Disadvantage for being none-human in a human-dominat setting?

Maz · 06-11-2018, 07:53 AM

I got a sci-fi setting which is mostly human dominated. There are some none-humans and they can't disguise, seduce or go undercover as well as the humans. And I fee like I should give a disadvantage for this.

A bit about the setting:
As I mentioned its a sci-fi setting dominated by humans. Further more the entirety of the game is taking place in a human megacity, owned by a single megacorp. The players are "agents" for this corp.

A bit about the races:
There are a couple of psionic races that a almost completely human in appearance. a single distinctive Feature quirk is fine for them.

Then we have a predator-like race (from the movies). They clearly do not look like humans as they are too big. And their faces are downright unattractive to most humans. SM+1 in itself doesn't give any points even though it gives penalties to disguise and shadowing. And I am reluctant to give them appearance (Ugly), as they live in enclaves in the city, and are pretty common as employers for the megacorp. So it's not like they are never going to interact with NPC's of their own race. It's just most, especially those they meet when out on "agent jobs" are going to be humans.
What sort of disadvantage is this worth?

Then we have another very alien cat-like race. They are more human sizes, but clearly doesn't look human. They do, rarely, live among the humans. Ie. you might find one in your local mall working there. But they are rare there, most work for the megacorp as mercenaries. They are less unattractive to humans.

Then we have a bioengeneer race of monsters. More like D&D trolls then anything else. They are clearly monstrous in appearance and are created to work for the megacorp and are created to be loyal. People don't fear them for their apperance, but know they are loyal to the megacorp. This gives a huge penalty for "infiltration" missions where anyone playing this race either has to simple "not play" or be very very careful about who sees them and how. I feel like this is worth some character points.

Now I have given all of these races some degree of social stigma (from -5 to -15). But I have not given them anything for "how hard it is to go on the down-low among the criminal elements". Which they should get, as that is, at times, a part of the game we play. And I feel like simply giving "appearance (ugly to monstrous)" is not the way to go, as they might be attractive to others from their own race.

Have any of you had the same trouble? What did you end up doing?

AlexanderHowl · 06-11-2018, 09:16 AM

Social Stigma (Second-Class Citizen) is appropriate for campaigns where racial relations are similar to what they are in the USA after civil rights. Non-humans have equal rights and political power, they might even get a non-human president that trigger a rise in human xenophobia, but they still suffer from systemic issues related to opportunities of education, employment, disproportionate incarceration compared to humans who commit similar crimes, etc. The non-humans suffer from informal discrimination, but they do not suffer from formal oppression. Humans can have sexual relations with non-humans without anyone except for bigots complaining.

Social Stigma (Minority) is for non-human races who suffer from informal discrimination and official oppression, similar to race relations in the USA before civil rights. Humans can commit crimes against non-humans with minimal chance of being arrested or prosecuted because human cops, human prosecutors, human judges, and human juries will either believe the humans over non-humans or will have a vested interest in keeping non-humans down. Humans who fight for non-human right will be labeled species traitors and will face informal and formal sanctions, but there will be humans who will be more concerned about doing the right thing than they fear sanctions. Humans face social and possible legal consequences for sexual relations with non-humans.

Social Stigma (Monster) is for situations when non-humans can be shot on sight by the authorities, and they will not even bother to hide the fact, similar to the darkest days of the Native American Genocide in the USA. Governments might even offer civilians bounties for the heads of dead non-humans, and captured non-humans are considered dangerous pets rather than slaves. Humans are free to torture, rape, and murder non-humans without any consequences beyond people protesting their deviant sexual practices. Humans who have sexual relations with non-humans are tolerated, but they will face social consequences if they are too public in their affections.

A given campaign might have different races at different levels of acceptance by humans. The Cats would likely have Social Stigma (Second-Class Citizen), the Predators and the Trolls would likely have Social Stigma (Minority). A rogue Troll would would likely have Social Stigma (Monster).

ericthered · 06-11-2018, 09:34 AM

I think this is Distinctive Features (a physical perk) in a leveled fashion. This gives -1 to attempts to Disguise and Shadowing, and +1 to attempts to identify you.

If a race has a specific reputation among a specific group, that's a bog standard reputation.

