, but why couldn't they do it? They are only 50% larger in any dimension. If you can rest your weight on your heels or toes, and you can, then presumably the ogre can do the same. It'll be tiring and requiring of a degree of dexterity which PL points out that they may not have. But it's certainly morphologically possible.

Any ledge that is narrow enough for a human to scrimp by on their heels while a 50% larger human physically can't is seriously like 2cm total - at which point you should be considering doing the whole thing with pitons anyway and then our ogre friend is in the same position as any other biped.

And a damn sight better off than a centaur.

-Username17

[ckafrica]

You were asked not to participate by the original poster. It is rude not to respect his wishes. If you had asked me not to post in a thread you started I would respect that.

I acknowledge the point that centaurs would have limitations in certain situations, but so would really big guys, really small guys; guys with wings would probably be easier to grapple. I don't think it is reason enough to say that you can't tell stories with centaurs. But I can accept it as a reason for which Frank doesn't want to have centaurs in his game.

TNE will have mechanics of riding a horse (or at at least if won't be incomplete to me if it doesn't) so when he's done it likely won't be hard to design a centaur of our own and post it here just to rub his nose in.

[Avoraciopoctules]

And seriously: if you have less problem killing actual sapient people then domestic dumb animals you are fucked up and I have no desire to write anything to cater to you. You are morally offensive to me and are a horrible person. What the fucking hell?

-Username17

Perhaps I should clarify my position a bit.

I presuppose that in this situation, the killing advances my goals. I also assume that these goals are worth killing for in this case. This will generally mean that the person made choices during the course of their life which brought them into the situation (I.E. "I'll join the army!", "I'll not try to get dishonorably discharged when a war starts!", "I'll take guard duty for the prisoners!").

Since the horse doesn't possess free will or sentience, it had no choice of whether to take a lifepath that would put it in danger. I'd feel the same way about people who had chips in their heads controlling their actions.

So, 2 example situations:

1. My warband is being chased by armored knights on unarmored horses.
2. My warband is being chased by centaur knights wearing armor we can pierce with our arrows.

I feel more guilt about shooting the horses of the knights to slow them than I do simply shooting the centaurs to stop them chasing me. This is because the horses didn't choose to place themselves at risk, but the centaurs did.

[Elennsar]

You were asked not to participate by the original poster. It is rude not to respect his wishes. If you had asked me not to post in a thread you started I would respect that.

It is also rude to say "Hey. I don't want someone I dislike posting even if they have something useful to say. Why? Because being an asshole to them is more fun."

Thus my decision to ignore it when I felt I had something useful to say.

Avoraciopoctules: Problem is, a warhorse is a warrior (though not voluntarily) as much as its knight is. So its not like its unable to fight you (and if you have a problem with 'but it can't defend myself from my ranged attack", you're doing that to the no-ranged weapons centaur, too.)

So I think you're being a bit too...far out there.

[PhoneLobster]

so when he's done it likely won't be hard to design a centaur of our own and post it here just to rub his nose in.

Well going by Frank's line of reasoning here the system will include an incredibly complex spatial navigation system based on extensive modelling of (for the most part imaginary) physical morphology that will make it physically impossible for such a character to even walk around the vast majoirty of the indoors world. While apparently not similarly inhibiting a bunch of other ridiculous and large sized forms.

Also it will be precariously balanced in its skill and ability system based on a strangely obsessive interest in terrain/navigational challenge frequency which requires a very specific balance of small, medium, and large environments that will all collapsing down like a house of cards if say a Centaur joins and precludes all small and some medium environments.

...Or if all the human characters just say "Pokey goblin warren? Screw that cluster fuck!" and walk away from all the small adventures.

...Or if the overarching story just finds itself focusing fairly heavily on some sort of war with Giants or something.

I mean I strongly suspect he is totally talking out his ass and not only will fail to achieve those, er, laudable, goals but in fact doesn't actually intend to do that at all.

I suspect it's all just a rather transparent excuse for "My way or the highway, bitches!"

But like I said, its his stated goal and he does seem to be rather determined.

[Username17]

Perhaps I should clarify my position a bit.

No. I got you the first time. That's fucked up.

You sir, are a monster.

