Shoug

We have a saying: "Aborting to dodge is useless."  Not because gaining a +3/+5 to your DCV is tactically bad, but with a lot of our luck, if you abort your next phase, the GM will end up always rolling less than an 8 making it effectively useless.  The last time I heard the phrase from my fellow gamers, they aborted to a martial dodge making it a 6- to hit and the GM rolled a 5.  To put icing on the cake, the GM rolled just over 4.5 points per die of damage.

My mom was using Morrowind to stop herself from murdering my infantile self. So first it was that, then WoW, then Oblivion. Around this age my dad used to improvise fantasy stories for us which we would directly impact with our input so he would know when we'd fallen asleep. This was my first exposure to fantasy storytelling proper. Then I watched Avatar: The Last Airbender, which is to this day hands down the best story I've heard told. Nothing in any media has come close.
 
The first fantasy I ever read was A Spell For Chameleon, and around that time I first saw Naruto (which I have not seen since, it peters out quick, but the setting is phenomenal), then it was all scifi and (lord have mercy) a lot of fantasy power metal for me during high school. Since then I've read Nine Princes in Amber, Kingkiller Chronicles, and the first three Dark Tower books. I recently was exposed to the first 2 anime that I've been able to take seriously: Demon Slayer and My Hero Academia. Demon Slayer is really perfect so far, unbelievably tight worldbuilding, all the concepts and imagery in perfect sync. 
 
That and RPG has been my entire experience with fantasy.

Honestly, the superhero model is a good one to use as the foundation for a generic system like Hero. Supers have come to have an enormous influence on Anime, and therefore Fantasy. In superhero settings, everybody has a few powerful and unique abilities of enormous implication, unlike fantasy where everybody for the most part shares the same abilities and the story is about characters and plot surrounding those abilities and how they're concentrated. Fighters do violence, rogues have skills and backstab, wizards have magic. But Anime has bridged the gap with increasing success over the years with shows such as Naruto (where Ninjas are warrior mages with completely unique magical Jutsus), Demon Slayer (where Demon Slayers are warrior mages who use breathing techniques to empower themselves until they are strong enough to cut through boulders and use special moves mostly unique to each character), and JoJo (where Stand users are able to exercise the physical manifestations of their own fighter spirits to be warrior mages). 
 
The days of the "Warrior, Mage and, Rogue" are over, Hero system has ushered forth unto me the dawn of taking a character concept as far as you want to go mechanically with no restrictions. I wanna be a pyromancer? I don't have to look through the spell tome and find all the fire themed spells, pick all but one them because that one basically sucks, and I'd rather just have something useful like misty step or greater illusion. I want to be a battlemage? I don't have to multicast and then just be a mediocre fighter who can sling a few spells that a wizard could use since lvl 3. EDIT: In Hero, I'm able to make a barbarian who accidentally goes berserk, which turns him into a "whirling devil of burning red elemental rage" granting him fire breath and flight. 
 
It's awesome.

Don't need a video.
 
I have eyes.
 

 
 

This is my point exactly. There has to be some sort of point cost for what is essentially "Superpowered disguise." It can't just be... free.

These are real suggestions, but I still can't help but balk at, "They will always be able to look closely enough at you to find out that you're really just a 6'2" white guy." I think this is fair, you shouldn't be able to just abandon your identity at no cost. Oh, I turn into a fly. Now, because I look like a fly, literally nobody will ever look twice at me. Nobody will be able to tell that I am a dangerous shapeshifting ninja, and all I had to do was declare that I am a fly. I buy all my normal characteristics with "only in appropriate form" and now I can turn into a fly for free *and* all my characteristics are cheaper, because they only work when I'm a fly. It just doesn't make any sense to me. It only seems logical that there would be some kind of rigorous cost structure to the obfuscation of your identity. Logically speaking, one could look at Distinctive Features as an example of the game acknowledging the importance of your identity, by saying that "Having one which is extra memorable is actually so bad it's worth points."
 

This is also a funny coincidence with my setting. "Elf" is just the term for "Man Fae". "Fae" in the setting means "Is a Lens and is a living thing." They are usually animals but with distinctive "Fae" features. An Elf is just a man with distinctive Fae features (long wispy eyebrows, pointed ears, eyes with glowing pupils and no distinct iris/whites, fine/straight hair, etc.) 

