Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Thoughts on Goblinization and Social Prejudice

Posted by: JanessaVR Mar 14 2007, 06:13 PM

Some thoughts on the original wave of Goblinization. Are there any detailed accounts of this time (in a sourcebook somewhere) and who was struck by it across society, demographic-wise? As some members of my group have pointed out, if it really was 10% – evenly across the board demographically – then why is there any real prejudice against them? With that high of a percentage, it’s almost certain that every family has someone who Goblinized – and could not be certain that they suddenly wouldn’t as well. This would tend to negate prejudice for it’s victims. In contrast, if it was only the “underclass” who Goblinized, then THAT would certainly generate social prejudice against them.

Your thoughts?

Posted by: Demerzel Mar 14 2007, 06:25 PM

You've got a lot of faith in parental love.

If 10% of all children at adolescence turned into orks and trolls I have little doubt that many people's families would disown them. Treat it as a disease that needed curing, etc.

Consider the number of families who have a member who is gay, and the intollerance they still face from family. Then amplify that to something so hideous as turning into a big ugly troll (who may still be gay )!

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Mar 14 2007, 06:26 PM

I think you're looking at prejudice entirely too rationally; prejudice is anything but rational.
Homosexuality (for example) occurs pretty evenly across demographics, even if it is treated differently in different demographics. Virtually everyone has friends or relatives who are, and yet there is still prejudice.
The difference is there are no closet-case Trolls.

edit: Wow. Demerzel and I posted at the same time and both talked about gays and trolls. Oh, I should mention that when I say there are no closet-case Trolls, I mean Trolls who pretend that they are not Trolls. There may certainly be Trolls who pretend that they are not gay.

Posted by: JanessaVR Mar 14 2007, 06:31 PM

Hmmm...that's one way of looking at it, I suppose. Although most homophobes still think of being gay as a "lifestyle choice," not as an inherent condition. I'm gay and my family's pretty supportive - my Mom rather likes my GF, even. But Goblinization - pretty obviously something you're not responsible for.

Posted by: 2bit Mar 14 2007, 06:32 PM

Pretty sure the demographics were across the board.
I think the prejudice comes from the natural fear they inspire with their size and appearance. There may also be something in there about madness. The transformation is violent, painful, and mind-altering. Not everyone survived it.
Later, it becomes social. Orks and trolls naturally end up in the lower classes. Let's face it, theyre naturally suited for labor and violence, not etiquette and creative problem solving.

Posted by: JanessaVR Mar 14 2007, 06:33 PM

Also - as I understand it - this also impacted adults. Suddenly - your *spouse* or your adult sibling suddenly mutates into something else. You could be completely childless and *still* have to deal with this.

Posted by: Thane36425 Mar 14 2007, 06:45 PM

I think the prejudice stems from the "unnaturalness" of all these people suddenly turning into things that don't fit the human mold.

Appearance also plays a factor. The older SR material would talk about elves being fauned over, dwarves being considered cute because of their beards and small size. On the other hand, orcs and trolls were seen as dangerous because they are big and scary looking, what with the big teeth, horns and all that. Orcs and trolls look less human than dwarves or elves, and they are big, so they get worse treatment beause people are more afraid of them.

The social aspect does also come into play, as 2bit mentions. Elves and dwarves can be a smart as humans, but orcs and trolls not so much. They are also big and strong which naturally would make them seem more suited for manual labor. That's not always true, of course. You could have a troll smarter than most people and a dumb as a post elf. There is no reason an elf with average stats couldn't be found on a work site either or an orc with average mental stats in an office.

As for families having people who Goblinized: every family has people the others shun as it is. Maybe creepy uncle Leon wouldn't seem so bad if cousin Bob suddenly turned into an 8 foot tall monster complete with horns. I can see there being a lot of shame and embarassment, especially toward orcs and trolls. Elves and dwarves would probably have less trouble though.

Posted by: Thane36425 Mar 14 2007, 06:46 PM

QUOTE (JanessaVR)

That's right. It was 10% of everyone, not just kids. That would probably be really rough, not knowing if the people you saw in the morning would still be "human" when you came home in the evening, or if you yourself would still be human.

Posted by: Backgammon Mar 14 2007, 07:04 PM

QUOTE (JanessaVR)

But Goblinization - pretty obviously something you're not responsible for.

Actually, no. In Japan, turning into a metahuman was seen as something you deserved - you were unclean, you'd done bad things in your life, it's retribution, etc.

