Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Goblinization
Posted by: 2Claws Oct 6 2003, 05:50 PM
I was looking through SOTA, where they restated that elves and dwarves change in utero, but trolls and orcs, can goblinize.
One of my other SR GM's, not Seasong, strongly disagreed with that concept and lets all metatypes goblinize. There have been occasions where I have been curious about the potential stories of characters who became something else besides a troll or orc.
What would it be like to have been considered overweight and ugly and then change overnight into a lithe fineboned elf? How would that effect the relationships. In the same vein, how would someone like a pro basketball player adjust to being less than half as tall as he was before?
During one of those conversations, I once brought up the much hated SR novel "Shadowboxer" as a very very rare example of a goblinized dwarf. I wasn't sure if it's inclusion was a mistake on the editor's part or as a canon indicator that in very very rare cases, it could happen.
Have any of your GM's given lattitude around goblinization also, or do they work pretty close to the book?
Posted by: BitBasher Oct 6 2003, 07:39 PM
I am my GM, and I use goblinization as it is out of the book... because the very name goblinization specifically refers to the "goblinized" races, turning into something more hideous like a goblin, IE: trolls and orcs. I think the word "Goblinized" is a completely out of place if someone turned onto an elf.
Elves and dwarves are born, orcs and trolls change... in fact IIRC, orcs and trolls hardly ever goblinize anymore, they are born to normal parents, the incidences of goblinization dropped dramatically the longer after the awakening we get. I'm not positive about thqat though... Cannot remember where exactly I read that.
Posted by: Ancient History Oct 6 2003, 07:58 PM
I went oer goblinization in my Metagenics page.
Basically, the humans who goblinize do so at puberty because that's when their genes start making the necessary proteins and hormones and crap. Mainly, the only kids who goblinize nowadays are children of orks and trolls born human and goblinize at puberty.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 6 2003, 09:40 PM
I treat goblinization the canon way for exactly the reason you addressed, for dwarves at least. For elves, there are overweight elves too. For dwarves, it's pretty absurd to have someone shrink to half their height. Most stuff in SR tends to make more sense than that, that I've noticed at least.
~J
Posted by: Stonecougar Oct 6 2003, 09:46 PM
*Twitches spasmodically over the thought of overweight or naturally ugly elves, having been mentally conditioned by too many years of D&D and reading Tolkien*
Posted by: Large Mike Oct 6 2003, 10:10 PM
Also, (iirc) Shadowboxer was declared not cannon.
Posted by: Arcanum V Oct 6 2003, 10:12 PM
| QUOTE (Stonecougar) |
| *Twitches spasmodically over the thought of overweight or naturally ugly elves, having been mentally conditioned by too many years of D&D and reading Tolkien* |
I dunno about this. . . that elf that shows up at Helm's Deep leading the elven archers looks like he puts a double helping of jam on his lembas and that maybe he thinks that "second breakfast" idea of the Hobbits might not be such a bad idea.
Shadowboxer is clearly not a cannon. It's a book, and whether or not it's canon is debatable, but it's definitely not a cannon.
Posted by: Stonecougar Oct 6 2003, 11:32 PM
Hmph. While the movies are damn good, they did make some mistakes... chunky elves being one of them.
Posted by: Reighnhell Oct 6 2003, 11:33 PM
The way I run it, Goblinization as written makes alot of sense. Being a elf or dwarf involves certain features that should be there from the start ( mostly relating to bone structure). for trolls and Orcs, they can just keep growing, even if they began at normal human stature. The word "Goblinization" could have just as easily have been "monsterization" considering the size, mass, and generally fierce appearance of Orcs and Trolls. Dwarves and Elves are many things, but they are hardly monstrous to the normal human eye.
Posted by: mfb Oct 6 2003, 11:40 PM
right, because doubling your height and mass involves your skeletal structure not a titch.
Posted by: BigKnockers Oct 6 2003, 11:42 PM
But some people Goblinized through SURGE right? Presumably these people could Goblinize at any age, which I think is interesting-ish. Some middle aged Joe Schmoe having his life as he knew it ripped away from him and thrown into a life of metahuman hate. <shrug>
Posted by: mfb Oct 6 2003, 11:45 PM
indeed.
Posted by: Arcanum V Oct 6 2003, 11:50 PM
| QUOTE (Reighnhell @ Oct 6 2003, 06:33 PM) |
| Dwarves and Elves are many things, but they are hardly monstrous to the normal human eye. |
They're monstrous in their own ways. Elves are obviously Satanic (pointy ears!) and their gift of lying (increased Charisma, whatever) belies their infernal origins. Dwarves merely externalize their inferior souls in their shortness, as evil knows its place and that place is closer to the ground.
