Character Cost vs. Racial Strength

Many GMs will want to create at least a few races with powers far
beyond those of normal humans. In game terms, this means a high
racial cost. This may create an apparent contradiction in the campaign:
“If these guys are so great, why don’t they control the whole world?”
The most obvious answer is “They do!” There’s no reason why
humanity has to be the dominant race of the campaign. Mankind could
be an insignificant minor race or an audacious upstart to the ancient
civilizations of the nonhumans!
However, the GM needn’t forsake superhuman races in an anthro-
pocentric campaign. The factors that allow individuals to excel are
quite different from those that allow one race to dominate another. An
anthropocentric story or campaign usually assumes that humanity has
several advantages, relative to other races, that would never show up on
a character sheet.
Humans are prolific. A woman can easily bear six to 12 children in
her lifetime; a man can father children with a huge number of women.
Other races might be strictly monogamous, tied to a complex fertility
cycle, or generally infertile, allowing humanity to dominate them
through sheer numbers. This is borne out in nature, where extremely
capable species – such as the dominant carnivores – inevitably have
smaller populations than “lesser” species.
Humans are aggressive. They tend to want money, property, and
power for its own sake. A pragmatic race might let the humans move
in and assume the burden of running things! They might insist on a few
basic rights, but not necessarily political power. Of course, an extreme-
ly powerful or supernatural race might pursue goals that humans can-
not comprehend, leaving humanity to do as it pleases.
Humans are organized. A super-race might never need to band
together for protection from nature as humanity’s ancestors did. Such
a race might be unable to withstand an organized human military cam-
paign or political program. Indeed, such a race might find real eco-
nomic and cultural benefit in accepting organization by humanity.
This discussion applies equally to extremely low-powered races vis-
à-vis humanity. The members of a hive mind or primitive horde might
be no match for us individually, but be more prolific, aggressive, and
organized than we are as a race!
gregarious, do they favor large cities,
small villages, or family groups?
• How do they think? Do they have
a racial philosophy? Do they have a
religion? Do they have many religions?
How do they react in an emergency?
Do they like new things, or are they
complacent? Can they be trusted?
• How do they get along with oth-
ers? Do they fight among themselves?
How do they react to new races?
Suspiciously? Enthusiastically? Do
they trade with other races? Are there
other races they particularly like or
dislike?
An “animal” is any nonsapient natural
creature; for instance, a rhinoceros or a
tiger. A “monster” is any fantastic or unnat-
ural creature – either sapient, like a drag-
on, or nonsapient, like a flesh-eating slime
– that lacks a civilization. Both are consid-
ered characters, with racial templates (see
Chapter 15) that show how they differ
from human beings.
Since animals are normally nonsapient
and have few or no skills, and since mon-
sters are most often intended as adver-
saries for the PCs, the GM need not create
them as fully fleshed-out characters. If the
GM controls a creature, he can simply
refer to its unmodified racial template – or
just list a few combat statistics, if the thing
is intended as an opponent.
However, animals and monsters intend-
ed as PCs always require full statistics. The
GM might wish to create some animal and
monster NPCs as fully realized characters,
too. This is the difference between “a wolf”
and “the canny old wolf that terrorized the
village”!