Does Appearance Belong on a Racial Template

[Provinto]

So I've had an argument on Reddit where I asked for help determining what kind of Appearance an orc and a half-orc should have. I was basing Appearance on the fact that humans and those with human-like standards of beauty would be reacting to their perceptions of orcish Appearance. There aren't really any NPC orcs in the campaign's area to react to RAW orcish Appearance, so I made Appearance which is strictly among other orcs as either a perk or a quirk.

Someone latched onto the fact that I was using Appearance and, despite my decision to just use it as I'd made it and the fact that the PC Racial templates had been made and people have already made characters, argued that Appearance didn't belong in a racial template, as Appearance RAW refers to Appearance within a species. So, I'm turning it over to the proper GURPS hive mind: does Appearance belong on a Racial Template?

[Refplace]

Appearance refers to the reference society (term coined in GURPS Social Engineering). If the main race encountered are humans than appearance value is based on what it means to them.

[whswhs]

I addressed this in GURPS Template Toolkit 2: Races, actually.

My take on the matter is this. The default is that every race's members look average to each other. A female human looks acceptable to a male human, and a female rhinoceros looks acceptable to a male rhinoceros, and so on.

But there's a case for adjustment sometimes. One of the main uses of appearance is to modify reaction rolls. If you roll for reaction, with no modifiers, a typical roll is 9-12, which is one Poor outcome and three Neutral; that is, members of a typical race such as humans are sometimes take a mild dislike to each other but usually are neutral. But if your appearance is Unattractive, you get -1 to the roll, which is 8-11, or two Poor outcomes and two Neutral; that is, you're about twice as likely to dislike each other. And if it's Attractive, you get +1, which is 10-13, or three Neutral outcomes and one Good; that is, they're as likely to react favorably to each other as humans are to act unfavorably.

So if you want a race that's naturally quarrelsome or uncooperative, make them Unattractive, and they'll tend to "not like your looks." Or if you want a harmonious race, make them Attractive.

This fits well with the stereotype that elves are beautiful and polite, and orcs are ugly and quarrelsome. But whether humans see the respective races the same way is up to the GM; the Basic Set just says "closely related races."

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Provinto

So I've had an argument on Reddit where I asked for help determining what kind of Appearance an orc and a half-orc should have. I was basing Appearance on the fact that humans and those with human-like standards of beauty would be reacting to their perceptions of orcish Appearance. There aren't really any NPC orcs in the campaign's area to react to RAW orcish Appearance, so I made Appearance which is strictly among other orcs as either a perk or a quirk.

Someone latched onto the fact that I was using Appearance and, despite my decision to just use it as I'd made it and the fact that the PC Racial templates had been made and people have already made characters, argued that Appearance didn't belong in a racial template, as Appearance RAW refers to Appearance within a species. So, I'm turning it over to the proper GURPS hive mind: does Appearance belong on a Racial Template?

They got the RAW wrong. Elves have had a positive appearance bonus from their earliest iteration. Actually Appearance refers to your ugliness or lack of same with regard to what Social Engineering calls "the reference society" which is usually, but not always human. The reference society is the society which is is most widespread within the sandbox of the game. One of these days I want to do a game where elves are the reference society so the human package has Unattractive, Short-Lived and Immune to Iron Poisoning.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

They got the RAW wrong. Elves have had a positive appearance bonus from their earliest iteration. Actually Appearance refers to your ugliness or lack of same with regard to what Social Engineering calls "the reference society" which is usually, but not always human. The reference society is the society which is is most widespread within the sandbox of the game. One of these days I want to do a game where elves are the reference society so the human package has Unattractive, Short-Lived and Immune to Iron Poisoning.

And the Loi from GURPS Atomic Horror was another racial template that had Appearance: Attractive, so yes Appearance can belong on a racial template, though it doesn't have to appear on every racial template (and where it doesn't, the race would be considered about the same appearance as an average human [for purposes of reaction]).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

They got the RAW wrong. Elves have had a positive appearance bonus from their earliest iteration. Actually Appearance refers to your ugliness or lack of same with regard to what Social Engineering calls "the reference society" which is usually, but not always human. The reference society is the society which is is most widespread within the sandbox of the game. One of these days I want to do a game where elves are the reference society so the human package has Unattractive, Short-Lived and Immune to Iron Poisoning.

Actually, that's not what either the Basic Set or Social Engineering says. SE provides that certain traits depend on the reference society, but does not list appearance as one of them. The Basic Set treats appearance as reflecting reactions from your own species. SE generalizes that to say that individual appearance works that way, but racial appearance affects how the dominant species in the reference society views your entire race. In either version you can take Universal, +25%, and have your appearance affect everyone.

As a further complication, the really negative, monstrous appearances are effective racial, even if you're one of a kind.

[Stormcrow]

I suspect that in most game worlds, orcs find each other just as ugly as everyone else finds them.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

I suspect that in most game worlds, orcs find each other just as ugly as everyone else finds them.

I used this in my current fantasy world. Elves average Attractive and are inclined to like each other's looks and be helpful. Ghouls average Unattractive and are more quarrelsome than other races. Going with this, elves respect someone who has a lot of friends, but ghouls respect someone who's ready to pick a fight; elven courtship is "let us make beautiful music together," but ghoul courtship is "you! come here!" (usually addressed by females to males, as females are bigger and more dominant).

On the other hand, there are female ghouls who provide sexual services to members of other races. They tend to be the "baby-faced" ones who have cute little canine teeth rather than big fangs—but that sometimes means other ghouls underestimate them.

[AlexanderHowl]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Actually, that's not what either the Basic Set or Social Engineering says. SE provides that certain traits depend on the reference society, but does not list appearance as one of them. The Basic Set treats appearance as reflecting reactions from your own species. SE generalizes that to say that individual appearance works that way, but racial appearance affects how the dominant species in the reference society views your entire race. In either version you can take Universal, +25%, and have your appearance affect everyone.

As a further complication, the really negative, monstrous appearances are effective racial, even if you're one of a kind.

Species, not race or subspecies. In many fantasy settings, the ability of different groups to interbreed suggests that they are different subspecies of the same species. So, in settings where elves, humans, and orcs can interbreed, they are effectively different subspecies of the same species (Star Trek effectively makes the same assumptions about its 'alien' species).

[Provinto]

Thanks for the answers everyone!

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Species, not race or subspecies. In many fantasy settings, the ability of different groups to interbreed suggests that they are different subspecies of the same species. So, in settings where elves, humans, and orcs can interbreed, they are effectively different subspecies of the same species (Star Trek effectively makes the same assumptions about its 'alien' species).

In my homebrew fantasy world I changed that so that orcs and humans couldn't interbreed. I drew elves further into the forest so that they were less present in the world and more like the Sidhe (of Celtic Myth), and half-elves were more like "sidhe-blooded" humans, closer to a demi-god status that most people would doubt.

Originally Posted by whswhs

I used this in my current fantasy world. Elves average Attractive and are inclined to like each other's looks and be helpful. Ghouls average Unattractive and are more quarrelsome than other races. Going with this, elves respect someone who has a lot of friends, but ghouls respect someone who's ready to pick a fight; elven courtship is "let us make beautiful music together," but ghoul courtship is "you! come here!" (usually addressed by females to males, as females are bigger and more dominant).

On the other hand, there are female ghouls who provide sexual services to members of other races. They tend to be the "baby-faced" ones who have cute little canine teeth rather than big fangs—but that sometimes means other ghouls underestimate them.

That is a spooky setting -- I love it.