The First Man was made a human in the image of his creator. The monstrous spawn of the Titans, the offspring of Tiamat, the bastard children of the nephilim, the demonic ravana races -- these things need to be expunged from the Earth, no matter how "attractive" they might seem.
This message has been brought to you by the Knights of the Bedsheet (who are not in any way associated with, run by, part of, or affiliated with the Humanis Policlub <sly wink>).
On topic: Despite my heavy-handed reconfiguration of the game itself and all of the canon from Dunkelzahn's run for the presidency onward, I use the standard UGE patterns from the core books, and I spit on the grave of SURGE.
Posted by: 252 Oct 7 2003, 12:05 AM
Has anything been released for what exactly this surge is getting caused by? If I recall correctly (which I might not be,) it started before this whole Year of the Comet thing, whoever the Comet brought about stronger (more) of this phenoman.
Anyways correct everything that's wrong and please clue me in. Thanks bye.
Posted by: Ancient History Oct 7 2003, 12:10 AM
None of you have yet waded through my carefully compiled metagenics page, neatly put together for readability as opposed to book-by-book fact searching, have you?
SURGE was caused by a very sharp mana increase caused by Halley's Comet, either directly or indirectly.
Posted by: 252 Oct 7 2003, 12:46 AM
I refute Ancient Histories statement, I know I have personally read the page.
Okay, maybe I'm getting what a surge is wrong. Maybe I was talking about Spike Babies. Which brings me to that point and that point is:
Since almost all (or actually all: Not to greatly read of everything) do spike babies actually exist or are all of the Spike Babies actually just Immortal Elves that were smart enough to find ways to start over again and again with new IDs?
Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 7 2003, 01:15 AM
Spike Babies really exist ( 
) and were collected by some immortals to give them a larger resource pool in their quest to rule... Oregon.
The first widely known spike babies were the paracritters called Century Ferrets.
Posted by: John Campbell Oct 7 2003, 02:24 AM
Have there ever been any details given as to exactly how Century Ferrets differ from regular old everyday unAwakened ferrets?
Posted by: Ancient History Oct 7 2003, 02:43 AM
Yes, paranormal ANimals of North America.
Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 7 2003, 02:46 AM
| QUOTE |
| John Campbell Have there ever been any details given as to exactly how Century Ferrets differ from regular old everyday unAwakened ferrets? |
Size is the big difference
Posted by: Hot Wheels Oct 7 2003, 12:09 PM
| QUOTE (Arcanum V @ Oct 6 2003, 06:12 PM) |
| I dunno about this. . . that elf that shows up at Helm's Deep leading the elven archers looks like he puts a double helping of jam on his lembas and that maybe he thinks that "second breakfast" idea of the Hobbits might not be such a bad idea. |
It's pretty rare now for people to goblinize at all. Occassionally a human baby is born to orks or trolls who changes at pueberty, but in general that's it, unless you're doing a campaign set in the 2030's
Posted by: Abstruse Oct 7 2003, 12:49 PM
There are spike baby elves for sure and probably dwarves, but as I understand, the elves at least didn't exibit the typical elven traits (namely the pointy ears) until the mana level rose. Thus explaining why I can still hope and hope that once 2011 rolls around I'll have a set of pointy ears for myself...and if I don't, I'm suing FASA and WizKids 
The Abstruse One
Posted by: Ancient History Oct 7 2003, 12:55 PM
Sorry, Spike Baby elves had pointed ears, IEs may or may not have, depending on which novelist you ask.
Posted by: DV8 Oct 7 2003, 01:35 PM
| QUOTE (Hot Wheels) |
| [QUOTE=Arcanum V,Oct 6 2003, 06:12 PM]It's pretty rare now for people to goblinize at all. Occassionally a human baby is born to orks or trolls who changes at pueberty, but in general that's it, unless you're doing a campaign set in the 2030's |
Yeah, a lot of people forget that actual Goblinization is pretty rare in 2060, since most Unexplained Genetic Expression was exactly that; Genetic Expression. People were already Orks and Trolls, but magic level wasn't high enough to let them manifest thier true self. It was much easier for Dwarves and Elves because they were relatively close, genetically, to humans, so they were born right from the start. Nowadays, Orks and Trolls usually get born just like all the other meta-races.