In strongly conservative areas - exactly the type of people you'd expect not to accept their goblinized children - it might very well be seen as an affliction from God for your sins.

Also, in the beginning, a lot of people thought goblinization was a disease, quite probably contagious, that you didn't want to catch. So if you did get it, you'd proably been around them dirty trolls, so you deserved it.

Posted by: 2bit Mar 14 2007, 07:13 PM

QUOTE

That's not always true, of course. You could have a troll smarter than most people and a dumb as a post elf. There is no reason an elf with average stats couldn't be found on a work site either or an orc with average mental stats in an office.

Their speech is also different than the other races because of the structure of the mouth. That may or may not be part of the - CHA they suffer.

And orks breed like friggin' dogs.

Posted by: nathanross Mar 14 2007, 07:15 PM

I don't think that goblinization occurred equally across all social demographics. I remember reading (don't remember the exact book ref.) that orcs and trolls genes tend to express themselves more prominently in the lower class of society, while elves and dwarves tend to express in wealthier tier of society. Of course, as mentioned by posts in that section, it could be due to other factors such as abortion of the unwanted child, or any number of other causes besides nutrition.

I think it was SOTA: 2063, the section about Gene Tech. Ill post some quotes when I get home.

Posted by: knasser Mar 14 2007, 07:21 PM

QUOTE (2bit)

And orks breed like friggin' dogs.

Even today's birth control would make natural tendancies toward child numbers irrelevant. In 2070, I'd expect both increased technology and increased social acceptance of it to limit the number of children to exactly the number that the parent wanted. In fact, I would go as far as saying that having children likely requires a conscious decision in 2070.

Both human and ork women will have precisely as many children as they want. So this is irrelevant outside of some disaster that required massive and urgent re-population.

Posted by: 2bit Mar 14 2007, 07:27 PM

And how does the fact that they're the most populous metatype (despite a shorter lifespan) support that conclusion?

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Mar 14 2007, 07:33 PM

QUOTE (2bit)

And how does the fact that they're the most populous metatype (despite a shorter lifespan) support that conclusion?

They're Catholic?

Posted by: Thane36425 Mar 14 2007, 07:53 PM

QUOTE (2bit)

Their speech is also different than the other races because of the structure of the mouth. That may or may not be part of the - CHA they suffer.

And orks breed like friggin' dogs.

That's a good point. The wrong accent in the wrong place can get you looked down on no matter how smart and educated you are. By the same token, speech impediments are seen as either amusing or a sign of stupidity.

Here is a link that discusses the difference in population growth in social classes, in a humorous way of course. You could compare it to Elves vs. Orcs.

http://emuse.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/8245

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Mar 14 2007, 08:01 PM

"Orks" dammit!
One of the early warning signs of D20 cancer in your brain is spelling it "Orc", unless or course you're talking about the Ork Rights Coalition.
You might want to get that checked.

Posted by: nathanross Mar 15 2007, 06:05 AM

Kay, Im too lazy to look up the books and pages now. But on the whole Ork population thing, I dont really get it.

Besides the prejudice and employment problems that orks and trolls face in modern society, I really dont buy the published fluff that all metatypes are equal, or that they would all act the same.

Even if Orks are fully developed at 12 (Dont have any reference for this, just told this by another player), They only have a good 30 years before death, and I dont think all of it is spent in the prime. Trolls on the other hand, will live on average 20 more years than Orks, while Humans even more. Dwarves also have a late age of average mortality (though it has not yet been reached in the sixth world).

I leave elves seperate from this because they are seperate, in many, many ways from the rules of natural life and death obeyed by the other metatypes. Sure, they can be shot, but if most elves grow up at least middle class they have a very high probability of surviving environmental factors. Now assuming they dont reproduce (and why would you delivery when you have hundreds of years to choose), If the other metatypes keep producing elves and the rest of the elves never die, I can see an elf overpopulation problem occuring within the next 100 years and it will be quite substantial long before that.

Orks, on the other hand, reproduce like rabits because, just like animals they have have a very short stint on this earth and only a very short time to shine. I dont even think for them it is a conscious decision, but more of a genetic imperative (BREED!). I know if I knew I only had some 10 years on the market, Id be pushing my wares.

I think Dwarves and Trolls probably follow a more human cycle.

Anyways, shows over, Im tired.