Extrarius · 06-11-2018, 10:09 AM

"how hard it is to go on the down-low among the criminal elements" will depend on many factors:
What is the make-up of the criminal element in terms of race?
What are the biases of the criminal element towards each race?
What are the capabilities of the criminal element in various scenarios (keeping somebody hidden from law enforcement, or keeping other criminals in line as far as reporting somebody for a reward, etc)?

What groups exist within the criminal element (anything from small-time street gangs to loosely organized crime syndicates to tight-knit organized paramilitary)?
For each group, what is its racial make-up, what are its biases, and what are its capabilities? How does it relate to other groups? How does it feel about using its capabilities (a group may have a fully armed army, but that doesn't mean it'll use it to get you out of the parking ticket. It may or may not change things if that ticket is a violation of your previous release arrangement and it means you're automatically going to jail).

If a predator wants to hide out for a bit, the existence of a small but powerful predator-run "enforcer's union" that works for several large criminal organizations would make that much easier than if the one well-known predator was a heroic member of law enforcement and (as far as most criminals are concerned) all predators are working for law enforcement either directly or under cover.

In the latter case, some kind of racial reputation might make sense.

The same questions about law enforcement also make a big difference. If, for example, predators do actually tend go for jobs in law enforcement and do them well, the typical citizen might overlook their own racism and instead have the same kind of reaction curve as they'd have for other humans. This could be a reputation and social stigma giving equal but opposite reaction modifiers. On the other hand, the reputation might only exist among criminals, just making life harder for predators.

Another question is what how realistic it is in your setting to be able to survive "off the grid" without significant help. Depending on how connected and organized things are, it might be virtually impossible (cameras everywhere with AI tracking everybody everywhere they go) or trivial (only physical money, regulations preventing free information sharing between banks, law enforcement at different levels, and other such barriers for tracking citizens). Wherever on the spectrum your setting lands, you then need to ask which skills are required to survive "off the grid".

If a person has the needed skills, they can do just fine without any support from the criminal element. If not, they will need to figure out how to get one of the many criminal groups to help them fill out the list of needed skills.

The Colonel · 06-11-2018, 10:53 AM

You might also have issues of restricted diet and not being able to buy products that are configured for your physiology ... clothes, tools, weapons, furniture ... vehicles even...

As for getting into the criminal element ... I would expect any group with a social stigma to end up over-represented (by proportion at least) in the underclass, which usually has significant overlap with the criminal class ... if you struggle to get a legitimate job (for example), you are liable to end up working in the black or grey economies just to make ends meet.

Otaku · 06-11-2018, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Social Stigma (Second-Class Citizen) is appropriate for campaigns where racial relations are similar to what they are in the USA after civil rights. Non-humans have equal rights and political power, they might even get a non-human president that trigger a rise in human xenophobia, but they still suffer from systemic issues related to opportunities of education, employment, disproportionate incarceration compared to humans who commit similar crimes, etc. The non-humans suffer from informal discrimination, but they do not suffer from formal oppression. Humans can have sexual relations with non-humans without anyone except for bigots complaining.

Maz, I don't know if I will be able to give you any worthwhile advice, but I need to ask a question:

Is the setting you described supposed to parallel with modern American politics and race relations? I don't mean just some things aligning, but a pretty strict parallel. As you can guess, I'm thinking AlexanderHowl is giving some bad advice. At least, I think; I may be having a severe failure in reading comprehension, as it seems that AlexanderHowl is trying to equate the situation you described for the various non-human races to the ethnic minorities in the United States of the last few decades. I do not believe he is accurately describing the situation in the USA, and even if he was, I do not believe it really matches your setting as you've described it. If AlexanderHowl is reading your intentions with your campaign correctly, I apologize to both of you.

I will offer a tiny bit of advice; don't mistake zero-point features and situations that should depend on personal character traits as requiring an overarching Disadvantage. My reading of Basic Set - I may flat out wrong - is that when the benefits are at least close to the drawbacks or when they are not but assigning a non-zero value to them will cause more problems then it solves, you make a note, explain it to your players, and it becomes a Taboo Trait or other neutral trait worth zero points. More severe reactions stem from personal Disadvantages such as Intolerance.