Unfortunately, it's not easy to across the board boycott evil creeps. I mean, a lot of times their wage is payed with taxpayer dollars. Good on you for putting your foot down somewhere, though.

I absolutely love the concepts Chaos and Order, and I absolutely hate DnD alignments. I have never used them, and will never use them. But I don't eliminate ethics from my games. I don't need DnD alignments to have Orcs that are only evil. Evil orcs aren't about cosmic alignment, it's about nature, and empirical observations. All orcs are evil not because they're forced by the cosmos to be that way, but because they *just are.* In the same way that all mountains are tall, and all oceans are deep, all orcs are evil. It's just part of the nature of reality (in a setting with evil orcs that are done well). I'm not even saying orcs *should* be evil. All I'm saying is that there's nothing to be ashamed of in using evil orcs for slaughter in your games. If your orcs are evil and only for slaughter, that's cool to me. If you orcs are the misunderstood savage trope, that's fine by me as well. It's a worldbuilding choice that I appreciate, I don't think it's vapid or shallow or for low-brow pulp fantasy reading plebeians who don't have sophisticated tastes or whatever. I don't think it's for *racists* either. I think it's just for people who have enough imagination to appreciate something as simple as imminent material danger. I also don't think it's any more of an "illogical" worldbuilding choice than any of the other thousands of ultimately arbitrary changes that we make to our worlds so that they differ from Reality Prime. 

In fact, the less I know about why orcs are evil, the eviler and scarier they become for me. Because that would actually make them eviler and scarier to the denizens of the world. I hope I never have to play with somebody who's gonna roll their eyes when they hear a village has been completely razed and nobody knows why.

I absolutely love the concepts Chaos and Order, and I absolutely hate DnD alignments. I have never used them, and will never use them. But I don't eliminate ethics from my games. I don't need DnD alignments to have Orcs that are only evil. Evil orcs aren't about cosmic alignment, it's about nature, and empirical observations. All orcs are evil not because they're forced by the cosmos to be that way, but because they *just are.* In the same way that all mountains are tall, and all oceans are deep, all orcs are evil. It's just part of the nature of reality (in a setting with evil orcs that are done well). I'm not even saying orcs *should* be evil. All I'm saying is that there's nothing to be ashamed of in using evil orcs for slaughter in your games. If your orcs are evil and only for slaughter, that's cool to me. If you orcs are the misunderstood savage trope, that's fine by me as well. It's a worldbuilding choice that I appreciate, I don't think it's vapid or shallow or for low-brow pulp fantasy reading plebeians who don't have sophisticated tastes or whatever. I don't think it's for *racists* either. I think it's just for people who have enough imagination to appreciate something as simple as imminent material danger. I also don't think it's any more of an "illogical" worldbuilding choice than any of the other thousands of ultimately arbitrary changes that we make to our worlds so that they differ from Reality Prime. 

In fact, the less I know about why orcs are evil, the eviler and scarier they become for me. Because that would actually make them eviler and scarier to the denizens of the world. I hope I never have to play with somebody who's gonna roll their eyes when they hear a village has been completely razed and nobody knows why.

I think many talents would be perfect for simulating integration with a computer system. Danger sense, combat sense, absolute range sense, absolute time sense, etc. These are *fantastic* candidates for being skinned as having 24/7 supercomputer integration. Personally, if it were my character, I would like the computer integration to be so seamless that I don't need the Follower mechanics. That would be cooler, to me.

I think I need to see some more examples of building this thing as a follower being advantageous or significantly different then just making the computer an SFX. Like, what are some contexts where your character is doing one thing and the computer is doing another and you need them to be separate? He's been knocked out but the computer is still online, so he's just partially resistant to unconsciousness? What does he want to happen while he's asleep or knocked out? Hack something, acquire some kind information, communicate with teammates?

These are real suggestions, but I still can't help but balk at, "They will always be able to look closely enough at you to find out that you're really just a 6'2" white guy." I think this is fair, you shouldn't be able to just abandon your identity at no cost. Oh, I turn into a fly. Now, because I look like a fly, literally nobody will ever look twice at me. Nobody will be able to tell that I am a dangerous shapeshifting ninja, and all I had to do was declare that I am a fly. I buy all my normal characteristics with "only in appropriate form" and now I can turn into a fly for free *and* all my characteristics are cheaper, because they only work when I'm a fly. It just doesn't make any sense to me. It only seems logical that there would be some kind of rigorous cost structure to the obfuscation of your identity. Logically speaking, one could look at Distinctive Features as an example of the game acknowledging the importance of your identity, by saying that "Having one which is extra memorable is actually so bad it's worth points."
 