Posted by: mfb Mar 15 2007, 06:41 AM

QUOTE (knasser)

i'll grant that even dirt-poor types can afford condoms, and that condoms are probably of greatly increased reliability. however, social and other factors make the use of condoms and other birth control methods much less common than their availability would suggest. i try not to make sweeping generalizations, but the trend seems to be that poor people in the US--where various birth control methods can be easily attained by just about anyone, regardless of their financial state--tend to have more kids than more well-off families. (i'm not a sociologist, so if anyone cares to refute that, i'll gladly listen.) there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason why this trend wouldn't be passed on to orks, who tend to be poorer than, say, humans or elves or even dwarves.

Posted by: WhiskeyMac Mar 15 2007, 06:42 AM

The reason elves were disproportionally born into upper middle class and higher was because of abortions. The Tir na nOg sourcebook talks about how the nobles would kill off the disfigured dwarf babies and keep the beautiful elf babies. God forbid if a blue blood gave birth to an ork or troll, or a noble goblinized. Explains why Ireland is overrun with Nazi Mage Immortal Elves. I usually just ignore the breed like rabbits and very reduced age limits for Orks and various other "What the F***" explanations in Shadowrun. Keeps my head on straight.

Posted by: mfb Mar 15 2007, 06:50 AM

well, that would actually just make orks and trolls disproporionately lower-class, relative to the rest of the metatypes; elves and dwarves would only be disproportionately middle- and upper-class in comparison to orks and trolls. compared to metahumanity as a whole, elves and dwarves would be evenly spread out.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Mar 15 2007, 07:01 AM

QUOTE

If you're talking about the section I think you are , that was commented on later to have been faulty/manipulated research from a Humanis researcher for propaganda purposes. People all over were goblinizing. Didn't matter your social strata, just like magic. A lot of "pillow death" would go a long way to skewing the records however. Later on, orks being pushed down because of prejudice, combined with thier hgh birth rate, already in lower class situations, is a bit of self fulfilling prophecy.

A really good book about all of this, and a very old one, is the book Changeling. It's about a very intelligent young man very a rich family who goblinizes into a troll in the '50's. Admittedly it;s not the biggest page turner, but I strongly recommend it for anyone trying to get a better feel for the SR world and how it turns.

Posted by: knasser Mar 15 2007, 07:13 AM

QUOTE (mfb)

QUOTE (knasser)

You'll note that I said birth control and not condoms. We have a male contraceptive pill and a male contraceptive injection passing through clinical trials at the moment. I think they'll be available next year, let alone in 2070. You'll also note that I specifically mentioned that by 2070, social acceptance of birth control is likely to be far more universal than it is today. Particularly for the more intrusive methods. I could see parents getting their kids an implant the moment they hit puberty, just as a standard precaution against teenage fatherhood / motherhood. They wouldn't think anything about it.

You noted that social factors are what affect number of children in human society today. THAT is my point. There's no reason for Orks to have more children than humans. Poor orks more than rich humans. Poor humans more than rich orks.

Posted by: WhiskeyMac Mar 15 2007, 07:18 AM

When are they going to bring in the Mr. Stud implant to SR RAW? "Go all night, and she won't even know!"

Posted by: bibliophile20 Mar 15 2007, 07:35 AM

QUOTE (WhiskeyMac)

When are they going to bring in the Mr. Stud implant to SR RAW? "Go all night, and she won't even know!"

There's actually a hint of that in the Runner Havens; excuse me while I pull out the pdf

From the "Superstition" subsection of the Hong Kong portion, page 8:

QUOTE

I once heard that a Chinese oligarch in Hong Kong paid hundreds
of thousands of nuyen for a small pouch of powder made
from the dried genitals of an adult dragon. Rumor has it he was
going to mix it with his morning tea to help his “performance
problems” with the mistresses. He’d dismissed countless proven
pharmaceutical or cybernetic cures for his problem but didn’t
think twice about dropping a small fortune for this tiny pouch
of dragon dust. Given the source of the dust, though, I have to
wonder if the poachers ever got to enjoy their money.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Mar 15 2007, 07:39 AM

QUOTE (knasser)

There's no reason for Orks to have more children than humans.

Actually, there is - orks have a tendency towards multiples.

Posted by: Pyritefoolsgold Mar 15 2007, 07:54 AM

Yeah, it's not that they have a lot of sex, it's that when they do have kids, they have litters.

Posted by: knasser Mar 15 2007, 08:11 AM

QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Mar 15 2007, 07:39 AM)

QUOTE (knasser @ Mar 15 2007, 09:13 AM)

There's no reason for Orks to have more children than humans.

Actually, there is - orks have a tendency towards multiples.

