You know what irritates me about fantasy? The lack of attention to detail of culture. It's one thing if you have a single isolated group of a species that is the only group of that species, but to say 'all dwarves love drinking beer and mining' or 'all miqo'te of this particular subspecies are tribal' or ... hell, anything that goes 'the vast majority of this species acts this way' is supremely, supremely annoying to me. I mean, yes, we all have a tendency to be ethnocentric, but to present things as the rule rather than a part of the rule. . .
it leads to debates like this.
biology does not equal culture. And we have a wider range of species than humans that shows us this! Animals too have their own subcultures, particularly when looking at certain types of apes or even other animals like ravens. Groups will adapt to their surroundings and pick up tool uses that others don't, as well as methods of communicating with each other and how they interact with other species -- they adapt to their surroundings and learn from each other.
If you want biology to be a bigger indicator of behavior, then developers need to dig deeper than 'hurr durr this group looks different and is haughty'.
Otherwise, yeah, every single damn group is going to have similar characteristics because they're all going to be various types of (horrendously shallow) human behavior. The biggest difference is that rather than being dynamic devs are taking the lazy route and going 'well this one is like an exaggerated version of this human trait, and this one is like an exaggerated version of this human trait' etc.
So, yup, to me so long as the history of the character makes sense for the behavior (ie, did not grow up in the stupid little microcosm the devs determined to be how all of the species miraculously developed culturally), of course you're going to see some hyurs with tails.
My cat grew up in the city, and you bet your ass she acts like it. And at that point? Yeah, the only thing that truly separates her from the other species is the undeniable biological differences: good senses, a hatred of the sun, and legs suited for climbing and running.
/rant
it leads to debates like this.
biology does not equal culture. And we have a wider range of species than humans that shows us this! Animals too have their own subcultures, particularly when looking at certain types of apes or even other animals like ravens. Groups will adapt to their surroundings and pick up tool uses that others don't, as well as methods of communicating with each other and how they interact with other species -- they adapt to their surroundings and learn from each other.
If you want biology to be a bigger indicator of behavior, then developers need to dig deeper than 'hurr durr this group looks different and is haughty'.
Otherwise, yeah, every single damn group is going to have similar characteristics because they're all going to be various types of (horrendously shallow) human behavior. The biggest difference is that rather than being dynamic devs are taking the lazy route and going 'well this one is like an exaggerated version of this human trait, and this one is like an exaggerated version of this human trait' etc.
So, yup, to me so long as the history of the character makes sense for the behavior (ie, did not grow up in the stupid little microcosm the devs determined to be how all of the species miraculously developed culturally), of course you're going to see some hyurs with tails.
My cat grew up in the city, and you bet your ass she acts like it. And at that point? Yeah, the only thing that truly separates her from the other species is the undeniable biological differences: good senses, a hatred of the sun, and legs suited for climbing and running.
/rant
