Why are humans often catogorised into being the "plains race" in fantasy?

why are humans often catogorised into being the "plains race" in fantasy?

Most of humanity lived as Barbarian tribes for thousands of years before the rise of civilisation (and most were still barbarian until later christianity).

light skin, hair and eyes, wouldn't develop in a plains race, because those features are useful in places like forests, not on flat sunny ground

Other urls found in this thread:

telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Humans as compared to what?
The thing is, all fantasy races depart from human as a starting points and are defined by their differences. Humans don't have anything that differentiates them from themselves, so they are, of course, the basic.
There are different ways to make humans interesting, but it entirely depends on the setting and the other fantasy races inhabiting it.

it doesn't make sense for elves to inhabit the forests and humans to not.

why aren't there bands of human tribes and elves together protecting the forests, why isn't that more common in typical fantasy settings?

>why are humans often catogorised into being the "plains race" in fantasy?

Elves can see in partial darkness, can hop n' climb trees, have those long fuckin' ears capable of hearing and specifying what kind of leaf is dropping where.

Dwarves are short, dense, resistant to hot and cold, and can digest and metabolize a number of poisons as well as organic-rich soils with no issues, and are naturally acclined to a cramped, confined, environment with lots of other Dwarves.

What exactly is a Human going to do better in these environments than the other fantasy races who've already called dibs on them? Hmn? What? Humans can jog, they can sweat, and they have great vision during the day, but we're literally blind at night. Have you ever been lost in the woods, user?
Humans wouldn't be able to compete with any of the other races effectively in any environment beyond a flat, dull, prairie.

But most humans didn't have light skin, hair or eyes, even if they lived in heavily forested areas

Perhaps the humans couldn't move into the forests (mountains; etc) because of the upstart elves (dwarves; etc). Plains was safest because they could see the others coming.

I don't see any reasons why a human couldn't hop and climb trees, and wild humans have pretty good hearing and night vision anyway.

There's no reason why Barbaric Tribes could live along or fight against elves in forests.
The Germanics, Gauls, Celts, Slavs, all who lived in forested areas did.
Of course that depends on in the setting how humans were created or developed.

>But most humans didn't have light skin
Only humans have light skin. You must be thinking of non-humans.

>slavs
>humans

That's not necessarily true.
See pontic steppe

The pic you've posted is from a time more than a 1,000 years before most fantasy settings.

Because we're a plains race IRL. We evolved in the African Savannah. Our keystone technological advance was the development of cereal grains to permit civilization. Grasses, every one of them. When humans move into a forested area, they clear the forests and turn them into "plains" (open areas cultivated for cereal grains). Southern China and the Incans developed terraced agriculture to even turn mountainous areas into plains. Civilization literally means, "the life of the cities", and the vast majority of cities are built on plains or cleared land. Except for pigs, our main meat animals are mostly plains herbivores.

Skin lightens and darkens to latitude in a few generations. It's mainly driven by a product of temperature and clothing. Your definition of "barbarian" is hopelessly muddled. I assume you mean hunter-gatherer? Or illiterate? It originally meant "not Greek" and later "not Mediterranean".

Because forests are dangerous.
Destroy the forests and you have more farmland, more space to create cattle and overall more safety

This.

So basically, OP is a fucking moron.

Incorrect

Most of the Tribes of europe, and most other tribal group, even if they have agriculture, don't clear the forests. They just use natural clearings

And whites are descended from neanderthals, asians from denisovans, etc. not from africans

And additionally, we are not a "plains race". Civilisation isn't something that naturally comes to human beings. If christianity and the roman empire didnt spread civilisation, humans would still be living in Tribal groups.

Barbarian means uncivilised.

>What are ancient civilizations?

The guy you responded to is correct.

Clearing the forest was very important in the early areas of civilization (including southern Europe).

As long as whites are considered Sapiens, they are descended from Africans. sure there is some neanderthal blood, but most surely less than 5%.