I think of neutrality between these things as being the most optimal, "divine" state. In fact, I have toyed with a "Big Three" racial system where each race is biased towards a different aspect of chaos and order. Dwarves are cursed with an affinity for order, and so stay holed up in their halls, hold on to even their most ancient of traditions, and hoard treasure. Elves are cursed with an affinity for chaos, and so live by hunting and gathering in the woods, can never settle physically nor spiritually (these elves are obviously not like tolkein elves - instead they are modeled more like Wood Elves from TES). Humans are the most successful and prevalent race, because of their ability to find balance in chaos and order. They can settle down, but also reach out and explore. They hold onto old ideas, but can let them go when they get in the way of progress.

I absolutely love the concepts Chaos and Order, and I absolutely hate DnD alignments. I have never used them, and will never use them. But I don't eliminate ethics from my games. I don't need DnD alignments to have Orcs that are only evil. Evil orcs aren't about cosmic alignment, it's about nature, and empirical observations. All orcs are evil not because they're forced by the cosmos to be that way, but because they *just are.* In the same way that all mountains are tall, and all oceans are deep, all orcs are evil. It's just part of the nature of reality (in a setting with evil orcs that are done well). I'm not even saying orcs *should* be evil. All I'm saying is that there's nothing to be ashamed of in using evil orcs for slaughter in your games. If your orcs are evil and only for slaughter, that's cool to me. If you orcs are the misunderstood savage trope, that's fine by me as well. It's a worldbuilding choice that I appreciate, I don't think it's vapid or shallow or for low-brow pulp fantasy reading plebeians who don't have sophisticated tastes or whatever. I don't think it's for *racists* either. I think it's just for people who have enough imagination to appreciate something as simple as imminent material danger. I also don't think it's any more of an "illogical" worldbuilding choice than any of the other thousands of ultimately arbitrary changes that we make to our worlds so that they differ from Reality Prime. 

In fact, the less I know about why orcs are evil, the eviler and scarier they become for me. Because that would actually make them eviler and scarier to the denizens of the world. I hope I never have to play with somebody who's gonna roll their eyes when they hear a village has been completely razed and nobody knows why.

The part about in game penalties vs cost penalties. The game is set up so that you can make your abilities arbitrarily powerful and all you must do is pay the cost. You can just keep buying more d6 of effect, you can buy NND and just completely ignore defenses, you can buy autofire with penalty skill levels to just attack more times than one at once, you can make it cost no endurance to use, you can make it take almost no time to use. You can just keep piling on bonuses at as long as you've got the character points for them you are allowed to have the power (unless the GM says no, but the books provide no guidance for GMs on what to say no to, they just have to bump into overpowered and powergamed things and make notes about them through pure experience).

The part about in game penalties vs cost penalties. The game is set up so that you can make your abilities arbitrarily powerful and all you must do is pay the cost. You can just keep buying more d6 of effect, you can buy NND and just completely ignore defenses, you can buy autofire with penalty skill levels to just attack more times than one at once, you can make it cost no endurance to use, you can make it take almost no time to use. You can just keep piling on bonuses at as long as you've got the character points for them you are allowed to have the power (unless the GM says no, but the books provide no guidance for GMs on what to say no to, they just have to bump into overpowered and powergamed things and make notes about them through pure experience).

These are real suggestions, but I still can't help but balk at, "They will always be able to look closely enough at you to find out that you're really just a 6'2" white guy." I think this is fair, you shouldn't be able to just abandon your identity at no cost. Oh, I turn into a fly. Now, because I look like a fly, literally nobody will ever look twice at me. Nobody will be able to tell that I am a dangerous shapeshifting ninja, and all I had to do was declare that I am a fly. I buy all my normal characteristics with "only in appropriate form" and now I can turn into a fly for free *and* all my characteristics are cheaper, because they only work when I'm a fly. It just doesn't make any sense to me. It only seems logical that there would be some kind of rigorous cost structure to the obfuscation of your identity. Logically speaking, one could look at Distinctive Features as an example of the game acknowledging the importance of your identity, by saying that "Having one which is extra memorable is actually so bad it's worth points."
 