Posted by: Hot Wheels Oct 7 2003, 01:41 PM
The IE's vary with time. If they'd had them during the down time, it would have stood out, they have them now, unless Harklequin is currentlly hiding out at a serries of Trek conventions.
Posted by: DV8 Oct 7 2003, 01:52 PM
I wouldn't put it past him. 
Posted by: Abstruse Oct 7 2003, 03:14 PM
Naw, I can see him totally blitzed out of his mind running around a Renaissance Fair with his sword from the Harlequin adventure asking the paper mache dragon how Dark Tooth is doing.
Compared to the 4th World, we live in boring times. An IE would have precious little to entertain himself with, which is how I've always pictured Laughing Man...not taking anything seriously just because he's so friggin' BORED with it all.
The Abstruse One
Posted by: mehrkat Oct 7 2003, 09:52 PM
I've never been a canon monster but in my shadowrun meta's kept happening.
I put the entire world on a cycle magic gradually increases and then gradually decreases. As the magic increases you pass power levels that cause people to meta and new types of meta to come about as the magic got higher and higher.
When I ran my game it was immediately after the second goblinization with some pcs being level 1 metas and some being level 2 metas (the altered priority system I had allowed for purchasing meta 1 or meta 2 with a list creatures of both.)
Metaing took about 1 to 2 weeks depending on the change. It was kind of like puberty growth spurts combined with a very slow version of the Werewolf change in an American Werewolf in London and enormous hunger around the spurts and spasms.
Behind the scenes I had a mental picture of what caused goblinization and why someone would meta as the magic increased. I had it connected to the amount of meta ancestry someone had and what types. It was technically possible for a person to meta into a Troll 1, be there for 20-25 years and then meta into an Elf 2. Though it was also possible for someone to meta straight up the chart elf 1, elf 2, elf 3. It was also for someone to be human for goblinization 1 and 2 but then meta into a sprite for meta 3.
As the metaed they became less and less humanity and more and more "other".
As the magic in the really long cycle had decreased the metas became more and more human and moved into the human worlds until it was all but forgotten.
There were some rumors about certain meta's managing to stay as they were. Vampires lived on the life essences of others and absorbed just enough power to stay immortal but very little else until the magic came back (few survived the entire low magic cycle). Psychics caught glimpses of the magic power. Elves and some other fae took a city to another side dimension to preserve their immortality until the magic returned.
Any thoughts.
Posted by: Atrox Oct 8 2003, 05:06 AM
One of the reasons why Goblinisation has to happen after birth to remain remotely believable is size.
Quite simply, while a human woman can give birth to an elven or dwarven baby, birthing a fully grown ork baby would be . . . unpleasant, as well as risky, it's flatly inconceivable for a troll fetus to reach maturity inside a human womb. If it somehow did, even Caesarian section might not save the mother's life. A normal birth would not be survivable for either mother or child.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 8 2003, 05:12 AM
Fully grown? Well, of course that wouldn't work.
As for birthing, are the relative sizes what they are later at birth, or (as I've been assuming) is it just that orks and trolls grow more afterwards?
~J
Posted by: DV8 Oct 8 2003, 09:04 AM
From what I've understand from discussions with some of the developers, it's very uncommon in 2060 for women to give birth to children outside of their own meta-group. Apparently, while it happened during the turbulent years after the first and second wave of UGE, where a lot of women had to give birth by cesarean section, but now it's stabalised more to the point where meta-humans get born to their own meta-human group.
I also recall a little stat on what the chances were for which kind of child when a child was born from two differing meta-humans.
Posted by: Buzzed Oct 8 2003, 01:02 PM
| QUOTE (2Claws) |
| What would it be like to have been considered overweight and ugly and then change overnight into a lithe fineboned elf? |
Since when are all elfs cute and thin? Didn't you ever see a fat elf, or an ugly faced dandelion eater before?
Posted by: Hot Wheels Oct 8 2003, 01:11 PM
Yeah, but they have to work at it. They get that +2 to charisma because they're so damn cute. so even a basic charisma of 1, gets the extra 2 points and they are at worst human average.
Posted by: Velocity Oct 8 2003, 03:43 PM
| QUOTE |
| DV8 wrote: From what I've understand from discussions with some of the developers, it's very uncommon in 2060 for women to give birth to children outside of their own meta-group. Apparently, while it happened during the turbulent years after the first and second wave of UGE, where a lot of women had to give birth by cesarean section, but now it's stabalised more to the point where meta-humans get born to their own meta-human group. |
Y'know, I'm willing to bet that in North America and Europe, where birth control is cheap and abundant, a whole lot of women refused to let themselves get pregnant right around that time. Two good friends of mine recently went through cesareans (with human babies AFAIK) and the horror stories of needing 40, 50 stitches over gashes longer than your palm (from you-know-where to you-know-where-else) are enough to make the most maternally-inclined woman swear off child rearing for life.