Though you are correct, civilization doesn't come naturally. Yet you are wrong if you think christianity and the roman empire were major drivers of civilization.

Christianity was a driver for one kind of civilization to convert others at most. Roman empire's major achievement was uniting civilizations; levantine empires were much more important in spreading civilization itself.

It's way less than 5%, the only ones that believe whites are mainly neanderthal are varg and other such autists.

Because why share resources wiyh elves when you could use them to insure the survival of your children?

Except that's wrong, you fucking idiot.

>Whites are descended from neanderthals, blah blah

Especially that part you fucking mong.

>most were still barbarian until later christianity

People from your pick didn't live in forests.

In fantasy forests are already inhabited by elves and mountains by dwarves, both for a longer time and with greater terrain advantage. Trying to kick them out it's generally a bad idea.

Stop comparing real life to fantasy it makes you look stupid, we know humans can conquer forests because we are the apex predator in our world, in fantasy that's rarely the case because there are other intelligent races and monsters much more dangerous than normal animals.

I think the primary human advantages are endurance, durability and we're really good at fucking. Elves probably ovulate only once a year, dwarves are confirmed by what their mine can support in terms of population.

In a lot of ways Orcs are more or less on par with humans, except for being stereotypically stupider and probably have more infant mortality.

I'll take "Things that are totally wrong" for 500, Alex. I've never seen such a mishmash of neomarxist garbage with /pol/tardery.

Yep.

Humans can expand and build civilization very quickly compared to other races, the plains make perfect sense since to survive and expand they first need a good secure settlement, building on mountains takes a lot of time and effort and cleaning forests takes time and you could earn the rage of some of its inhabitants.

My dog has light skin, user.

But humans are also the typical race of seafaring !Norsemen and the empirical !Romans.

If we were designing a system from the ground up, I probably wouldn't have any humans at all. Just increasingly fantastical races until you get to the Australian equivalent and everything is venomous 7ft tall snake people who photosynthesize instead of eat and rip bongloads of uncut koala fur.

>it’s a /pol/ race science episode

>light skin, hair and eyes, wouldn't develop in a plains race, because those features are useful in places like forests, not on flat sunny ground

Which is why our ancestors were all dark. They lived on plains, where their upright stance kept them cooler in the sun, allowed them to see further, and travel for longer.

It wasn't until this plains race moved north, where sunlight was weaker and as a result we couldn't synthesise as much vitamin D with dark skin, that we became paler. And wherever we went, we cleared forests for our settlements.

Because humans farm.
That's really it.

Humans with light skin, hair and eyes are a minority user.

>Incorrect

No, correct.

>Most of the Tribes of europe, and most other tribal group, even if they have agriculture, don't clear the forests. They just use natural clearings

Some did. Some didn't. Those who cleared forests made wooden structures.

>And whites are descended from neanderthals, asians from denisovans, etc. not from africans

Nope.

>And additionally, we are not a "plains race". Civilisation isn't something that naturally comes to human beings. If christianity and the roman empire didnt spread civilisation, humans would still be living in Tribal groups.

Yes, we are. We were a plains race for millennia before the Roman empire even formed.

>Barbarian means uncivilised.

I say we redefine it now to mean moron, my barbarian friend.

>And whites are descended from neanderthals, asians from denisovans, etc. not from africans
They're a mix. Not really 100% neanderthals. And it doesn't really disprove his point.
>. If christianity and the roman empire didnt spread civilisation, humans would still be living in Tribal groups.
There are many civilisation that predate christianity and Rome and regions in the world that become civilised despite not being under roman and christian sphere of influence.

Whites are like 1% neanderthal. Asians are 1% neanderthal and denisovan. The vast majority of both their genomes is the same as africans. From the data it seems like cro-magnons spread across the globe and just fucked everything slightly human they came across along the way.

Human civilisation emerged from fertile river banks ie the euphrates, ganges, nile.