If most humans find your Not!Predators Ugly (or worse), but the Not!Predators find the humans Ugly (or worse) as well, then the reference culture breaks the tie... so long as the campaign is going to heavily stick to that reference culture. If the party is going to spend enough time out of that reference culture, you need to adjust accordingly. In which case, ericthered and The Colonel have it covered. Extrarius brings up some good points as well.

whswhs · 06-11-2018, 01:32 PM

I don't think it's reasonable to give a character who belongs to a minority race Distinctive Features. Yes, they have trouble playing the role of a member of the majority race. But consider the case of a black person in the United States. Their ability to impersonate a white person is limited, usually, and the default GURPS assumption is that it IS so limited: A light-skinned "black" person (probably of mixed ancestry) could take Passing Appearance (in the Passing Complexion form) and be able to claim to be white, but without that perk, they would have to make a special effort to disguise themselves, if it were possible at all. And the way Distinctive Features is written, it focuses on individual traits like scars or unusual hair color. I suppose you might claim it for being black if you were in a society where black people were virtually unheard of, but not one where they have Social Stigma (Second Class Citizen) or (Minority Group) or even (Valuable Property); in those cases you could at least try to blend into a crowd of other black people, or pretend to be a different black person. And it seems to me that this would apply just as well, say, to being an elf in a human society, if elves were common enough so that everyone would recognize you as one.

The Colonel · 06-11-2018, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whswhs

I don't think it's reasonable to give a character who belongs to a minority race Distinctive Features. Yes, they have trouble playing the role of a member of the majority race. But consider the case of a black person in the United States. Their ability to impersonate a white person is limited, usually, and the default GURPS assumption is that it IS so limited: A light-skinned "black" person (probably of mixed ancestry) could take Passing Appearance (in the Passing Complexion form) and be able to claim to be white, but without that perk, they would have to make a special effort to disguise themselves, if it were possible at all. And the way Distinctive Features is written, it focuses on individual traits like scars or unusual hair color. I suppose you might claim it for being black if you were in a society where black people were virtually unheard of, but not one where they have Social Stigma (Second Class Citizen) or (Minority Group) or even (Valuable Property); in those cases you could at least try to blend into a crowd of other black people, or pretend to be a different black person. And it seems to me that this would apply just as well, say, to being an elf in a human society, if elves were common enough so that everyone would recognize you as one.

There's also the "they all look the same to me" effect where the coarse elements of another phenotype overwhelm an unfamiliar observer's perception and leave them struggling to pick out differences between individuals - it may actually be hard for a human that isn't familiar with Not!Predators to tell them apart. Add in things like cultural modifications (say, a common pattern of tattoos that make them look even more similar) and the possibility of things like variant gender dimorphism (or trimorphism or whatever)* and there are real possibilities for a setting builder.

* "You can't even tell if that's a male or a female" vs. "what do you mean they're the same species?", let alone having a symbiotic mate or something...

Maz · 06-11-2018, 03:39 PM

I must admit I probably used Social Stigma wrongly. Where it should have been reputation. None of the mentioned races are in anyway a lower class than the humans (well expect the bioengineered 'trolls'). So all the talk about second class citizens and comparison to US race politics doesn't fit here.

What I have been using the social Stigma for is as a stand-in for a reputation because I always thought of reputation as being an individual thing based on YOUR reputation. Where I have thought of Social Stigma as a sort of "cultural/racial reputation". But I will switch it to a Racial Reputation to avoid confusion.

I am mostly concerned with a few players picking races that stick out among a predominantly human-dominated population. So they can't never go "undercover" or even simply shadow someone. And I want to give some disads point for that.. .as that IS a big disadvantage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericthered

I think this is Distinctive Features (a physical perk) in a leveled fashion. This gives -1 to attempts to Disguise and Shadowing, and +1 to attempts to identify you.
(...)

I just feel like this is more than just a few distictive feautures. when you are SM+1 have horns and a tail and mandibels instead of lips... But I guess I could just add it all of it up and call it a "-6 pts distictive features".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Extrarius

"how hard it is to go on the down-low among the criminal elements" will depend on many factors:
What is the make-up of the criminal element in terms of race?
What are the biases of the criminal element towards each race?
[...]