Can you imagine what would happen the first time some news show or medical website showed a clip of a human woman giving birth to an 18-pound Troll child? There'd be a wave--hell, a tsunami--of abortions and condoms would fly off the shelves.
Depending on how widespread the information on genetic expression was, it might even have set off a statistically significant decline in birth rates. Heck, it might STILL be affecting birth rates in 2060; the average person probably doesn't understand UGE very well anyway...
Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 8 2003, 04:33 PM
Dunno; no one I've known who had a cesarean section complained that the experience was particularly unpleasant, at least as compared to the very long labor they'd been in previously.
~J
Posted by: DV8 Oct 8 2003, 05:49 PM
| QUOTE |
| (from you-know-where to you-know-where-else) |
Caesarian cuts go across, not up and down. But then again, 80% of the women giving birth rip the entrance to their vagina during labour, and that's with normal sized human children.
Posted by: Velocity Oct 8 2003, 05:50 PM
| QUOTE |
| Kagetenshi wrote: Dunno; no one I've known who had a cesarean section complained that the experience was particularly unpleasant, at least as compared to the very long labor they'd been in previously. |
Okay, I'll just use a little spoiler tag here, in case anyone's squeamish. Don't click it if you're in any way grossed out by body stuff.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 8 2003, 06:19 PM
Given that most babies are born toothless, I'd say that they probably wouldn't have tusks at birth. Probably the same with horns.
As for the cut you describe, yes, that would be horribly unpleasant. However, that's not what a C-Section is.
~J
Posted by: CanvasBack Oct 8 2003, 06:20 PM
@Velocity
Your spoiler describes an episiotomy, not a c-section. Huge difference between the two. 
Posted by: DV8 Oct 8 2003, 06:49 PM
| QUOTE (CanvasBack) |
| Your spoiler describes an episiotomy, not a c-section. Huge difference between the two. |
Yeah, I was just going to say!
Posted by: Zan Oct 8 2003, 07:10 PM
say an elf and a troll somehow get together and have a kid. How do GMs or players handle what is going to be born...
right now one of my ork characters is in a serious relation ship with a spirit... dont ask... Just vote him for mayor (Pully-wup or however its spelled) when you see him on the ballot (Robert Paige).
My point is not all kids have the same meta parents. No one in SR ever talks about "Half" beings (half-elfs, half-orks, half-trolls, etc etc) so... is it a 50/50 chance of what they become?
Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 8 2003, 07:14 PM
Bob Paige? Have you been playing too much Deus Ex recently?
As for your question, there are rules somewhere (SOTA 2063, I believe).
~J
Posted by: Zan Oct 8 2003, 07:19 PM
No. He's actually the ork who got the ork language (Tagaru) from D's will. Which he's trying to translate.
Posted by: Mr. Unpronounceable Oct 8 2003, 07:31 PM
| QUOTE (Zan) |
| My point is not all kids have the same meta parents. No one in SR ever talks about "Half" beings (half-elfs, half-orks, half-trolls, etc etc) so... is it a 50/50 chance of what they become? |
IIRC, it's more like a ladder system:
Troll
orc
Elf/Dwarf
Human
where the baby is almost always the metatype of the parent highest on the list.
(BTW, last I heard, c-sections are located in the lower abdomen, and are usually vertical cuts nowadays, since NOT slicing the vertically-oriented muscles in half means it tends to heal better & faster.)
Posted by: Zan Oct 8 2003, 07:43 PM
so elf and dwarf is a 50/50 chance?
Posted by: Mr. Unpronounceable Oct 8 2003, 07:49 PM
more like 60/40...favoring the mother's metatype...but it's been a while since I've seen the numbers.
Posted by: BitBasher Oct 8 2003, 08:09 PM
I thought I had read somewhere that it was always the mothers metatype... I could be talking out my ass though.
Posted by: Ancient History Oct 8 2003, 09:00 PM
There are no numbers, there is no "ladder." Where in Ghost's name do ou people find this information? It's not in the books, I should know.
Posted by: Mr. Unpronounceable Oct 8 2003, 09:17 PM
Then you should read a little more carefully - I know the writeup for giants in the SR Comp (vsn 1, at least) definitely mentioned the rate that normal humans were born to giant-metatype mothers.
