Question on when to use Social Stigma vs Odious Racial Habit on Monster Races

[phayman53]

I am either misunderstanding a nuance or have noticed a somewhat inconsistent use of racial disadvantages between racial templates in supplements. Some monster races have Social Stigma (Monster) [-15] and others have Odious Racial Habit (Eats Other Sapients). Basic Set says that large, dangerous predators should have Social Stigma (Monster), such as vampires and bears. But this seems to be because they eat sapient beings, so Social Stigma (Monster) and Odious Racial Habit (Eats other Sapients) seem to cover a lot of the same ground. What is the difference and should they ever be used together?

For instance, should a race of Tolkien-like orcs have Social Stigma (Monster) or Odious Racial Habit (Eats other Sapients)? Or should they have both--or maybe Social Stigma (Barbarian) and Odious Racial Habit (Eats other Sapients)?

[Culture20]

If you’re referring to GURPS ghouls, they eat the corpses of sentients, but are otherwise “civilized” and supposedly don’t kill people willy nilly (not unlike the infected from “I Zombie”). Less monster, more “ew”.

[Kelly Pedersen]

My general rule of thumb for distinguishing the traits is that Social Stigmas come with additional social restrictions or limitations of rights, while Odious Racial Habits are just reaction penalties.

So, with Social Stigma (Monster), people not only react to you badly, you also lack significant legal rights, like the right to not be killed out of hand as soon as people learn what you are. Someone staking a vampire, in a setting where vampires are commonly known to exist and be dangerous monsters, isn't going to get convicted of murder or anything, as long as they can prove it was, in fact, a vampire they staked. Odious Racial Habit (eats sentient beings) doesn't do that - you're assumed to be a potential anthropophage, and people will definitely be very uncomfortable or terrified of you as a result, but someone can't just kill you out of hand on those grounds.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by phayman53

Basic Set says that large, dangerous predators should have Social Stigma (Monster), such as vampires and bears. But this seems to be because they eat sapient beings

Bears, sharks, etc would have the social stigma regardless of eating people simply because they kill people; mother bears and cubs, but sharks have the social stigma regardless of the fact that they very rarely eat people they kill, and most shark-on-human assaults seem to kill people more by accident than by serious predatory intent. Doesn't make it any happier for the person who gets an exploratory "nibble" that takes a fatal chunk out of them, but the distinction is worth pointing out - something that doesn't kill people but digs their bodies up and eats them is a different kind of problem (spotted hyenas, frex).

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by phayman53

I am either misunderstanding a nuance or have noticed a somewhat inconsistent use of racial disadvantages between racial templates in supplements. Some monster races have Social Stigma (Monster) [-15] and others have Odious Racial Habit (Eats Other Sapients). Basic Set says that large, dangerous predators should have Social Stigma (Monster), such as vampires and bears. But this seems to be because they eat sapient beings, so Social Stigma (Monster) and Odious Racial Habit (Eats other Sapients) seem to cover a lot of the same ground. What is the difference and should they ever be used together?

For instance, should a race of Tolkien-like orcs have Social Stigma (Monster) or Odious Racial Habit (Eats other Sapients)? Or should they have both--or maybe Social Stigma (Barbarian) and Odious Racial Habit (Eats other Sapients)?

As I see it, in order to have Social Stigma (Monster), one must first be readily identifiable as not human but of a race that that people will assume based on just looking at them as liable to attack without provocation. No matter how intelligent the race may be, it is treated as a dangerous animal and killing them is not regarded a murder. This has nothing to do with whether they eat the people they attack but if they do eat people then I wouldn't think that this would have a lot of impact on people's reaction to them. Odious Racial Habit is for people who are regarded as people. Terrible, terrible people.

[jason taylor]

I'd say "barbarian". Sophavorism is just one of Tolkienite Ork's distasteful qualities. They torture for "sport" and regularly commit atrocities. You need an overview for all of it.

[Kromm]

The key difference is this:

Odious Racial Habit: Here's something awful that each member of this race demonstrably does, and does sufficiently often that it generates negative reactions most of the time. It reflects being genuinely foul, crude, rude, annoying, or scary.

Social Stigma: Here's how this race is treated by the game world's dominant race(s), simply for being who they are, independent of anything they might actually do. It indicates prejudice on the part of other races, which may or may not have its origins in an unpleasant truth.

• A race with ORH but not SS is tolerated in civilization for some reason – most likely because they're so physically similar to the dominant sapient races and/or are so useful to the economy that they usually "pass" and their foibles are ignored – but individuals periodically do something that results in rejection in that specific moment.
  
  
• A race with SS but not ORH is treated badly in civilization for some reason, most likely unfounded prejudice. This is a general dislike, not linked to the actions of specific individuals at particular moments.
  
  
• A race with ORH and SS faces full-time ostracism founded in the reality that its members periodically do something awful, and this conduct is well-known. This rejection grows extra-strong when a given individual justifies it by actually engaging in the troublesome behavior.

[whswhs]

So, for example, a generic tiger would likely have Monster (you would be terrified if you met one at random); a tiger known to be a maneater would have Monster and Odious Personal Habit (that individual tiger seeks out people as prey); but a tigroid species all of whose members preferred to eat people would have Monster and Odious Racial Habit?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Kromm

[*]A race with SS but not ORH is treated badly in civilization for some reason, most likely unfounded prejudice.

Well, it could certainly be prejudice founded in some other feature of the race, such as Bully.

Oddly enough, corpse-eaters in DF3 have Restricted Diet (Flesh of other sapient beings) but not ORH (eats sapients).

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Well, it could certainly be prejudice founded in some other feature of the race, such as Bully.

Oddly enough, corpse-eaters in DF3 have Restricted Diet (Flesh of other sapient beings) but not ORH (eats sapients).

It is a bit curious. Maybe they keep the fine details of their dietary habits away from other races? Although, such a racial Secret could easily turn into an ORH.