Pretty much everyone criminally involved are humans. There are no not!predator mafia, as they are not among the lower status population in general. Neither are the other two races. Not in any numbers to for ma coherent race-specific organisation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Extrarius

[...](as far as most criminals are concerned) all predators are working for law enforcement either directly or under cover.

In the latter case, some kind of racial reputation might make sense.

Yes, this is pretty much how it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Extrarius

The same questions about law enforcement also make a big difference. If, for example, predators do actually tend go for jobs in law enforcement and do them well, the typical citizen might overlook their own racism and instead have the same kind of reaction curve as they'd have for other humans. This could be a reputation and social stigma giving equal but opposite reaction modifiers. On the other hand, the reputation might only exist among criminals, just making life harder for predators.

Yes I hadn't really looked at the benefits of being known to be "lawful". (More about that after Otakus comment).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otaku

Is the setting you described supposed to parallel with modern American politics and race relations?

Nope. Not at all. I apparently shouldn't have mentioned social Stigma, as I have used it vastly differently. See the start of this post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otaku

If most humans find your Not!Predators Ugly (or worse), but the Not!Predators find the humans Ugly (or worse) as well, then the reference culture breaks the tie... so long as the campaign is going to heavily stick to that reference culture. If the party is going to spend enough time out of that reference culture, you need to adjust accordingly. In which case, ericthered and The Colonel have it covered. Extrarius brings up some good points as well.

I went ahead and simply removed the Social Stigma completly and instead made some more versatile racial reputations with some penalties and some bonusses. which represent the general prejudiced of the human population. I feel like giving every human Intolerance is not the way to go, because it's not necessarily that they are intolerant. They just have certain expectations of the alien races and will make judgement based on that (for better and worse), before getting to talk to the person.

But that still leave me with my actual problem. Their Appearance. After some messing around with Appearance and distinctive features, and looking at other build modifiers like Gigantism and Skinny. I ended up with my own version simply called "Racial appearance". This gives a penalty to 'Disguising as a human' and to 'Shadowing'. This also includes a direct penalty to 'Sex Appeal'. I deliberately did not want their appearance to give a general Reaction penalty. because even if the Not!Predators are considered ugly by a human. They are common enough that everyone knows how they look. They might not want to hook up with them, but it seems very unreasonable that they would charge them more or refuse them service. This should instead be based on the racial reputation IMO...

Example for not!predators:

Quote:

Racial Appearance (not!preadtors) [-8]
They are obviusly not humans and no matter how much makeup you put on thats not going t ochange. You could use heavy clothing change of posture and hoods/hats and scars and masks to appear simply as a veyr big human. -8 to Disguise as a human, and revealing your face would result in an immediate failure. If covered up, you could use Shadowing, but at a -4 penalty.
Humans also find you unattractive -4 to Sex Appeal.

So you could have a Handsome not!Predator. He would receive a general +2 reaction bonus. But if he wanted to chat up a nice human he would still net out at -2. Still better than his average joe-not!predator who has no level of appearance and who would have -4. But still worse than average joe-human.
But he if he went for another not!predator attracted to him, he would suddenly have a +4 bonus instead.

Toptomcat · 06-11-2018, 09:51 PM

If you’re running a criminal or espionage game where disguise, Shadowing, and blending into crowds is unusually important, you could mandate that baseline humans take a five-point ‘Unusual’ Background (can use disguise, Shadowing and other skills that involve blending in without penalty in the reference culture.) as part of their racial template, making nonhumans cheaper in comparison without giving them an actual Disadvantage.

Unusual Background is a useful tool for this kind of campaign-specific tuning.

