Race/Sophont Books

[SpaceBadger]

moved from a thread under T5 subforum:

What I'm hoping for, besides a stack of new Traveller adventures to go with T5, is to finally have a complete and extensive update to all the Race books. Besides Mongoose, only Classic has ever completed the complete Race canon(major races in any case).

GURPS Traveller has complete race books, even beyond what we had for CT:

Alien Races 1: Zhodani, Vargr, Drakaran, Clotho, Sheol

Alien Races 2: Aslan, K'Kree, Inyx, Devi

Alien Races 3: Hivers, Droyne, Ancients, Inheritors, Lithkind, Ithklur

Alien Races 4: Sixteen Minor Races: Ael Yael, Ahetadwa, Bwaps, Evantha, Girug'Kagh, Githiaskio, HHKar, Hlanssai, J'aadje, Jgd-LL-Jagd, J'Sia, Schalli, Shriekers, Tezcat, Valkyrie, Virushi

Humaniti: Minor Human Races: Acheron, Answerin, Azhanti, Darrians, Dynchia, Floriani, Geonee, Iltharans, Irhadre, Kargol, Luriani, Nexxies, Otrai, Syleans, Yileans

Hmm, I had forgotten that Syleans were a distinct minor race of Humaniti. I thought Cleon I was either Vilani or Solomani or a mix. Of course, that could still be possible; maybe he was just born on Sylea, but not of that race.

 

[Dragoner]

In T5 they are called Sophonts, I believe there is an effort to move away from the term race which has unfortunate connotations and isn't an actual scientific designation.

 

[SpaceBadger]

In T5 they are called Sophonts, I believe there is an effort to move away from the term race which has unfortunate connotations and isn't an actual scientific designation.

Sounds good to me. On their birth records, my four children are all down as "Other: Human" in the checkbox for "Race".

However, in past versions of Traveller, the term "race" was used for different types of sophonts, and in the post to which I was responding.

Edit: edit thread title

 

[Timerover51]

moved from a thread under T5 subforum:



GURPS Traveller has complete race books, even beyond what we had for CT:

Alien Races 1: Zhodani, Vargr, Drakaran, Clotho, Sheol

Alien Races 2: Aslan, K'Kree, Inyx, Devi

Alien Races 3: Hivers, Droyne, Ancients, Inheritors, Lithkind, Ithklur

Alien Races 4: Sixteen Minor Races: Ael Yael, Ahetadwa, Bwaps, Evantha, Girug'Kagh, Githiaskio, HHKar, Hlanssai, J'aadje, Jgd-LL-Jagd, J'Sia, Schalli, Shriekers, Tezcat, Valkyrie, Virushi

Humaniti: Minor Human Races: Acheron, Answerin, Azhanti, Darrians, Dynchia, Floriani, Geonee, Iltharans, Irhadre, Kargol, Luriani, Nexxies, Otrai, Syleans, Yileans

Hmm, I had forgotten that Syleans were a distinct minor race of Humaniti. I thought Cleon I was either Vilani or Solomani or a mix. Of course, that could still be possible; maybe he was just born on Sylea, but not of that race.

Aside from not having GURPS Traveller, or for that matter, any of the GURPS material, I thought that there were already too many different intelligent species in the game. While this endless generation of additional species is great for selling books, as I consumer, I am not a fan of it.

If I am running a game and someone wants to use a pre-existing character of a species that I have no idea about, am I supposed to accommodate him/her, assign her one of my pre-generated NPC characters, or simply recommend that they look elsewhere?

 

[Dragoner]

However, in past versions of Traveller, the term "race" was used for different types of sophonts, and in the post to which I was responding.

The intent in CT was to make a mockery of the term through a prejudicial false dichotomy of the major/minor issue. Gurps may have treated the subject differently, I don't know. I have some GT stuff, not a lot, Humaniti I do have however. I just purchased Luriani for MgT, I hope T5 stuff is of such quality; the thing I miss most about CT is the wealth of official, 2nd party and user generated content that only MgT has matched so far.

In my own campaign, one of the players is a Dynchia:

http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/traveller-beyond-the-frontier/characters/sialann-rhes

I like her, she is a cool character. Though the Dynchia, and as the T5 CRB states about Vargr, many might be moved into the Chimera category.

 

[rancke]

However, in past versions of Traveller, the term "race" was used for different types of sophonts, and in the post to which I was responding.

CT uses 'race' as in the well-known SF term 'alien race'. GT:Humaniti elaborates on that; the term is used to denote populations with a homeworld of their own, which is why Solomani and Vilani are considered different races while subdivisions like the ones we refer to as races on Earth today are not.


Hans

 

[SpaceBadger]

CT uses 'race' as in the well-known SF term 'alien race'. GT:Humaniti elaborates on that; the term is used to denote populations with a homeworld of their own, which is why Solomani and Vilani are considered different races while subdivisions like the ones we refer to as races on Earth today are not.

Yes, in fact I was just re-reading page 5 of GT: Humaniti (about taxonomy) and trying to decide if that would be too much material to quote here under Fair Use.