Way to edit out the first six lines of my post. Put the "given the prevalence and undoubted sophistication and dirt-cheapness of birth control in 2070," back in the start of that sentance, would you? If you think that Mrs. (or Mr.) Ork deliberately decides to have a children, and then accidentally has six or seven, then we're very much in disagreement about the level and prevalence on SR2070 tech.

And I feel that extrapolating from cannon material and published tech and prices, that my view of SR2070 tech is more supportable. IMO, of course.

-K.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Mar 15 2007, 08:28 AM

QUOTE (knasser)

If you think that Mrs. (or Mr.) Ork deliberately decides to have a children, and then accidentally has six or seven, then we're very much in disagreement about the level and prevalence on SR2070 tech.

Obviously.
While there is tech to control cell division, it isn't exactly cheap.
The other options are partial abortion and infanticide.

And no, a fast-growing ork population is still canon.

Posted by: eidolon Mar 15 2007, 01:56 PM

QUOTE (JanessaVR @ Mar 14 2007, 12:31 PM)

But Goblinization - pretty obviously something you're not responsible for.

And I'd like to think that anyone with half a brain knows the same thing about homosexuality. That doesn't mean it's true. Any scan through TV channels or the lower end of the FM band uncovers droves of people that, while may be quite 'intelligent' otherwise, still think that being gay is the devvvvvvvyl's work. *sigh*

In SR canon, the same kind of social prejudice is applied to metahumanity. No matter how worldly or intelligent a person, society says it's "okay" to hate Trolls (and if it doesn't actively support it, it actively condones it; much the way that gay bashing is actively condoned by today's American society).

And don't get me started on the "Orks have short lives and breed in litters" nonsense. I'm just waiting for the day that the SR community collectively realizes that it's just as idiotic as when Elves were all vegetarians by canon.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Mar 15 2007, 02:18 PM

QUOTE (eidolon)

QUOTE (JanessaVR @ Mar 14 2007, 12:31 PM)

But Goblinization - pretty obviously something you're not responsible for.

Just the other day I heard someone actually claim that they could come down with a case of "gay" through osmosis or some such nonsense.

It seems to be human nature to divide ourselves up into groups. Perhaps it has something to do with the importance of our sense of "self" that we require, absolutely require, a sense of "other". We need to somehow divide ourselves into "us" and "them". And the only time a "them" group is accepted into an "us" group is when the "us" group finds a new "them", and not before.
If there are no good lines for us to divide ourselves up with, then we invent one. I believe SR goes along with this to a degree, in that it mentions that prejudices due to things like ethnicity and sexuality are largely things of the past. To paraphrase, "Why worry about that tanned looking fellow when that thing has hands the size of your head?" In SR people don't have to hate the homosexuals or the <fill in your favorite ethnicity> They have metas and magicians to hate, and they're much more obvious targets.

Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 15 2007, 02:23 PM

But it is a shame that we cannot define ourselfs, or group in a positive manner.

Most start off that way, I am Canadian, I am America, etc.., but then often spirals down into negativity when saying what we are not.

I am xxxxxx, and not an evil imperialistic fearmongering yyyyyyy.

Should have stopped at xxxxxxx, but for most, we don't

Shakes his head.

Posted by: 2bit Mar 15 2007, 02:30 PM

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

It seems to be human nature to divide ourselves up into groups. Perhaps it has something to do with the importance of our sense of "self" that we require, absolutely require, a sense of "other". We need to somehow divide ourselves into "us" and "them". And the only time a "them" group is accepted into an "us" group is when the "us" group finds a new "them", and not before.

I'm glad someone else feels this way - I've always said there will be no peace on earth until we discover intelligent alien life

Categorizing is central to the way human beings view the world. We see life only through contrast - that's a truism applicable to all aspects of the human condition. It's only possible to know one thing by comparing it to another.

Posted by: Ravor Mar 15 2007, 03:17 PM

QUOTE (knasser)

Well personally the way I see it is that yes, high tech gene treatments to keep all but one egg that the Ork female had dropped from fertiziling, partial abortions and the like do exist, and are probably heavily used by the middle class + Orks, but the more typical lower class Ork simply doesn't have the cred to pay for them.

This way the Orkish race's doomed existance is self-fullfilling. Not only do the poor and hick Orks choose to get "preggers" more often the the middle class Orks, when they do so the poor Orks give birth to litters because the only relable options that they can afford would kill all of their babies, while the middle class Orks only keep whatever number they want.

And of course, because of racism, more Orks are poor then not.