This seems to go against the whole concept of the Hero System. In Hero, you can put together almost any mechanical effect that you want to. A "fireball" could be a wide variety of things, it all depends on who's building it and for what purpose do they want a fireball. If you want a super awesome fireball with AoE, DoT, no endurance cost, etc. all you must do is get it passed by the GM and then Hero just lets you build it. 

If a horde of orcs rescued a group of starving children, they would do it in a way that you would look at it and say, "That was an evil act." For example, rescue them to plump them for consumption, or to break their minds to make them into slaves and inexpensive soldiers.

The only reasons they do evil are the same reasons that normal people do evil! Calling them "team evil" is like calling a hurricane on "team evil" and the unsuspecting villagers "team good." Yes, they are only evil, but that doesn't mean humans aren't evil either. Everything about the world is the same, except there is a type of person who only does evil, and they are in fact identifiable from the outside. They're orcs! It is in fact racism, but it is *founded on the legitimate premise that, in the alternative nature of our fantasy reality, it is possible for an entire species of sentient beings to be evil by nature.* 

And it can be very interesting to slaughter them. I don't understand why everything you slaughter must for some reason have had enough freedom of destiny that they're rampant, wanton disregard for goodness could be described as "evil." What about a horde of rampaging boars about to completely level a village? Is it not interesting to stave off imminent destruction? I couldn't imagine a more interesting Man vs. Environment situation than Man vs. *Environment as Man*. You can't do anything about a hurricane, but orcs? Orcs have societies, organized forces, machinations and stratagems. A wildfire burns whatever's nearest to it, but orcs can burn whole nations at once. Orcs can visit a variety of evils, ranging from enslavement to destruction to demoralization to cruelty, all with pinpoint precision. *And, unlike the earthquake, they can be fought.* A natural disaster that you can fight with swords and spells, I just don't see how that is somehow too pedestrian and low brow for tabletop miniature gaming.

I suppose before I get into this, we have to look at the definition of evil, which is a hairy subject. You're view of things is sophisticated, and reflects the ideas written about in Sam Harris's book, Free Will. The position is that, because the actions of the Orcs are a consequence of their nature over which they have no control (not unlike the cruelty of cats), they cannot be considered evil. Now, whether or not you've read the book or not, it's worth mentioning that I'm using a definition of evil which Sam Harris posits in Free Will as a kind of shift in the semantics of the word so that it doesn't produce any paradox's when looked at through an advanced neurological lens. The idea is that "evil" is a kind of act, and that evil is only possible if one does evil acts. There are no evil thoughts or evil intentions, only thoughts and intentions which produce evil acts. 

So, yes, Orcs are a kin to a natural force of destruction. One does not consider the hurricane to be an act of evil, but they do consider it to be an act of God. Now I'm not saying that orcs should be considered an act of God, but the ability to make the comparison at all hints at the kind of spiritual relationship that the denizens of our world might have with Orcs. Orcs *represent* evil on a kind of metaphysical level, which reflects itself in their nature. Orcs *do* evil. This doesn't mean that they don't need plausible motivations for their actions, but the things they end up doing are evil. They're motivations can come from love, honor, glory, greed, gluttony, whatever; The key is that they pursue these things in an evil way, and can't be convinced to do otherwise. They're not like lions, which kill to eat and think of nothing else.  

What isn't interesting about pure evil? Don't you realize that pure evil is actually real? Did you know that there are people who traffic children children and animals as sex slaves? Did you know that there are people who make their living by selling videos of them brutally torturing and raping children and animals? Did you know that there are people who pay tens of thousands of dollars for those videos? Not only does evil exist, but elementally pure ultimate evil exists, in real life. It doesn't have to be a matter of "cosmic alignment", it can just be a matter of character. So that's not the problem.