06-11-2018, 07:53 AM	#1
Maz Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Denmark	Disadvantage for being none-human in a human-dominat setting? I got a sci-fi setting which is mostly human dominated. There are some none-humans and they can't disguise, seduce or go undercover as well as the humans. And I fee like I should give a disadvantage for this. A bit about the setting: As I mentioned its a sci-fi setting dominated by humans. Further more the entirety of the game is taking place in a human megacity, owned by a single megacorp. The players are "agents" for this corp. A bit about the races: There are a couple of psionic races that a almost completely human in appearance. a single distinctive Feature quirk is fine for them. Then we have a predator-like race (from the movies). They clearly do not look like humans as they are too big. And their faces are downright unattractive to most humans. SM+1 in itself doesn't give any points even though it gives penalties to disguise and shadowing. And I am reluctant to give them appearance (Ugly), as they live in enclaves in the city, and are pretty common as employers for the megacorp. So it's not like they are never going to interact with NPC's of their own race. It's just most, especially those they meet when out on "agent jobs" are going to be humans. What sort of disadvantage is this worth? Then we have another very alien cat-like race. They are more human sizes, but clearly doesn't look human. They do, rarely, live among the humans. Ie. you might find one in your local mall working there. But they are rare there, most work for the megacorp as mercenaries. They are less unattractive to humans. Then we have a bioengeneer race of monsters. More like D&D trolls then anything else. They are clearly monstrous in appearance and are created to work for the megacorp and are created to be loyal. People don't fear them for their apperance, but know they are loyal to the megacorp. This gives a huge penalty for "infiltration" missions where anyone playing this race either has to simple "not play" or be very very careful about who sees them and how. I feel like this is worth some character points. Now I have given all of these races some degree of social stigma (from -5 to -15). But I have not given them anything for "how hard it is to go on the down-low among the criminal elements". Which they should get, as that is, at times, a part of the game we play. And I feel like simply giving "appearance (ugly to monstrous)" is not the way to go, as they might be attractive to others from their own race. Have any of you had the same trouble? What did you end up doing?

06-11-2018, 09:16 AM	#2
AlexanderHowl Join Date: Feb 2016	Re: Disadvantage for being none-human in a human-dominat setting? Social Stigma (Second-Class Citizen) is appropriate for campaigns where racial relations are similar to what they are in the USA after civil rights. Non-humans have equal rights and political power, they might even get a non-human president that trigger a rise in human xenophobia, but they still suffer from systemic issues related to opportunities of education, employment, disproportionate incarceration compared to humans who commit similar crimes, etc. The non-humans suffer from informal discrimination, but they do not suffer from formal oppression. Humans can have sexual relations with non-humans without anyone except for bigots complaining. Social Stigma (Minority) is for non-human races who suffer from informal discrimination and official oppression, similar to race relations in the USA before civil rights. Humans can commit crimes against non-humans with minimal chance of being arrested or prosecuted because human cops, human prosecutors, human judges, and human juries will either believe the humans over non-humans or will have a vested interest in keeping non-humans down. Humans who fight for non-human right will be labeled species traitors and will face informal and formal sanctions, but there will be humans who will be more concerned about doing the right thing than they fear sanctions. Humans face social and possible legal consequences for sexual relations with non-humans. Social Stigma (Monster) is for situations when non-humans can be shot on sight by the authorities, and they will not even bother to hide the fact, similar to the darkest days of the Native American Genocide in the USA. Governments might even offer civilians bounties for the heads of dead non-humans, and captured non-humans are considered dangerous pets rather than slaves. Humans are free to torture, rape, and murder non-humans without any consequences beyond people protesting their deviant sexual practices. Humans who have sexual relations with non-humans are tolerated, but they will face social consequences if they are too public in their affections. A given campaign might have different races at different levels of acceptance by humans. The Cats would likely have Social Stigma (Second-Class Citizen), the Predators and the Trolls would likely have Social Stigma (Minority). A rogue Troll would would likely have Social Stigma (Monster).

06-11-2018, 09:34 AM	#3
ericthered Hero of Democracy Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: far from the ocean	Re: Disadvantage for being none-human in a human-dominat setting? I think this is Distinctive Features (a physical perk) in a leveled fashion. This gives -1 to attempts to Disguise and Shadowing, and +1 to attempts to identify you. If a race has a specific reputation among a specific group, that's a bog standard reputation. __________________ Be helpful, not pedantic Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog Check out the PbP forum! If you don't see a game you'd like, ask me about making one!