Posted by: Backgammon Mar 15 2007, 03:22 PM

QUOTE (eidolon)

And don't get me started on the "Orks have short lives and breed in litters" nonsense. I'm just waiting for the day that the SR community collectively realizes that it's just as idiotic as when Elves were all vegetarians by canon.

Why is that? Why shouldn't Orks have shorter lifespans and have multiple babies at once?

Posted by: Hida Tsuzua Mar 15 2007, 06:36 PM

I personally am not a fan of the huge variations of lifespan in cannon SR. Combined with attribute mods shows that regards to ork and trolls, Humanis is right. Orks and trolls are dumb short lived brutes. The insane lifespan of elves (combined with the vague "metabolic studies") reminds me of immortal elves and the less said about them the better.

As for ork prejudice, not accounting for the INT and CHA modifiers, it would exist. As said before, there are pretty of ways to think as your fellow man as "other." However, I'm not sure it would be as widespread or as deep as portrayed in canon. The major reason is the random nature of goblinization. For everyone who thinks "my brother is no longer human since he's an ork" there would be one who thinks "my brother is my brother."

As for the homosexual allusion, I'm uncertain how apt it is. Firstly, one can hide homosexuality (the proverbial "coming out of the closet"), it's much harder to do so with being an ork. Also there is the viewpoint that homosexuality is a "choice." That's a lot harder to argue with a worldwide change.

Now there certainly can be prejudice. I still would think it's more of the bias against the handicap or dwarfism than racial prejudice. Awkwardness and the thought that of it as "condition that you couldn't control" but nothing like "no orks allowed." This is especially apt since becoming an ork or troll leads to intelligence and charisma loss.

Posted by: eidolon Mar 15 2007, 06:57 PM

QUOTE (Backgammon)

Why is that? Why shouldn't Orks have shorter lifespans and have multiple babies at once?

Why? Why should Orks have shorter lifespans and have multiple babies at once?

Why should Elves be vegetarians?

IMO, the only reason these situations were ever written into the game so that a gaming population used to the Orcs, Trolls, Elves, etc of D&D and mythology would be a little more accepting of the races in SR, and cynically, because people wouldn't want to see "new" ideas, they want familiar. I don't think it was necessary then, and I certainly don't think it's necessary now. SR doesn't have to be silly to be different and interesting. The SR of today (okay, of a few years back, SR3) has come a long way from the "elves are called dandelion eaters because they're actually vegetarians and can't eat meat" days. Other parts are just taking a while to catch up.

Posted by: Fezig Mar 15 2007, 09:33 PM

As far as Orcs and Trolls birth rates and life span goes, one of those is a very simple answer. The shorter life spans make sense because it is fairly well established that taller, bigger people live shorter lives. Andre the Giant, and many other humans 7 feet tall and taller live shorter due to the amount of extra stress on the body. It takes more effort for the body to pump the blood around and it stresses the organs more, and also the bones are weakened by all the weight and gravity weighing down on it all the time.

As for reproduction rate...thats probably just a flavor thing. It could be a matter of social class and the link to the fact that the lower social classes reproduce more often, along with the possibility that it is a racial bias and isn't true. The same is or used to be said about certain racial groups in the USA (Irish, Latino, Asian) despite it only being true with specific case studies, and in said situation it can be said about all groups. I mean with the Irish it was Irish Catholics, which was a heck of a big subsection, but a subsection none the less.

Posted by: lorechaser Mar 15 2007, 09:48 PM

QUOTE (nathanross)

have hundreds of years to choose), If the other metatypes keep producing elves and the rest of the elves never die, I can see an elf overpopulation problem occuring within the next 100 years and it will be quite substantial long before that.

>>>>>[Doin' every damn thing to fix that I can, chummer]<<<<<
-Crorker <10:03:02/11-23-70>

Posted by: Pyritefoolsgold Mar 15 2007, 09:51 PM

You also have to remember that shadowrun's atmosphere is very dark, that people do not unite and come together, that there have been so many disasters and global upsets that everyone is afraid. One big thing keeping the orcs and trolls down is that the corps don't like them. Orcs and trolls give corps a bad image. So Orcs and Trolls can't get into corp jobs, they can't make money, certain groups despise them, a lot of people think they are stupid useless brutes, and this all causes them to become poor.
A lot of people defend trolls and orcs on the surface, but wouldn't give one a job or approve of their daughter marrying one.