> If christianity and the roman empire didnt spread civilisation, humans would still be living in Tribal groups.
Most of human history disagrees. Stop molesting children for a while and read some books instead, pater.

Lets expand that. Human social organization is uniquely suited to "big" societies--we are more than capable of looking beyond "clan" or "village" and can be almost psychotically patriotic in a way other species generally dont. Humans also are one of the few species to combine that social organization with ingenuity and passion; humans are at once the most charitable race (making whole organizations for it) but also one of the cruelest when we combine our institutions with unrelenting paranoia or learned sadism.

Humans also use those institutions to further knowledge--where a dwarven smithing clan will only share secrets "within the family" or close friends, humans are much more apt to take apprentices and share knowledge; any knowledge that makes its way to human cities is apt to dissimenate and become mundane over time.

Because humans are short lived and lack natural magics, they are both fearful and fascinated by the arcane. Whereas an Elf may learn some magic, it is dull to an elf precisely for the reason many humans find running boring; the gift is taken for granted. However, a human will delve deep into the occult, making ever greater deals with the beyond or bending reality to their will. Combined with the above points, its no surprise that humans rapidly embrace and form cults, religious orders, covens, and necromancy circles. They make frequent offerings and often have strong reverence and fervor, thus Gods and demons alike find humans useful, and in return frequently aid them.

>Barbarian means uncivilised.
Nope. It means not speaking greek.
Later it got redefined into not speaking greek or latin.
>And whites are descended from neanderthals, asians from denisovans, etc. not from africans
Nah. Debunked already.
>And additionally, we are not a "plains race".
We are, biologically speaking. We suck a climbing but can run for a long while and have good eyes.
>Civilisation isn't something that naturally comes to human beings. If christianity and the roman empire didnt spread civilisation, humans would still be living in Tribal groups.
Flatout bullshit.
Civs rose and fell before rome and christianity. Likewise did they so with them around. Likewise did they so without ever having contact with either.

In case of the Neanderthals the Cro-Magnon were fucked by them.

>And whites are descended from neanderthals, asians from denisovans, etc. not from africans

Just because whites have marginally more neanderthal DNA doesn't magically mean they're descendant from 'Neanderthals, not Africans'.

Homo Sapiens with a small dash of Neanderthal. They're descendants from both, and Sapiens to a MUCH larger degree.

>romans spread civilization

What are Aztecs, ancient China, Egypt, Persia...

Rome didnt single handidly colonize the planet on behalf of their brown brothers.

>>Barbarian means uncivilised.
>Nope. It means not speaking greek.
>Later it got redefined into not speaking greek or latin.

you're trying to be smart user and it's not working

"barbarian" is an english word, and in english it means uncivilized in the vast majority of usages. "barbarian" is not the same word as the ancient greek "βάρβαρος", which does mean "non-greek". the history of a word is just that, it doesn't define the current meaning, nor are two distantly related words the same thing just because one descended from the other.

>I think the primary human advantages are endurance
Dwarves already have more endurance than humans in most settings.

>+2 Constitution/Stamina/etc.

lol good job user i can't believe Veeky Forums was retarded enough to fall for this extremely obvious bait
this board is filled with fucking retards

But roman aesthetics fit the /pol/lack agenda so much better.

It's more like 20% neanderthal.
It just happens that the neanderthals had a lot in common with other homo sapiens because they were from the same species.

In terms of actual neanderthal DNA it's up to 4% for euros and asians.

Uh.... Uh...

Humans and Neanderthals were kinda like horses and donkeys. Close enough to breed, but arguably different species.

Mixed with marxist fantasy about hunting-gathering. It's kind of awe-inspiring how many different kinds of idiot he is.

Less than five, probably around one. You got a cite for 20%?

Denisovans ancestry for some Australian Aboriginal subpopulations are estimated to be as high as 20% but thats it, and in their case most of the denisovan genes are also found in H. Sapiens anyway.