If you think that killing an actual sapient being for any reason is less abhorrent than killing a non-sapient being for no reason at all, then your morals are fucked.

Sometimes people eat other animals. Sometimes people even take perfectly good meat and just throw it away. And that's messed up. But it's messed up because it is wasteful, not because it is a heavy moral burden. I would be entirely willing to kill Nkunda. Right now, give me a gun and an escape route I'd do it. But it would be with a heavier heart than I would slap a mosquito. And if you can't say that about yourself you are one messed up dude.

-Username17

[Avoraciopoctules]

Hmm. Perhaps I should rethink my position then.

Either that, or I might be defining guilt the wrong way.


Are you saying that whether or not something is sentient is more important in terms of the value of its life than the actions and choices it has taken?

[Username17]

Are you saying that whether or not something is sentient is more important in terms of the value of its life than the actions and choices it has taken?

Yes. Unless you think there's some difference in the value of the life of a mosquito that has bitten a human than the life of a mosquito that has not.

-Username17

[Avoraciopoctules]

Well, if the mosquito has bitten a human, it has caused society some trouble. I might even extend that to mosquitos that threaten to bite humans, forcing the humans to take action to ward them off.

I'd value the lives of mosquitos that bit or troubled humans less with my current outlook.

[virgil]

I know I've been trying to keep to the original topic, which includes ignoring Elennsar.

Those two links, in my eyes, are more proof than PL has actually shown yet

I'm not sure I follow your tone. Am I wrong because you have videos that show I'm right, am I right because you have them or is the whole argument as silly and inconsistent as it seems but you have these cool videos as well?

Blech, I just realized I hadn't answered your question, sorry. It's the latter of the set. I consider the whole argument kind of silly (both sides).

When did Frank say that he doesn't plan on making any kind of tauroid? I would think the ormigans have some kind of non-bipedal form.

[shau]

What is tauroid supposed to mean? My web searches seem to indicate "cow people."

[virgil]

Human torso on an animal body where the head would go.

[Avoraciopoctules]

What is tauroid supposed to mean? My web searches seem to indicate "cow people."

"Tauric" references creatures who's bodies are half-and-half combinations of creatures.

Examples include centaurs, minotaurs, and (in D&D) driders.

I'm not sure whether "tauroid" is distinct from "tauric"

[Username17]

What is tauroid supposed to mean? My web searches seem to indicate "cow people."

Taur means "cow." Minotaur means part cow, part human. Centaur means something that, like a minotaur, is only part human only in this case the remaining portion is a horse. Minotaurs used to be depicted with cow bodies and human faces, like a shedu. Centaurs used to have a longer name that included the word hippo in it to indicate that they had horse parts.

So these days, despite the fact that the word "taur" means "cow" the word "tauric" means "having a human torso and the underparts of another critter." Or even specifically being shaped like a mantis.

That's linguistic drift for you. And yeah, I've repeatedly stated that a number of tauric forms are functional. But Crissa and PhoneLobster get all butt hurt whenever I dismiss their desire for specifically horse-related sexy time as impractical.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

AFAP said it very nicely, but I think there is something that can and should be added to that. When we make a game to account for "adventuring" we make certain baseline assumptions of what the value of an ability is going to be. And those assumptions are going to be wrong.

Okay, with you so far. (Except that guy with talk to whales is being a bit of a dick expecting that to get shoehorned into a non nautical campaign.) The problem is that we know the baselines won't be adhered to. The game can't fall apart if the terrain or encounters are heavily slanted. If it does then its not much good.

Honestly this whole argument is fucked. Both sides will let taurs in the game, the exact morphology can't possibly be worth seven pages of shouting and accusations of beastiality.

PS: Among furries taur means any creature with a humanoid torso and head attached to a quadrupedal body. So unless you want to get the shock PL got searching for horse inside don't google for taur.

[PhoneLobster]

So unless you want to get the shock PL got searching for horse inside don't google for taur.

I overstate my horror, I've seen it all before, and more, twice. Hell I've mixed with furries in their natural environment (back when it was furry IRC chat communities) Not my kind of people in the end, but not bad people either.

