CCC Species creation - CLOSED; GO VOTE

[Salmoneus]

Of course humans look variable - humans do everything we do. Because we're humans. When we look at things that AREN'T humans, we notice that they are different from humans. That's why we have to describe more things when we're describing them - we can't just assume that they act like humans. So with a hyaena you have to say more about their sociology than you do with a human, because we all know what human sociology is like.

For what it's worth: humans have a complicated and unusual social life, but one largely typical of social primates (and not typical of non-primates). They have fission-fusion societies (the group divides into multiple functionally autonomous subgroup) with individuals showing loyalty to both their subgroup and their group, and where situations are suitable these societies can grow both laterally and vertically to encompass large numbers of individuals and several levels of grouping (ie subgroups form groups which can themselves form supergroups). Young have strong attachments to their birth-mothers, who are not only their primary caregivers in infancy but to some extent retain a nurturing and protecting role in later life (and in turn receive particular protection from their adult offspring); other females, particularly aunts and grandmothers, provide a supportive caregiving, but this is secondary to the maternal role. Fathers, by contrast, typically have a less direct role in caregiving, although they do often help in providing resources. In general, males are more aggressive than females, in in-group relations, in inter-group relations, and in relations with other species; they are easily provoked into anger by offences against their social status or that of their mothers. Violent conflict, both selfish and on behalf of the group, is in most cases the prerogative of the males. Males primarily gain their social standing and prestige from their ability to form coalitions with other males, with parental status, courage/audacity and to a lesser extent physical prowess secondary contributing factors; 'rule' of the group is typically by a single or pair of males, but is non-absolute, and rests upon the consent of their coalition. 'Defeated' coalitions (whether defeated in violence or in diplomacy) typically remain integrated into the group, with exile or execution a last resort; coalitions are generally fluid, and their borders may be ambiguous. Young males are the most invested in coalition-building, developing a cohort of close friends that they hope will support them in future endeavours. Meanwhile, matrilineal networks provide a secondary power structure in the group, with females typically prefering blood relations to external alliances; males split their favours between their matrilineal bloodline and their own offspring. Typically, however, matrilineal power, even when exercised by males, is exerted more through diplomacy and less through violence or the threat of violence. The exact balance of power between the two systems of structure may vary with local conditions, though typically male coalition building is the dominant mode.
Males typically choose their mates primarily on the basis of physical characteristics; females typically choose theirs on the basis on social status - male fitness is thus closely tied to power. Males may therefore use rape as a way of demonstrating power, both against females (eg the females claimed by a rival) and against males (particularly among the young). There is a strong urge to destroy or assimilate rival groups, and to gain power over others - even those who do not have ultimate power in a group typically pursue small improvements in power, which increases their access to mates. Males typically 'claim' favoured females for mating purposes for prolonged periods of time (though not for life), with more powerful typically claiming more females, but there is not complete monopolisation of mating by the ruling group, and most males are able to obtain mating opportunities. This possession of mates is similar to other forms of possession, and threats against it provoke violent jealousy, and often violent confrontations; however, the fidelity of the 'claimed' females is far from assured, with lower-status males often secretly seducing females through shows of affection and care while the dominant males are otherwise engaged, and there is a high level of paternal ambiguity. In general, females tend to use sex widely in securing and shaping their relationships with males (and sometimes females), where they can (particularly in groups with stronger female power networks), but this is strongly opposed by males, who attempt to control the mating of 'their' females, even resorting to violence against females at times. As a result of this social function of sex, and the widespread practice of infidelity, females and males engage in sex throughout the year on a regular basis, with, incredibly, females able to get pregnant at any time of year (which may in part explain the continual jealousy shown by males). Primary courtship is minimal, with males courting females but the decision largely made in advance - most of the courtship behaviour males show is effectively toward other males, to persuade them not to object to the union; however, seduction by lower-status males may require extensive courtship of the female, which the female may sometimes exploit. Litter sizes are extremely small - typically a single offspring, rarely two - and young receive intensive care and attention.
Societies may be either male-movement or female-movement, with a tendency toward the former - the former is usually associated with higher degrees of power for the female blood networks, the latter with less - sometimes with near-total female subjugation.
Group members combine egoist and collective motivations - there is support for the group (at any level of grouping), and in particular a strong ethic against betrayal and oathbreaking, and more generally against lying to other group members (although low status males do this frequently to pursue mating opportunities). There may be communal ownership of some resources (eg groups may collaborated to build homes that are then collectively owned), but most possessions are private, and jealously guarded, with their exchange (and the exchange of access) playing an important role both in coalition building and in courtship. There is a degree of pure altruism, shown even toward strangers, but this is usually limited to extremis situations (i.e. life-saving), and does not override political concerns (such as warfare). Females tend to be more altruistic than males - particularly females of maternal age. Relationships with other animals are often disrespectful - killing for enjoyment is practiced.
Typically members of a group live in close proximity to one another, but in small family (or other alliance) subgroups within the sleeping area. This living area serves not only as a sleeping area but as a general base of operations, from which subgroups depart to perform certain tasks (like hunting or gathering) but later return. The base of operations typically remains fixed for long periods at a time (or at least remains within a tight area), but after such a period the group relocates en masse to a new area and a new site.