Posted by: Ravor Mar 16 2007, 01:04 AM

Well Hida Tsuzua personally I kind-of like the idea that Humanis has some valid points instead of being nothing more then 2D cut-outs of the bigots of the past, spewing empty hatard.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Mar 16 2007, 01:18 AM

QUOTE (eidolon)

QUOTE (Backgammon @ Mar 15 2007, 09:22 AM)

Why is that? Why shouldn't Orks have shorter lifespans and have multiple babies at once?

Why? Why should Orks have shorter lifespans and have multiple babies at once?

Why should Elves be vegetarians?

As another reason to back it up, the ork reproduction rate and shorter life span was also true in ED, as was the troll life cycle. The Elves were never vegetarians there. So that's an awful lot to retcon. And animals with shorter life spans tend to have more off spring, so one goes in hand with the other.

Posted by: Cang Mar 16 2007, 01:23 AM

I got into Shadowrun for the sole reason that it adds some shade of realism to something i enjoy, fantasy. Things like alignment, mages spewing spells until they "forget" them all, xp for murder and everyone is the hero of the world always drove me crazy. Shadowrun doesn’t have cookie cutter classes and races and the more they stay away from that, the better. Stereotypes are fine but to have cannon back it up is silly. Its like if you made a Asian character, he will have +2 to intelligence because the stereotype is that they are smart. I don't mind that orcs live shorter then humans or that elves live longer, but to have elves living for hundreds of years is silly. The issue of orc litters i think is the wording. If they said orcs have two or three children at once is fine, but to say they have litters like a pig is just wrong.

One thing i really hate is when cannon undermine something real and very human for something fantastic to make you go "oh WOW". Stuff like EIs were every famous person in history and dragons control the world just make me mad. I don’t mind some of histories players have been EI or dragons are big movers and shakers (no pun intended) but to have some sort of absolute is just silly.

So thinks like all elves living forever or mages all wearing neon runes on their robes makes the game less then more. That’s my crazy, erratic and unintelligible 2 cents.

Posted by: Fezig Mar 16 2007, 01:27 AM

I don't know what that post has to do with the thread Cang, but here here. I would agree with you on your points.

Posted by: Cang Mar 16 2007, 01:30 AM

i added something about orcs and their children so i wouldnt sound so much like the crazy old man that i am.

Posted by: Fezig Mar 16 2007, 01:31 AM

Hahaha. Good call, way to slip in a valid point

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Mar 16 2007, 01:32 AM

IIRC , orks tend to have a higher tendancy of having multiple children. Which doesn't exactly neccesitate actual litters (like 5+). That's something more like Humanis talk. BUt they do tend to have more. Maybe if someone could get us page quotes, say from SOTA 64?

Posted by: Fragmintz Mar 16 2007, 01:37 AM

Can't we all just get along?

Posted by: Hida Tsuzua Mar 16 2007, 01:47 AM

QUOTE (Ravor)

Well Hida Tsuzua personally I kind-of like the idea that Humanis has some valid points instead of being nothing more then 2D cut-outs of the bigots of the past, spewing empty hatard.

It's an interesting spin I agree and what I'll do if I keep mental modifiers for metahumans during my admittedly slow reworking of Shadowrun.

However it's something that to my knowledge never supported in the books especially if you look at First to Third edition books. They are 2D cutouts pure and simple. The fact they're right is something that isn't intended and comes off wrong. It's similar to realizing that the Evil Overlord is really what's best for the world and the heroes are dooming it. What's being told and shown doesn't match, causing a disconnect and showing the lack of thought in the story/setting.

Posted by: Cang Mar 16 2007, 01:57 AM

here what SR4 says

QUOTE

Likely due to their high birth rates, orks oft en live in large, communal, extended family groups. Children are most oft en born in litters of four, but some ork mothers have given birth to as many as eight young. When sapiens are born to ork mothers, they will express as robustus at puberty roughly 95% of the time. Ork gestation periods are the shortest of any of the metatypes at roughly 6 months.

I looked over SOTA 64 and didnt see much other then ork language and pop scene.

Posted by: Ravor Mar 16 2007, 02:16 AM

Well, I suppose different tastes for different people, because I've always been rather fond of the idea that the 'Evil Overlord' despite being a complete bastard and a tyrant actually was doing what was best for everyone, and that once over-thrown the heroes find that they need to pick up the slack, will they become what they've hated and fought against for so long or will they doom the world to something far worse? Or will they actually manage to find a third option in time?

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Mar 16 2007, 02:16 AM

eh, well ,there ya go then. I think I was thinking of SOTA 62 where it talked about the genetic differences in metas, like where trolls tend more towards being lactose intolerent than the other races, that sort of thing.