 

[SpaceBadger]

If I am running a game and someone wants to use a pre-existing character of a species that I have no idea about, am I supposed to accommodate him/her, assign her one of my pre-generated NPC characters, or simply recommend that they look elsewhere?

If I am running a game, I as GM decide whether or not there is a place for any particular species in my universe. I consider that one of the GM's prerogatives for doing the pre-game work of creating a universe for the players to adventure in.

In the situation you describe, I would ask the player to provide me enough details for me to decide whether that species might exist somewhere in my universe and whether I want to allow it as a player species, or whether it might be over-powered or otherwise unsuitable.

 

[robject]

GURPS also has a book on the Sword Worlds, which I understand is at least unofficially canon, if not officially so, for every Traveller rules set.

Similarly, Mongoose has a canonical Zhodani book out, a canonical Droyne book on the way, and a canonical K'Kree book just started. MGT also has Aslan and Vargr books -- though I don't remember how canonical they are.

 

[Timerover51]

If I am running a game, I as GM decide whether or not there is a place for any particular species in my universe. I consider that one of the GM's prerogatives for doing the pre-game work of creating a universe for the players to adventure in.

In the situation you describe, I would ask the player to provide me enough details for me to decide whether that species might exist somewhere in my universe and whether I want to allow it as a player species, or whether it might be over-powered or otherwise unsuitable.

After further thought about the matter, I would probably give him/her a choice of either a pre-generated character or recommend that they proceed elsewhere.

GURPS also has a book on the Sword Worlds, which I understand is at least unofficially canon, if not officially so, for every Traveller rules set.

Similarly, Mongoose has a canonical Zhodani book out, a canonical Droyne book on the way, and a canonical K'Kree book just started. MGT also has Aslan and Vargr books -- though I don't remember how canonical they are.

I spend somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 per year on books, primarily in the area of military history, weaponry, natural history, and those that pertain to areas where I do consulting. I probably will get the Traveller CD for Classic Traveller eventually, although I much prefer hard copies, which i keep looking for on the Internet.

I do not have any of the GURPS material, which I have looked at and determined that I am not interested in, or the Mongoose Traveller material. I do have the Droyne module put out by GDW, along with the Aslan module. I treat the Sword Worlds as akin to H. Beam Piper's "Space Vikings". The Vargr verdict is out as yet, but for the rest of the alien intelligent species, I have no interest. I will not comment on the Zhondani.

 

[rancke]

GURPS also has a book on the Sword Worlds, which I understand is at least unofficially canon, if not officially so, for every Traveller rules set.

Too bad Mongoose botched their version.


Hans

 

[rancke]

I treat the Sword Worlds as akin to H. Beam Piper's "Space Vikings".

We didn't. With all due respect to Piper. his treatment of his Sword Worlds were of necessity fairly brief. He had a story to tell and could only spare so much wordage for the background. Paul and Robert and I went into a lot more detail, and we didn't lift anything from Piper. Even making the Sword Worlder ancestors the losers of a civil war was for a particular reason (explaining the gender difference in SW society) and not because Piper's SW ancestors had been the losers of a civil war.

(Note: I'm not saying that the original CT idea of a bunch of worlds named after swords wasn't a nod to Piper.)


Hans

 

[Cryton]

Too bad Mongoose botched their version.


Hans

I am not sure about Mongoose having "Botched" their version. They did cover and include everything that CT covered about the Sword Worlds, and did a good job IMHO.

As I have not yet been able to get my grubbies on a copy of GTs Sword Worlds, I can not do a proper comparison.

I also would like to say that I have enjoyed the things you have shared here on the boards about the GT Sword Worlds Hans, and am still looking to find the GT material to mine it for things to use in my 3I ATU. Especially as your arguments about Nobles in other threads have made me rethink a few things about how Nobles will work in my own games, and I can only say that I look forward to seeing the GT Sword Worlds as it may change my views on Sword Worlders as well..

But I can not agree with Mongoose having "Botched" their version.

 

[rancke]

I am not sure about Mongoose having "Botched" their version. They did cover and include everything that CT covered about the Sword Worlds, and did a good job IMHO.

Thank you.

But I can not agree with Mongoose having "Botched" their version.

The Mongoose version had a lot of original material that I have nothing to say about. However, it also included a big chunk of GT:Sword Worlds material more or less verbatim.

I've said the next bit before in other posts, but I feel it is very important not to create the wrong impression, so I want to emphasize that not only have I no objection to the use of GT:Sword Worlds material, I welcome it. I'd much rather have our work perpetuated and fixed into canon than to have it overwritten and forgotten.

Unfortunately, GT:Sword Worlds portray the Sword Worlds in 1120 whereas MGT:Sword Worlds portray them in 1105, and the author didn't backdate the information to 1105. Hence the text is littered with references to events and conditions that didn't come about until later, such as mention of the Border Worlds, formed in 1110.

(Also GT:SW is set in the GTU, but that is of less import, since the two universes are supposedly identical back in 1105).