I could say more but that will do for now. Obviously, the above applies not only (in general) to humans, but also to the generality of social primates, though particular species, and particular cultures, may tend in one direction or the other (social flexibility is another hallmark of primates, after all). Nobody would claim that the above is absolute, or that every single thing above wasn't broken in some societies (or species) (and I think you go completely up the wrong tree talking about things being 'biologically determined' and making that equivalent to the contrary never being attested - being 100% determined with no variation, on the one hand, and being 0% determined on the other, is a false dichotomy - giving xenological tendencies need not mean giving cast-iron 'determinations'). But the point is: a whole load of the above is specific to primates, or at least isn't shared with many other species. And it's not just about intelligence: although, of course, intelligence is related both to flexibility and complexity of society, the sociology of primates as outlined above (and I should caveat that that's just off the top of my head, didn't think it all through) is still in many ways very different from the sociology of equivalently intelligent non-primate species (like elephants, hyaenas, dolphins, corvids, etc), so that for those species the above wouldn't just be controversial or overly broad, it would be entirely false.

Obviously, more elaborate, intelligent behaviours are harder to generalise. But even there, it's possible to say things. The wearing of clothes, for instance, is almost universal among human groups, with clothing more generally serving as one of a class of personal adornments that simultaneously fulfills a personal need for expression and individuation and also displays the status and group affiliation of the individual to others. There's no reason why a non-human species need necessarily use clothes, or other bodily ornamentation, both body modification and the use of worn ornaments, at all, or in the same ways at all.

[zompist]

I'm not sure why you think we need this information, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that my way of putting it was unclear. This is a creative game, in multiple stages. A species created at this stage can be picked by multiple players to build a culture with, in the next stage or even later. Ideally, at the species creation stage, descriptions include only what's near-universal for that species, though of course it may be appropriate to describe the ancestral environment and adaptations to it. Anything described is a constraint on future players, and that sort of thing should be done judiciously.

Most of the descriptions here are fine, but some get into areas (such as mate selection and ritual practices) which are varied in humans. They could be more restricted in another species, sure, but if a species has a narrower range of cultural practices than humans, that's something the creator should think about and explain.

[Torco]

A big chunk of what a sapient animal *is*, and that is perhaps more interesting and sophisticated and interesting than whether it has horns or long pointy ears or bony protrusions or magenta-coloured eyes is its temperament, is its "nature" in the sense we use the word in the phrase "human nature in", if you will. this is not cultural in the sense I think zompist is using the word in saying "nothing cultural": I think zompist means "nothing that is or ought to be culturally determined, like their language or family structures, whether they like the color red or if they're theistic or not". And I agree with that, we should treat species and cultures separate: [and I really hope we stray from the notion of "there's only this species in this culture, there's only this culture in this species" thing.