Posted by: hyzmarca Mar 16 2007, 04:11 AM

QUOTE (knasser @ Mar 15 2007, 03:11 AM)

QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Mar 15 2007, 07:39 AM)

QUOTE (knasser @ Mar 15 2007, 09:13 AM)

There's no reason for Orks to have more children than humans.

Actually, there is - orks have a tendency towards multiples.

Way to edit out the first six lines of my post. Put the "given the prevalence and undoubted sophistication and dirt-cheapness of birth control in 2070," back in the start of that sentance, would you?

Well, you see, the thing is that getting a condom, opening the wrapper and putting it on in the heat of the moment, it just ruins the mood. And even with planning, it just doesn't feel right. The sensation is different.
Coitus interruptus works almost as well, although that sort of ruins the mood, too so I guess we'll just have to see what happens with that.

Besides, the statistical probability of conceiving at any one time is rather low. A woman is only fertile three days a month. There is a 90% chance that it isn't even possible. And then there are issues about sperm count and cervical mucus. I mean, some people spend hundreds of thousands nuyen just trying to conceive. It isn't that big a risk.

And even if it was, everybody knows that you can't get pregnant your first time.
And if you're really woried you can douche with Pepsi. That works. The carbonation kills sperm.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Mar 16 2007, 06:36 AM

eww.

Think about this Knasser, teen pregnancys are pretty common now a days. So is sex ed, and birth control (Planned Parenthood fo example). But it still happens. A lot of the places that offer birth control to orks are sponsored by groups like Humanins. That's kinda like the cave man geting Geiko (sorry for those of you who haven't seen the commercial and that makes no sense to).

Anyways, the point is, just because it may be available, doesn't mean people are going to use it. Look at the way things are now. Besides, if you're living in Redmon jsut trying to figure out how to feed your self, condoms aren't a big one on the shopping list. Add in extra mouths from the first kid(s), and it's even more an issue. You worry a lot less about birth control when keeping diapers around, getting vacinnnations, and eating the family dog, are on your to do list. Some things just get lost in the mix.

That's by no means exclusive to orks BTW. But the fact that they do have more kids makes it a faster escalation once/if the first are born.

Posted by: hyzmarca Mar 16 2007, 07:06 AM

QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0 @ Mar 16 2007, 01:36 AM)

eww.

Exactly. It doesn't actually kill sperm, either. But it is great for causing yeast infections.

The irony is that Lactational Amenorrhea Method is a highly effective birth control technique and it is completely free, but it is also difficult to use when one considers the hectic schedule of a SINless squatter.

Posted by: Fezig Mar 17 2007, 12:50 AM

I'm glad to have gotten the scientific version of "Hustler for Orks". Thank you hyzmarca...ewww.

The birth control point still has some validity, but if it is the case and children are a "choice", then it would still mean that the "Orks have children in multiples" point would remain. Okay, so if as a broad stroke we say all couples desire pregnancy twice, then for most races it would be 2 total kids, but for Orks it would be 4+. With that kind of a turn mixed with their rapid physical maturity, they'd have 3 generations in the time humans would have 2, and they would have twice as many kids per generation. I would suppose from that line of thought it would follow that Orks would still end up with a more rapidly spreading population and thus the appearance and stereotype of a ton of kids.

Posted by: knasser Mar 17 2007, 08:23 AM

I think the easy pregnancy people here are stuck in thinking about 2007 technology. Actually, I think they're stuck in 1999 technology as right now we have a male contraceptive pill completing clinical trials and it wont be that long before guys can take that. But that's beside the point. In 2070 we have the technology to clone arms and replace eyes (which must mean marrying up the electronics to the myriad little nerve endings of the brain's optic nerves for one thing). We have very advanced technology and it is cheap! Having your eyes replaced costs the same as renting a car for a week. How much cheaper must invisible contraceptives be?

You say we have sex education today and still have teen pregnancies. I say parents drop their kid off at the pharmacy around puberty and he sticks a small contraceptive bud into their wrist, dick or vagina and they don't worry about pregnancy for the next few years.

I'm not saying that unplanned pregnancy doesn't happen in 2070, but I'm saying that discussions of the inconvenience of condoms is irrelevant to the subject. I think accidental pregnancy would be rare and I also think that social acceptance of abortion in SR 2070 would be high. And as to the number of children, I think it would be a simple matter of popping to the clinic with your chosen partner and saying "two please." 2070 tech is just that good and inexpensive.