I'm reasonably certain there was discussion (in the shadowtalk posts, maybe?) in one or more of the other books about which metatypes were more probable given mixed parentage...though no specific percentages were mentioned.
And admittedly, I'm working off half-remembered (if that) text - since I'm not GM'ing a game, it isn't something I've needed to know.
Posted by: Ancient History Oct 8 2003, 10:20 PM
I seriously need to take a break from these baords...I feel like a broken record.
One more time: go. read. the. relevant. page. on. my. site
Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 8 2003, 10:28 PM
| QUOTE (Mr. Unpronounceable) |
| Then you should read a little more carefully - I know the writeup for giants in the SR Comp (vsn 1, at least) definitely mentioned the rate that normal humans were born to giant-metatype mothers. |
Yeah, it says:
| QUOTE (SR3C) |
| For as-yet-unknown reasons, giants seem to have a greater-than-average tendency toward genetic reversions--one out of every four female infants born to giant mothers is human (homo sapiens sapiens). |
So approximately 12.5% of giant babies are human, which is apparently a high number. It stands to reason that among other meta-types, the percentage is more like 5-10%, so something that, while statisticly significant, isn't necessarily that common.
Posted by: Buzzed Oct 8 2003, 10:58 PM
| QUOTE (Hot Wheels) |
| Yeah, but they have to work at it. They get that +2 to charisma because they're so damn cute. so even a basic charisma of 1, gets the extra 2 points and they are at worst human average. |
This is a big misconception. Charisma is not just looks. Charisma is mainly personality, human interaction, and vocal ability. If you were to base charisma as a purely physical aspect, then a store manikin would have a default charisma of 6.
I would say that the +2 charisma comes from their vocal cords more then anything else.
Posted by: John Campbell Oct 9 2003, 12:34 AM
The way crossbreeding works, as far as I can tell, is like so (I'm getting most of this from SR2, but I've seen no indication that it's changed in the new edition):
Human + Human = Almost always Human, with any of the other metatypes possible, but rare and getting rarer.
Human + Elf = Elf
Human + Dwarf = Dwarf
Human + Ork = Ork
Human + Troll = Troll
Elf + Elf = Elf
Elf + Dwarf = ~50% chance of either Elf or Dwarf
Elf + Ork = Almost always Ork, though Elf is a possibility.
Elf + Troll = Almost always Troll, though Elf is a possibility.
Dwarf + Dwarf = Dwarf
Dwarf + Ork = Almost always Ork, though Dwarf is a possibility.
Dwarf + Troll = Almost always Troll, though Dwarf is a possibility.
Ork + Ork = Ork
Ork + Troll = ~50% chance of either Ork or Troll
Troll + Troll = Troll
There are occasional "throwbacks" to human, but I think they're very rare, except for giants, who fairly frequently have human daughters, and elves, who occasionally have twins, with one twin elven and the other human and usually non-viable. And I may have just come up with a theory to explain both the throwbacks and why the goblinized races appear to be dominant, but I need to think it over some more...
I've seen no evidence that it makes any difference which parent was which. I have no clear idea how metavariants work into all this.
Posted by: BitBasher Oct 9 2003, 12:55 AM
Can we get a page number and book on that? I have never read that in a previous edition.
Posted by: John Campbell Oct 9 2003, 01:10 AM
It's mostly from SR2 p.34 (hardcover; I assume the paperback's laid out the same way, but if not, it's the intro to the Metahumanity section), with bits and pieces thrown in from other parts of that section, or other sources. I made assumptions in a couple of places where things weren't stated outright or were ambiguously phrased, but I don't think any of my assumptions are unreasonable, and I've not seen anything canon that'd contradict them.
edit: Specifically, I'm assuming that, "In the instances of attempts at natural crossbreeding, the child is always of the same race as either the elf or dwarf parent," is referring to human + elf and human + dwarf crossbreeds as well as elf + dwarf crossbreeds. I'm also assuming that that sentence and the 50/50 chance of which parent is matched apply to orks and trolls as well (but with ork and troll substituted for elf and dwarf), which is implied but not clearly stated. I think everything else I said is straight canon without much leeway for interpretation.
Posted by: DV8 Oct 9 2003, 11:05 AM
| QUOTE (Ancient History) |
| I seriously need to take a break from these baords...I feel like a broken record. One more time: go. read. the. relevant. page. on. my. site |
Of course, if AnHi speaks, it must be canon.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 9 2003, 11:15 AM
Usually, yes. The cross-referencing is sufficiently obsessive and as far as I can tell accurate as to merit my sincere admiration.