[name_here]

winged humanoids are far more able to get through doors than centaurs. Let's say i had wings that tripled my shoulder widith when folded. I could still fit through the smallest door in my house. Admittedly, i'm thin, but that's without walking diagonally, which is important because one of the small doors in my house has a wardrobe on the side that isn't the wall.

Also, most of the other listed difficult features can usually be responded to with, "i have wings. they let me fly."

[shau]

The thing with winged humans is that they really don't belong in a discussion with the word realism in it. A wandering albatross is just over a meter long. It ways about ten kilograms. It's wingspan goes up to about 3.5 meters and it still has trouble taking off. Getting a hundred pound six foot tall human off the ground is going to take some massive fucking wings. Especially when you factor in a human's non aerodynamic shape and the fact that DnD adventurers carry at least a hundred pounds of junk on them.

So yeah, that probably could result in a guy who has real problems fitting in a standard doorway, but the real problem is the idea of humans flying in the first place. Try attaching some wings to your arms like Icarus and see how far you can get by flapping your arms. Phonelobster thinks the idea that we are going to ignore all that and let people fly with butterfly wings but we are not letting horses in because of their turning radius and sees a blatant double standard. I think we should ignore the problems of humanoid flight and horse maneuverability because I think nonstandard character are cool and interesting.

[Username17]

Phonelobster thinks the idea that we are going to ignore all that and let people fly with butterfly wings but we are not letting horses in because of their turning radius and sees a blatant double standard.

So he says, and with great profanity and intolerance. I don't see a double standard. Fantastic beings ask for suspension of disbelief in a number of ways, I shouldn't be required to eliminate cognitive dissonance from objects supposedly occupying the same space on top of that.

When the angels or pixies walk in they clearly and articulately demand a suspension of physics regarding weight ratios. While it is possible for a man to fly like that French dude, it's also a fact that he does it at about 180 KPH and that's not desirable. Having men fly around at low speed is a concession to playability and our special effects department, and we specifically agree to that when winged humans show up in a fantasy game.

If people wanted a tauric creature that was all bendy and could handle corners, they'd accept a bendy tauric form. The fact that they keep insisting on specifically non-bendy forms and making us handwave the corners anyway is straight fucked. Saying "Imagine a man with wings flapping them slowly and hovering in mid-air" is fine for a cooperative storytelling experience because I can imagine that. I can send it to the special effects department and they can make it look good. On the other hand, saying "imagine a 2m long creature navigating a 90 degree turn in a 75 cm corridor without bending" is just not reasonable. I can't imagine that, and I can't even have the special effects department make it look good. The best that could possibly be done is simply cutting the scene just before reaching the corner and starting the scene up again with them on the other side.

It's a different kind of violation of natural law. It's a violation you can't describe or imagine, which means it's a completely asshole maneuver.

-Username17

[ckafrica]

It's a different kind of violation of natural law. It's a violation you can't describe or imagine, which means it's a completely asshole maneuver.

I think that's fine but it is feeling a tad too simulationist for me. Sure if it is supposed to be very confining space, but it should likewise inconvenience melee combat with any non-thrusting weapons because you don't have enough room for a good swing. The problem of tunnels that a centaur couldn't pass through as part of the story would be few and far between and the rest could simply be hand waved away by saying standard corridor is 8ft rather than 5ft. I guess I've rarely played a game where the difference in feet was threatening my suspension of disbelief and more than the guy inside a door swinging his two handed sword at me on the other side has.

On the moral tangent: How to deal with the idea of poachers? Poachers in Africa are often shot and killed over killing "dumb" animals, even when they might be doing it solely to feed their families. How do we balance the these actions against humans in the moral matrix?

[Username17]

The problem of tunnels that a centaur couldn't pass through as part of the story would be few and far between and the rest could simply be hand waved away by saying standard corridor is 8ft rather than 5ft. I guess I've rarely played a game where the difference in feet was threatening my suspension of disbelief and more than the guy inside a door swinging his two handed sword at me on the other side has.

Few and far between? It's most multi-room human dwellings. Seriously, finding a bar in Prague that a Centaur could get to the bathroom in is extremely difficult.

Finding a place to swing a two handed sword is one thing, but you're being confronted with a character who demands to swing a two handed sword not in a place, but in literally every place she ever goes. Abstracting the fact that the character steps to the center of the room to swing a blade is fine, but if that character can't hold it up while going around corners or climbing stairs we have a problem.