On a tangent, regarding the whole "teen pregnancy - oh no!" Whlist obviously children should be wanted, I think our society is messed up when having a child is considered ruining your life.

-K.

EDIT: Btw, regarding modern birth control and the likelihood of accidents, it is difficult to conceive a child. It is also very, very easy.

Posted by: hyzmarca Mar 17 2007, 10:57 AM

QUOTE (knasser @ Mar 17 2007, 03:23 AM)

You say we have sex education today and still have teen pregnancies. I say parents drop their kid off at the pharmacy around puberty and he sticks a small contraceptive bud into their wrist, dick or vagina and they don't worry about pregnancy for the next few years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norplant

We can do that now and have been doing that since 1983, quite cheaply, too. A norplant kit costs $350, give or take, and can last up to 5 years (as opposed to $20-$50 per month for oral contraceptives.)

However, despite being available it is rarely used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUD are even cheaper and have been around longer, although they can be a pain in the cervix to install.

The fact is that despite the fact that we have cheap and effective birth control implants today, most people don't want them and the vast majority of parents don't want their children to have them. Heck, a lot of parents don't want their children to be vaccinated against cervical cancer, for crissake.

That will change, of course, and there will be very few unplanned pregnancies amongst the educated and the wealthy.

However, the poor SINless barrens inhabitants have completely different worries. For many of them, 100

is all they have to spend on a month's groceries and spending it on a birth control implant is just a way to insure that they starve for the month.

It is generally true that people who have a comfortable amount of income plan and invest for the future. It is also generally true that people who barely have enough income to survive do neither of these things even when they have a little extra money to spare. For this reason alone, it is highly doubtful that technological birth control will be popular amongst those who have squatter and homeless lifestyles in the barrens, which are the ones whom we are concerned with. They won't plan to have kids, but they won't plan not to have kids, either. It'll just happen. And they'll find a way to survive. They'll scrape by, somehow, but They'll just barely scrape. That won't change no matter how many children they have. It is a self-perpetuating cycle that feeds social stratification and ensures that the underclass grows faster than the aristocracy.

Posted by: Ravor Mar 17 2007, 03:51 PM

Well knasser, I agree with everything you said in your last post to one extint or another except that I don't agree that popping into a clinic and saying, 'Two please.' would be cheap and easy enough that your average poor Ork/Human/ect would be able to afford it.

And since we disagree on that, even if we figure that no unplanned pregnancies ever happen for the sake of discussion, the Orks will still grow faster then the other meta-human races.

*Edit*

Clarified a thought.

Posted by: knasser Mar 17 2007, 04:50 PM

QUOTE (Ravor @ Mar 17 2007, 03:51 PM)

Well I guess we can agree to disagree. I would only pursue an argument if I felt that the disagreement came from a lack of understanding. And you obviously get what I'm saying, it's just that I'm wrong.

And I guess that convenient, safe birth control does run counter to the dark chaos that teems under each metropolis waiting to engulf it in a rising tide of crime, poverty and violence.

Okay - lots of squaling ork babies, it is then.

*k heads off to argue about Materialisation vs. Possession again*

Posted by: Fezig Mar 17 2007, 10:03 PM

All in all it is quite the interesting debate. It brings up another sort of interesting point. It is clearly stated that ghouls, orks, trolls, and those effected by radiation are shunned...but what about the humans left to rot in the barrens? I say humans specifically because its a question of if groups like humanis would try to bring them up in an effort to show its only the "lowly trog scum" that stays in the barrens, or are the forgotten about/ignored too. I mean, I realize its a dystopian society, but none the less the question is interesting to me.

Posted by: Ravor Mar 18 2007, 04:11 AM

knasser, I wouldn't say that you're wrong, just that we have different visions of Shadowrun.

Well Fezig, personally I'd say that unless the human in question had something to offer then he'd stay in the barrens, because as far as Humanis is concerned, he can be a useful tool once they explain to him that it is the Trogs and Daisy Eaters fault that he can't find a decent job or a place in society.

After all, its easier to whip up the downtrodden and uneducated to violence then it is someone that actually has something to lose.

Posted by: 2bit Mar 18 2007, 04:19 AM

Don't neglect the cultural impact on this either. One, planned pregnancy for an ork couple pretty much necessitates artificial insemination to get the number of desired children, and even in 2070 that seems pretty white collar to me. Two, the Sixties were a very Orky time, where it was cool to embrace your inner Orkiness, teach your kids Or'zet and all that crap. Raising litters (as nature intended) could be something that went hand in hand with this movement.