However, What Sal is saying is crucial to making aliens that are not rubber foreheaded... A sentient elephant that feels, thinks, and generally has the same emotional and behavioral leanings and predispositions as a human is a human in an elephant costume to some degree: Humans are a thing, and we have features that are pre-cultural, if you will, and determine culture: for example its quite true that there are billions of possible facial expressions that mean a bunch of different stuff for a number of different cultures <I bet raised eyebrow doesn't mean "oh look how cool I am" in all cultures>. But we DO have four <or six, according to the research you trust> basic universal human emotions... everywhere everyone opens their eyes when surprised, frowns their nose when disgusted or angry, smiles when happy, laughs when amused, etcetera. I'd expect different sentient species to be, say, less easily brought to anger -or moreso. Hell, even having different emotions! Maybe they would lack something like momentary rage and, whereas we get very agry at something very quickly and the calm down they would be unable to do so <having only long-term violent aversion responses towards something and no short-term ones, effectively we could describe such a mind as having only such things as hatred, peevishness, resentment and will-to-vengeance, but no short tempers>. Or something to that effect, you get my drift.

so here, I think, we're mentioning a matter of levels of analysys and not of frequency, which I figure is what zomp is thinking since he's talking about something being nearly universal: for example, it is nearly universal for humans to use pointy objects like spears or daggers to hurt each other, but that is not one of the precultural dimensions of human nature Sal lays out in the post <but rather, an artifact of the materials available and so on>. but just like not having short tempers would be a part of the nature of my imaginary elephants <who could culturally adapt to this in a billion ways, including eternal vendettas between petty ingroups, as they can never have enough time to not get angry, or compassionate killing of everyone who becomes too angry, since their anger will surely forever poison them> the fact that humans lie, or that our males distinctly tend to be more physically dominant than our females *are* parts of human nature -as far as we can tell, but then again, that's true for con-everything.

<whether lying would be a part of any sentient's nature is an excellent philosophical question, but the example serves as illustration, I hope>.

[ol bofosh]

This is exactly why I put in a note about pre-sapient social organisation (more "formal" than cat colonies, less "formal" than dog packs). To look at human society it can be relevant to look at our primate cousins. At the same time it doesn't explain everything about human society.

Maybe what I wrote about amphibimorphs will help in visualising future societies, maybe not.

Personally, I don't understand the need for nit-picking. It's meant to be fun.

[KathTheDragon]

The Not-Quite-Unlike-Dragons, or Dragons for short.

Instead of listing how they're not quite unlike dragons, I'll start with the basics. Warm-blooded. Standard quadrupedal frame, long neck, long prehensile tail. Their legs tuck under their body like mammals, instead of sticking out the the side like reptiles. No wings. They have a rubbery skin covered by overlapping scales. Their colours and patterns can vary, but no two Dragons have the same pattern. Common colours include blue, red, green and gold. All the colours are metallic. The intensity of the colours is dependant on the Dragon's long-term health, so if they do not eat well, or are prone to illness, they'll have very dull scales. They are wholly carnivorous, and have a diet of fish, large rodents, and maybe the occasional larger animal. A fully grown Dragon is about 4 or 5 metres long, and stands just short of 2 metres tall with their head raised as high as they can reach.
Dragons are well adapted to both land and water, but they lack adaptations to live underwater. They have the ability to hold air in their lungs for long periods if need be, slowly scrubbing it of oxygen. They can also inflate webbing between their toes to aid in swimming. Their tail can also be flattened, forming an effective rudder. Their scales can also be made to lie flat, or stand on end. When flat, they form an airtight seal trapping air between the scales and their skin, insulating them against the cold. When on end, they expose their skin to their environment, helping them to cool down.
Dragons are capable of pulling themselves onto two legs to see farther, and this also frees up their forepaws. Their forepaws' innermost finger is opposable, allowing them to grip things primarily when swimming, such as if they need to hold a large animal.
That's all for now, though I'll add more if I think of something I've missed.

[Mornche Geddick]

One thing I missed out in my description of the Munkees : the big toe is opposable. The foot can perform some of the functions of a hand although the toes are shorter and stubbier than the fingers.