The reason why dimensions so rarely come into play as a big deal is because D&D has already cut all the things that don't fit out of the system. Not only are Centaurs not playable in any meaningful sense in core, but pikes and other very long weapons don't even exist. There is literally no weapon in the game that you couldn't use in a narrow corridor with low ceilings. Weapons that couldn't be plausibly used in such a scenario just weren't even given stats.

And you didn't even fucking notice, because it doesn't hurt the game that they are gone.

On the moral tangent: How to deal with the idea of poachers? Poachers in Africa are often shot and killed over killing "dumb" animals, even when they might be doing it solely to feed their families. How do we balance the these actions against humans in the moral matrix?

A world without gorillas is an uglier world. People fight, die, and kill to protect gorillas for the same reason that they would fight to protect an original Van Gogh. People will kill to preserve art, and fighting to preserve gorillas is no different.

Now personally I am not at all willing to write off gorillas and elephants as sapient. They certainly seem to have a sense of self and of play, and so on and so forth. And of course Gorillas are one of the very small number of non-human great apes left on the planet, meaning that in the long run the loss of gorillas would be a huge blow to comparative biology and thus to medicine, and thus have a real and tangible cost in human lives. And while those arguments are slam dunk in my opinion, they don't apply to everything. We don't protect tigers because they are top predator that keeps herbivore populations in check and thus ultimately preserves human lives by preventing cycles of boom and bust that spread famines and plagues. We protect tigers because we don't want to raise children in a world that doesn't have any tigers in it.

We fight and kill to protect tigers not because the life of a tiger means anything individually. We don't even do it because of the quite compelling ecological research that tells us that losing the tigers would end up screwing us more than is reasonable. We protect tigers because the world is beautiful and it has tigers in it. The world is beautiful in some small part because it has tigers in it.

-Username17

[Bigode]

Since the horse doesn't possess free will or sentience, it had no choice of whether to take a lifepath that would put it in danger. I'd feel the same way about people who had chips in their heads controlling their actions.

Horses don't have free will? Should I ask you what decides what wild horses do, or whether blacks didn't have either just because at one time whites bossed them?

When did Frank say that he doesn't plan on making any kind of tauroid? I would think the ormigans have some kind of non-bipedal form.

Original ormigans were bipedal IIRC (source: Hive Acatl), but they could be made into something like the legged zerg shown, for example.

Also, most of the other listed difficult features can usually be responded to with, "i have wings. they let me fly."

That, technically, isn't true. In a narrow vertical space, you're gonna have to be able to do the same as everyone else (though, of course, birdfolk wings <<< actual horse body).

If people wanted a tauric creature that was all bendy and could handle corners, they'd accept a bendy tauric form. The fact that they keep insisting on specifically non-bendy forms and making us handwave the corners anyway is straight fucked. Saying "Imagine a man with wings flapping them slowly and hovering in mid-air" is fine for a cooperative storytelling experience because I can imagine that. I can send it to the special effects department and they can make it look good. On the other hand, saying "imagine a 2m long creature navigating a 90 degree turn in a 75 cm corridor without bending" is just not reasonable. I can't imagine that, and I can't even have the special effects department make it look good. The best that could possibly be done is simply cutting the scene just before reaching the corner and starting the scene up again with them on the other side.

What about the fact that one could re-imagine them as: smaller, bendy, or able to walk around reared? Not that I want centaurs in: in fact, I want them specifically outta the default setting/game. Also, I'm well-aware that tells the source material to fvck itself, but it wouldn't be the first time people do it for the sake of their own crap.

And you didn't even fucking notice, because it doesn't hurt the game that they are gone.

I was agreeing up to this. Not having decent rules for pike walls and artillery actually does hurt the game, if you think the game can happen outside of a dungeon.

We fight and kill to protect tigers not because the life of a tiger means anything individually. We don't even do it because of the quite compelling ecological research that tells us that losing the tigers would end up screwing us more than is reasonable. We protect tigers because the world is beautiful and it has tigers in it. The world is beautiful in some small part because it has tigers in it.

Is that your own POV?