Incidentally, way back when I was asked to keep quiet about this while Mongoose figured out how to fix it, but a while ago I was told that they had decided to go ahead and publish the text without correcting it. (And my abject apologies to Mongoose if I've been misinformed).


Hans

 

[Cryton]

Thank you.



The Mongoose version had a lot of original material that I have nothing to say about. However, it also included a big chunk of GT:Sword Worlds material more or less verbatim.

I've said the next bit before in other posts, but I feel it is very important not to create the wrong impression, so I want to emphasize that not only have I no objection to the use of GT:Sword Worlds material, I welcome it. I'd much rather have our work perpetuated and fixed into canon than to have it overwritten and forgotten.

Unfortunately, GT:Sword Worlds portray the Sword Worlds in 1120 whereas MGT:Sword Worlds portray them in 1105, and the author didn't backdate the information to 1105. Hence the text is littered with references to events and conditions that didn't come about until later, such as mention of the Border Worlds, formed in 1110.

(Also GT:SW is set in the GTU, but that is of less import, since the two universes are supposedly identical back in 1105).

Incidentally, way back when I was asked to keep quiet about this while Mongoose figured out how to fix it, but a while ago I was told that they had decided to go ahead and publish the text without correcting it. (And my abject apologies to Mongoose if I've been misinformed).


Hans

In any case, I look forward to finding and looking over a copy of GT:SW.

Thanks Hans.

 

[SpaceBadger]

I treat the Sword Worlds as akin to H. Beam Piper's "Space Vikings".

Except for some of the planet names and the fact of being founded by refugees who had lost a war, the OTU Sword Worlds have nothing in common with the ones in Piper's "Space Viking". Notice I said OTU; obviously it is your choice as GM to make them however you want IYTU.

 

[Timerover51]

Except for some of the planet names and the fact of being founded by refugees who had lost a war, the OTU Sword Worlds have nothing in common with the ones in Piper's "Space Viking". Notice I said OTU; obviously it is your choice as GM to make them however you want IYTU.

I understand that the Sword Worlds area in the Spinward Marches has nothing to do with the Piper ones. However, adapting Piper's ideas does work nicely for me.

It is a case of deciding how to spend my money. Also, this thread is not labeled OTU only, or Rules Only, so as far as comments go, anything on topic is appropriate.

 

[Spaceresearcher]

GURPS RACES/SOPHONTS

Is there really any difference between Race and Sophont when were meaning one and the same thing? Or is that some kind of political correctness worshipping nonsense?(Personally I believe Political Correctness is the mistaken belief that you can pick up a turd by the clean end).

In any case I'll stick to 'Race' as that's how it's been in classic and I don't believe it's broken so why fix it? (Call a Spade a Spade). Race is a well known word inside each and every English dictionary. 'Sophont' or 'Sophonts', doesn't even appear? According to Wikipedia, 'Sophont' was a term, coined by Poul Anderson in 1966 by his wife Karen, therefore also making this word 'non-scientific', and actually science fiction if you like. Although I think you will find many scientific publications that use the word 'race'. Several that also discuss the possibility of 'alien races'. It also rules out machines unless they have a suitable AI apparently? So if it's now used in T5, then I would guess that it's purely in honor of that author and no other sinister reason.

I'll have to check out the GURPS 'RACE' books if possible(golly gosh, all there books dealing with other species besides humans are titled 'RACES' books, should I run from the room screaming?). Hell why were making up new words why not something like Boobleopchops. there you go, that's even got a nice warm and fuzzy sound to it. We can coin this and term it one of the first Traveller science fiction words as of 2013. It can be used instead of 'Characters' as that's kind of cliched and carries alternate meanings right?

So we can all create our brand the Sophont Boobleopchop sheets complete with completely new made up words for all stats and skill descriptions since it's now a great time to update it all and.....

Or we could just stick with the original, like a trusty faithful IBM -Model M, type keyboard and concentrate on the REAL stuff that matters, like new enhancements and updates to our favourite races of all time.

Just my thoughts on that and one final thing. The GURPS Alien Races books are not all available anymore. Besides which, I'd really like to see them done in the style of the first T4 Aliens book which you can find on the T4 CDROM from FFE.

There maybe that's it, just call it Aliens and everyone is happy.

 

[rancke]

In T5 they are called Sophonts, I believe there is an effort to move away from the term race which has unfortunate connotations and isn't an actual scientific designation.

Just how does 'sophont', a word for an individual in possession of a certain characteristic, namely true intelligence (whatever is meant by 'true' in this context), become a substitute for 'race', a word for a group of individuals with certain characteristics in common?

I agree with Spaceresearcher that this is an unnessesary change and, IMO, one for the worse. I've always found it a nice subtle touch that in the Far Future, the word 'race' no longer has the connotations it is burdened with today, indicating that divisions between people of the same world are mostly not considered relevant.


Hans

 

[robject]

Is there really any difference between Race and Sophont when were meaning one and the same thing?

I think it was just a matter of clarity. Nomenclature. Not a big deal.