The difference between denisovans and neanderthals is mostly that neanderthals interbred slightly with a previous population of h. sapiens (that died out) and had a common female cro magnon ancestor which gave neanderthals cro magnon mitochondrial DNA. Whereas denisovans had original neanderthal female ancestry.

Of course all these species were originally African. Sorry, /pol/ your racial mythology is btfo. But it might be grist for a cool setting if you're willing to do some actual research of actual science.

>20%
WE

>pol
>actual research

Because cavalry is plains army and knight is typical human hero in fantasy.

So just give humans proficiency in athletics.

Why DO they have more anyway? what about their lives/habitat necessitates that?

More energy in less volume?

Humans already get to choose a few skills to be proficient with. They don't need Athletics for free.

Depends on the setting. In Tolkien's legendarium, they were just made that way. Made to be tough, hardy, resistant to fire and the evil of Morgoth, etc.

I assume "that's just the way they are" is the explanation for most settings. Maybe something about swinging picks in mines all day or hauling stone around.

>It just happens that the neanderthals had a lot in common with other homo sapiens because they were from the same species
This is debated. By the classic definition of species this would have to be the case, but we're increasingly finding instances of supposed separate species producing fertile offspring. Canid are all just one big incestuous family with coywolves and jackaldogs for example. Maybe how we've drawn the lines on these things needs reassessment.

There are like 200 different definitions of species within the scientific community, and its been well known, at least among biologists, that species is a fuzzy concept at best. You learn that in college and higher learning, which supplants the broad and basic idea from your childhood, for a more complex and more precises understanding.

I think I may have misread it. The 20% that I said was from another thing.
>Of course all these species were originally African.
The ancestors of these species yes, but the neanderthals were never well suited to life in Africa
> Sorry, /pol/ your racial mythology is btfo
Genetics are not politics.

Yeah, genetic fucked traditional taxonomy.

I wonder if the justification for this is /pol/acks wanting to be as genetically far from africans as possible.

>humans don't clear forests
>hunter gatherers have been burning forests to make more pasture land for thier prey since the stone age

>hello /pol/

Humans are just as good at seeing in the dark as elves

>Low-Light Vision: Elves can see twice as far as humans in conditions of dim light.

Nope. Elves are like cats or dogs when it comes to darkness.

Reasoning to give elves darkvision or lowlight is that their eyes adapted to forests under starlight. Humans can achieve the same effect by sitting in the dark for like 2 hours.

If elves can see in low light because they are like cats then they cannot see colors

Humans are terribly suited to big civilizations. We are inherently tribal and capable of actually giving a shit about a relatively small numbers of people. Almost all forms of mass collectivism (religion, nationalism, mass movements, even cultural trends) are created by the relatively few people with a broad vision and driven by masses of people who use it as social signaling to be more attractive and influential to the small group of people they actually care about.

And here we see the wrongest post of Veeky Forums

Cats' ability to see in the dark better is not related to their lack of color vision. That's due to having less types of color receptive cells in their eyes, a feature that was lost early along mammalian evolution and only returned in some specially adapted families such as primates. The light reflecting layer in a cat's eyes that gives them good night vision hampers their ability to make out shapes at a distance, especially in daylight. So if anything, drow are like cats. Vanilla elves are more like nocturnal birds, who have good night and day color vision and can see over long distances.

Cats can see colors though. They just can't see red due to having no red type cones like us. Elves have catvision but with all colors and full sharpness. Their vision works immediately and is far stronger than a humans paltry attempts at seeing at night.

And at night. This is pretty much how elves see the world but blurrier and missing some color.

Ants are suited to big societies. Humans have been trying to pretend they're ant for several hundred years now, but the ever increasing rates of mental disorders and unhappiness should be an indicator of how well we're doing. Hell, we're not even capable of remembering more than 150 unique faces. We establish our social identity based on relatively small group sizes and generalize for all the extra shit we can't cope with. This scale of thousands and millions is straining us.