06-11-2018, 10:09 AM	#4
Extrarius Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Psionic Ward	Re: Disadvantage for being none-human in a human-dominat setting? "how hard it is to go on the down-low among the criminal elements" will depend on many factors: What is the make-up of the criminal element in terms of race? What are the biases of the criminal element towards each race? What are the capabilities of the criminal element in various scenarios (keeping somebody hidden from law enforcement, or keeping other criminals in line as far as reporting somebody for a reward, etc)? What groups exist within the criminal element (anything from small-time street gangs to loosely organized crime syndicates to tight-knit organized paramilitary)? For each group, what is its racial make-up, what are its biases, and what are its capabilities? How does it relate to other groups? How does it feel about using its capabilities (a group may have a fully armed army, but that doesn't mean it'll use it to get you out of the parking ticket. It may or may not change things if that ticket is a violation of your previous release arrangement and it means you're automatically going to jail). If a predator wants to hide out for a bit, the existence of a small but powerful predator-run "enforcer's union" that works for several large criminal organizations would make that much easier than if the one well-known predator was a heroic member of law enforcement and (as far as most criminals are concerned) all predators are working for law enforcement either directly or under cover. In the latter case, some kind of racial reputation might make sense. The same questions about law enforcement also make a big difference. If, for example, predators do actually tend go for jobs in law enforcement and do them well, the typical citizen might overlook their own racism and instead have the same kind of reaction curve as they'd have for other humans. This could be a reputation and social stigma giving equal but opposite reaction modifiers. On the other hand, the reputation might only exist among criminals, just making life harder for predators. Another question is what how realistic it is in your setting to be able to survive "off the grid" without significant help. Depending on how connected and organized things are, it might be virtually impossible (cameras everywhere with AI tracking everybody everywhere they go) or trivial (only physical money, regulations preventing free information sharing between banks, law enforcement at different levels, and other such barriers for tracking citizens). Wherever on the spectrum your setting lands, you then need to ask which skills are required to survive "off the grid". If a person has the needed skills, they can do just fine without any support from the criminal element. If not, they will need to figure out how to get one of the many criminal groups to help them fill out the list of needed skills.

06-11-2018, 10:53 AM	#5
The Colonel Join Date: Jul 2006	Re: Disadvantage for being none-human in a human-dominat setting? You might also have issues of restricted diet and not being able to buy products that are configured for your physiology ... clothes, tools, weapons, furniture ... vehicles even... As for getting into the criminal element ... I would expect any group with a social stigma to end up over-represented (by proportion at least) in the underclass, which usually has significant overlap with the criminal class ... if you struggle to get a legitimate job (for example), you are liable to end up working in the black or grey economies just to make ends meet.

06-11-2018, 01:32 PM	#7
whswhs Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Lawrence, KS	Re: Disadvantage for being none-human in a human-dominat setting? I don't think it's reasonable to give a character who belongs to a minority race Distinctive Features. Yes, they have trouble playing the role of a member of the majority race. But consider the case of a black person in the United States. Their ability to impersonate a white person is limited, usually, and the default GURPS assumption is that it IS so limited: A light-skinned "black" person (probably of mixed ancestry) could take Passing Appearance (in the Passing Complexion form) and be able to claim to be white, but without that perk, they would have to make a special effort to disguise themselves, if it were possible at all. And the way Distinctive Features is written, it focuses on individual traits like scars or unusual hair color. I suppose you might claim it for being black if you were in a society where black people were virtually unheard of, but not one where they have Social Stigma (Second Class Citizen) or (Minority Group) or even (Valuable Property); in those cases you could at least try to blend into a crowd of other black people, or pretend to be a different black person. And it seems to me that this would apply just as well, say, to being an elf in a human society, if elves were common enough so that everyone would recognize you as one. __________________ Bill Stoddard I don't think we're in Oz any more.

06-11-2018, 09:51 PM	#10
Toptomcat Join Date: Jan 2009	Re: Disadvantage for being none-human in a human-dominat setting? If you’re running a criminal or espionage game where disguise, Shadowing, and blending into crowds is unusually important, you could mandate that baseline humans take a five-point ‘Unusual’ Background (can use disguise, Shadowing and other skills that involve blending in without penalty in the reference culture.) as part of their racial template, making nonhumans cheaper in comparison without giving them an actual Disadvantage. Unusual Background is a useful tool for this kind of campaign-specific tuning.