The problem apparently is that ultimate evil is uninteresting. Now, obviously one could simply say, "That is just my taste." and the discussion would be over, but that's not what we're here for. Why isn't ultimate evil interesting? Morality is often talked about with the terms "black," "white," and "grey." G.R.R.Martin is often described as writing stories with morally grey characters and situations, and it is this grey-ness that makes his writing so excellent. But the truth is, the who spectrum is always present. In the best stories, its a kaleidoscope of shades of grey, ranging all the way from black to white. You've got good characters with small skeletons in their closet, even more righteous characters with even more skeletons in their closet, and you've got bad characters with some redeeming qualities (but not enough), and you've got bad characters with absolutely no redeeming qualities. Pure evil is interesting. The almost biblical death of Ned Stark, one of the few truly Good men, the demented villainy of Joffrey Lannister and Ramsey Bolton, and the tumultuous Theon Greyjoy, they paint a more vibrant picture than a story awash with lukewarm "grey-ness."

I don't see why the role of pure evil couldn't be filled by a whole type of creature. In my setting it's ghouls and dragons, but in some, it's orcs. An orc is like The Grinch: Maybe if you made a movie about him, he might be redeemable. But the thing is, the grinch is a children's cartoon, his big crime is ruining christmas by being a sourpuss. In our games, a being of overwhelming evil might cook a whole village alive over ten dozen bonfires and eat them for dinner. Or they might chase prisoners with barbed lashes as a kind of idle entertainment. They're sadistic, cruel, and powerful. They have no reason to give and credence to the wants and desires of the victims of their barbarism because it's usually impossible to resist them. 

This is a scary concept. If you'd stop balking at "black and white" morality and immerse yourself in the concept and use your imagination, it can be viscerally effective. Imagine the tension and fear of a village with an Orc problem. Imagine the terror your character might have walking through the gore of an orcish dining hall. I just can't see that as anything but appealing from a worldbuilding perspective. On the other hand, you've got Orcs who are basically just stand ins of for some nameless vaguely primitive tribe like Mongols or Native Americans or something. That honestly sounds more racist then "All they do is evil. Why? I don't know, they can."

1. Fantasy. All they provide is fantasy. I feel like the "Anything that could be done with Elves could just as easily be done with Humans," argument is shallow and vapid. It is called "Fantasy", it's about Fantasy. The same stories you tell with knights and wizards could be told with cops and computer programmers, it's all "just a coat of paint." That's a huge portion of what is fun in the first place. The reason people like fantasy settings for games isn't because of the unique stories and characters that can exist in the setting, because stories and characters are pretty much all the same and are always interesting when executed correctly. It is the coat of paint which makes it so magical. It's not just man vs man, it's viscous orcs vs magical elves. It's not "merely" a coat of paint.
 
2. I prefer 2 to 3 different races. I generally play in a setting where things like orcs and halflings and elves are all just humans with unique morphologies. In my setting, humans vary as much as dogs. That's why they're called "races" and not "species". "Half breeds" in my setting are a fundamentally racist concept, not unlike the term "mulatto." If you want to play a halfling, that would just be a really really short person. If you want to play like a giant or and orc or something, you're just a really really big ugly person. I reserve the terms "Elf" and "Dwarf" for extreme concepts. Like, and Elf in my setting happens not to be unlike a superhero, capable of superhero-tier magical abilities. And the Dwarves are what they eat: Rock.
 
3. Races that amount to some kind of cliche stereotype, and players who play to that type utterly unfalteringly. Yes, I get it, you're a dwarf, you like to drink and party and say crass things with a scottish accent, I get it.
 
4. There is no amount that is too many or too few. It depends entirely on taste, and the type of atmosphere you're trying to achieve in your setting. Star wars has arbitrarily many races, and it creates this "melting pot" sense that the universe is too small for these races to do anything but get along normally, so the streets are beautifully colored with freakishness at every level, and it's a cool atmosphere. On the other hand, SoIaF has no specially different races at all, and it has a comfortable atmosphere of historicity that juxtaposes beautifully with the magical elements of the setting. There's no wrong answer.
 
5.  Nothing at all, really. Dwarves and Elves interact with magic fundamentally differently, but that's it.
 
 
 
I suppose this view makes sense from the perspective of trying to distance one's self from racism, but, as somebody who grew up with playable "not all bad" orcs, "evil only" orcs have been a breath of fresh air to me. I just prefer races that are actually species, or fundamentally different in nature to humans. Roid monsters dipped in green paint isn't as interesting to me as some kind of degenerate, filthy villain which only resembles a man. They're green because they're ugly, they rape and maraud because they're evil, they're so vile that being exposed to the same air that they breath exposes you to disease. To me, this is evocative, and because I have no relationship to colonial perspectives on non-whites, it doesn't feel like whistle blowing to me. To me, it's just interesting worldbuilding.