Actually they are related due to the limited space in the eye. You can't have both

Exactly.

Darkvision is generally only 60ft, so they wouldn't have that kind of range

>monsters much more dangerous than normal animals
You mean the ones we hunted to extinction in our world?

>we evolved in the African Savannah
This was debunked recently, they found older human skeletons in Europe recently

Owls do. The solution is to have fuckhuge eyes and overdeveloped neural connections.
Birds in general put human eyesight to shame.

given that elves have low-light vision, wouldn't their range be dependent mainly by the strength of surrounding light?
you could squeeze out 240ft of dimmed sight with a daylight spell or a bullseye lantern if i'm reading srd right

It's not like burning forests was necessary in Finland. We even have a word for it and a famous painting.

user, you're an idiot. The rate hasn't increased, only better documented.

Who the fuck told you elves dark vision works like a cat?
It's fuckin magic when did this talk about fantasy evolution started?
>mamuts are the same as dragons and other magical mega fauna
>I are smart
Stop it

>If christianity and the roman empire didnt spread civilisation, humans would still be living in Tribal groups

Because I guess East Asian civilizations don't count or something?

Source? This seems like it should be a big deal.

why are all the dinosaurs gone?
checkmate

lol Europeans are 3% neanderthal max. humans are from Africa stupid racist

Close, but you're missing the forest for the trees, as points out. Now, humans ARE decent at forming organizations. After all, deer arent forming cities of concrete that house even a thousand or two, let alone countries of millions. But they are transient. Empires rise and fall, and human history is filled with dramatic implosions and meteoric rises. The point is, humans can clump together, even in the millions... FOR A WHILE. Our key strength isnt that we are magically well suited to nation-building, its that we are, as pointed out, psychopathic about in-group identity. We are incredibly altruistic to our in-group, and horribly xenophobic or cold to the out-group. That ALSO plays in to your cult and religion point, cuz most religious groups and cults make it a point to say "we are divinely ordained and mega important because X".

Humans arent necessarily great at nation building, but we ARE good at setting aside differences as long as there is a boogieman to unite against, be it orcs or even other humans.

>These are hard scientific facts I'm giving about a fantasy race.

Mammoths weren't shit and direwolves got outcompeted by their midget cousins

It was actually a jaw bone and not an entire skeleton sorry, it was still in an apparent Savannah though funnily enough
telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

The Celts contributed more to a unified European Civilization than the Romans ever did.

It's just Romaboos like you do not understand Pre-Iron Age and Bronze Age Europe outside of Greece because you're a fucking Romaboo.

Darkvision is not low light vision. They are different things. Darkvision is a purely magical sight with a hard limit, low light vision is literally regular sight but better.

Its an ability found in a great many RPGs with elves and is described the same as basically being what cats/dogs see like at night.

Piltdown

anything we didn't eat we starved to death. tracking then hunting an entire pack of megas might as well be considered a single dragon

"debunked"

Professor Böhme added: "Our findings may eventually change our ideas about the origin of humanity. I personally don't think that the descendants of Graecopithecus die out, they may have spread to Africa later. The split of chimps and humans was a single event. Our data support the view that this split was happening in the eastern Mediterranean - not in Africa.

"If accepted, this theory will indeed alter the very beginning of human history."

Retired anthropologist and author Dr Peter Andrews, formerly at the Natural History Museum in London, said: "It is possible that the human lineage originated in Europe, but very substantial fossil evidence places the origin in Africa, including several partial skeletons and skulls.

"I would be hesitant about using a single character from an isolated fossil to set against the evidence from Africa."

>"I would be hesitant about using a single character from an isolated fossil to set against the evidence from Africa."

Yeah, it has not been debunked at all, its been maybe, possibly slightly altered, but the amount of evidence is currently too small and needs more to get a full picture.