He's not infallible, but when looking for a bit of SR obscura that's where I typically turn first. I have yet to be steered wrong.
~J
Posted by: DV8 Oct 9 2003, 11:44 AM
AnHi compiles information from canon source, sure. Here and there he sticks some conclusions and some assumptions in there, so I don't think his word is gospel, and I think I'm not the only one.
Posted by: 2Claws Oct 9 2003, 02:19 PM
Great info!
Posted by: Mr. Unpronounceable Oct 9 2003, 06:20 PM
| QUOTE (John Campbell) |
| It's mostly from SR2 p.34 |
Thanks - I'm lousy at finding page numbers for references.
Posted by: Reth Oct 10 2003, 03:21 AM
Guys just to wrap it up with the Giants. You can NOT use the rules for the Giant metatype in this discussion, since this rule ONLY owes its existance to Norse mythology. In Norse myths the Giants often have beautiful human looking daughters. The rule is just SR's way of trying to accomodate the myths. Also Steven Kensons article on love in Earthdawn might prove to contain valuable hints to SR's future. Basically according to the article, the different races can't even procreate with each other in ED, therefore it would stand to reason that the racial differnces become more and more pronounced with the rise of the manalevel, thus making children of a different metatype than one or both parents an occurence that is fast disappearing and soon to be a thing of the past. The same thing goes with goblinization. Of course it will still be some time until the different races can no longer procreate, but it will likely, and already have become rarer and rarer.
Posted by: John Campbell Oct 10 2003, 08:50 AM
| QUOTE (Reth) |
| Guys just to wrap it up with the Giants. You can NOT use the rules for the Giant metatype in this discussion, since this rule ONLY owes its existance to Norse mythology. In Norse myths the Giants often have beautiful human looking daughters. The rule is just SR's way of trying to accomodate the myths. |
And? Huge chunks of the magic-related portions of the rules and background come from various mythologies. That doesn't make them any less valid - or less in need of in-game explanations (even if it's just "that's the way the mana is aspected there") - than the parts that the SR designers just pulled out of their butts.
Posted by: DV8 Oct 10 2003, 10:15 AM
If the way it has been implemented in canon material is nearly identical to the mythological source, and if there is no mention of the aspect occurring outside of the explicitly documented implementation (in this case Giants), then assuming it holds true outside of that (read: for other meta-humans) is just that; an assumption. So Reth has a very valid point.
Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 10 2003, 12:24 PM
I'd just like to point out that the passage on giants very directly implies it occurs among other metahumans. It says a "greater-than-average tendancy toward genetic reversions". The key phrase being "greater-than-average". If the giants are the only race which experiences this at a statisticly significant level, why was it written this way?
Posted by: DV8 Oct 10 2003, 12:43 PM
Good point, TG. But you could also reverse that; if it did apply to all meta-races, then why was it not more significantly stated?
Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 10 2003, 01:17 PM
Well, the statement seems to logically indicate a reversion rate of about 5% for other races (giants have approximately a 12.5% reversion rate, figuring 50% boys and 50% girls). However, it could be as low as 1-2%. If it's that low, then I can definitely understand why it's not mentioned.
Posted by: Reth Oct 10 2003, 05:41 PM
Well to clarify, i didn't mean to say that genetic reversion doesn't happen amongst the other metas, just that you can't use the example of the Giants to try to calculate the reversion percentage amongst thee other metas, because of the fact that the example of the giants seems to aiming more at being in synch with the Norse myths than with the SR universe. Genetic reversion do happen ( still ) but the worldwide percentage is problaly lower than 1%, saying that the Giants express a higher than average genetic reversion percentage doesn't say anything about the exact worldwide numerical value of the meta to human genetic reversion percentage, it could be 12.4% or it could be 0.001%, there is no way to say, just that it is lower than 12.5%. In my opinion the average percentage is problaly around 1 or below, and the high reversion rate of the Giants owes its explanation to a regional and cultural mythology, not standard SR metagenetics, or else it would definitely have merited more mention in books such as SSG, since it would be a major impact on life in the 60's.
Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 10 2003, 05:53 PM
If the reversion rate is lower than 1%, the phrasing "greater-than-average" is definitely poorly chosen. "Abnormally high" or similar strong language is warranted if the occurance percentage is more than a factor of ten off of average.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)