I have a picture in my head right now of a Munkee woman playing cards. She has her feet on the table holding the cards and plays by pulling one card out with her big toe and second toe, although she will use her hands to shuffle and deal. She can use a mouse with a foot and type (slowly) on a keyboard, but for an old-fashioned typewriter or a pen, she would probably need her hands.

A Munkee can drive a human car (although his arms would get cramped). A Munkee-designed car would take advantage of the Munkee's upper body strength, so that the steering and the brake would be operated by hand, the clutch, the gear lever and the accelerator with the feet. The first cars would be very similar to a horse cart, and controlled entirely with the hands.

[Mornche Geddick]

Of course, they may or may not actually create cars.

[Lyhoko Leaci]

I added/modified some stuff for the Batti, mainly in the behavior section, but also some stuff I forgot, like that they lay eggs and some vision details.

[Matrix]

I added stuff to my post on the Golems, about lifespan and population growth.

[Torco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation ... xmQYJ53tWE
a nice bit of illustration about the nature of a species. we as humans are pretty great throwers... and come to think of it, are there many other animals that throw stuff around?

[Salmoneus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation ... xmQYJ53tWE
a nice bit of illustration about the nature of a species. we as humans are pretty great throwers... and come to think of it, are there many other animals that throw stuff around?

No, we're pretty much unique, at least in terms of largish animals - some other primates can throw as well, but not as well (yay polysemy!).
We're also arguably the best runners in the world. Over long distances, no "naturally-occuring" animal can match us, only artificially bred camels, horses and dogs. The first two of those are similar to or slightly faster than humans, but horses aren't as good in warm weather, and both horses and camels probably lose out over rougher terrain - also, horses reach exhaustion faster than us over extremely long distances (not sure about camels). Sled dogs have been bred to be extraordinarily fast over long distances... but they also can't handle heat very well. So in other words, at noon on the savannah, humans can outrun any other species (we can, for instance, easily outrun zebra).

EDIT: in fact, doing ANYTHING energetically in heat is something humans are amazingly good at. Among large animals, we may be the best at keeping cool (we sweat a lot more and have less hair).

[Astraios]

But it still takes from noon to like nighttime before we actually exhaust them, since they're faster and can have breaks while we catch up.

[Dewrad]

But it still takes from noon to like nighttime before we actually exhaust them, since they're faster and can have breaks while we catch up.

This is why we domesticated them.

[Torco]

Not so much, actually.. I myself < an out of shape and moderately fat young man > have easily outran sheep on open terrain on multiple occasions. I'm not sure outrunning is the correct word here: probably more like catch up to. And I suppose that's exactly the hunting technique we seemed to have evolved "for".

Incidentally, chasing animals is a strange experience: you're running after it and it looks like it effortlessly outruns you, like it gets away from you with no effort while you're panting and barely moving: and then you get into a sort of groove, just running at your own pace after it. And it gets away, and then stops, and you catch up, and it runs away and again stops at a safe distance, and you get to it. and suddenly it collapses to the ground, helpless. It must be terrifying to the animals, we're kind of jason voorhees to a deer.

Interestingly, having breaks in the middle of a run is not the best: if you've ever played sports vs. going for a jog you know that running at your own pace is incredibly more sustainable than having your pace determined by outside forces. and stop-go-stop ends up burning you up: maybe that's just humans, though.

[Astraios]

Domestic sheep aren't exactly fast...

[ol bofosh]

Depends on the breed. Fat, little south downs, slow. Jacobs, fast(er).

But who wants to run after sheep when you have one intelligent Jacob ewe leading all the little, fat South Down ewes into a pen? Even better than having a sheepdog.

[Astraios]

'Intelligent' and 'sheep' really don't come together, they're dumb as ten dumb things.

[Torco]

well, yeah, sheep are weak and dumb. at 112k and a couple of packs a week I'm no paragon of human athletic capacity either, though xD

I bet most humans could catch a sheep. Well, most humans younger than 40 years and with no special movement disabilities.

[ol bofosh]

'Intelligent' and 'sheep' really don't come together, they're dumb as ten dumb things.

Relatively. Jacob's show more intelligence that South Downs.