 
 
 
Might I ask, why? What's wrong with a visual aid? Why not let your brick character manifest himself as something more than "Above average strength and fighting ability human." What's there to hate? As long as you understand that it's just a coat of paint, why does that have to be too little? It seems like it's the perfect solution to your problem. If you don't like when races aren't roleplayed well enough (so you don't want to see them in your games at all), then why would you be upset with a style of storytelling that doesn't require that they be roleplayed differently at all? It eliminates the discordance, as far as I can tell. Sure, he's green and has tusks, whatever? He just wants to imagine his guy as being green and having tusks, because he's a big tough orc, it seems like a perfectly harmless and altogether beneficial bit of slack to give, especially if you don't like poorly roleplayed races. I just don't understand.

1. Fantasy. All they provide is fantasy. I feel like the "Anything that could be done with Elves could just as easily be done with Humans," argument is shallow and vapid. It is called "Fantasy", it's about Fantasy. The same stories you tell with knights and wizards could be told with cops and computer programmers, it's all "just a coat of paint." That's a huge portion of what is fun in the first place. The reason people like fantasy settings for games isn't because of the unique stories and characters that can exist in the setting, because stories and characters are pretty much all the same and are always interesting when executed correctly. It is the coat of paint which makes it so magical. It's not just man vs man, it's viscous orcs vs magical elves. It's not "merely" a coat of paint.
 
2. I prefer 2 to 3 different races. I generally play in a setting where things like orcs and halflings and elves are all just humans with unique morphologies. In my setting, humans vary as much as dogs. That's why they're called "races" and not "species". "Half breeds" in my setting are a fundamentally racist concept, not unlike the term "mulatto." If you want to play a halfling, that would just be a really really short person. If you want to play like a giant or and orc or something, you're just a really really big ugly person. I reserve the terms "Elf" and "Dwarf" for extreme concepts. Like, and Elf in my setting happens not to be unlike a superhero, capable of superhero-tier magical abilities. And the Dwarves are what they eat: Rock.
 
3. Races that amount to some kind of cliche stereotype, and players who play to that type utterly unfalteringly. Yes, I get it, you're a dwarf, you like to drink and party and say crass things with a scottish accent, I get it.
 
4. There is no amount that is too many or too few. It depends entirely on taste, and the type of atmosphere you're trying to achieve in your setting. Star wars has arbitrarily many races, and it creates this "melting pot" sense that the universe is too small for these races to do anything but get along normally, so the streets are beautifully colored with freakishness at every level, and it's a cool atmosphere. On the other hand, SoIaF has no specially different races at all, and it has a comfortable atmosphere of historicity that juxtaposes beautifully with the magical elements of the setting. There's no wrong answer.
 
5.  Nothing at all, really. Dwarves and Elves interact with magic fundamentally differently, but that's it.
 
 
 
I suppose this view makes sense from the perspective of trying to distance one's self from racism, but, as somebody who grew up with playable "not all bad" orcs, "evil only" orcs have been a breath of fresh air to me. I just prefer races that are actually species, or fundamentally different in nature to humans. Roid monsters dipped in green paint isn't as interesting to me as some kind of degenerate, filthy villain which only resembles a man. They're green because they're ugly, they rape and maraud because they're evil, they're so vile that being exposed to the same air that they breath exposes you to disease. To me, this is evocative, and because I have no relationship to colonial perspectives on non-whites, it doesn't feel like whistle blowing to me. To me, it's just interesting worldbuilding.

 
 
 
Might I ask, why? What's wrong with a visual aid? Why not let your brick character manifest himself as something more than "Above average strength and fighting ability human." What's there to hate? As long as you understand that it's just a coat of paint, why does that have to be too little? It seems like it's the perfect solution to your problem. If you don't like when races aren't roleplayed well enough (so you don't want to see them in your games at all), then why would you be upset with a style of storytelling that doesn't require that they be roleplayed differently at all? It eliminates the discordance, as far as I can tell. Sure, he's green and has tusks, whatever? He just wants to imagine his guy as being green and having tusks, because he's a big tough orc, it seems like a perfectly harmless and altogether beneficial bit of slack to give, especially if you don't like poorly roleplayed races. I just don't understand.

Now this is one interesting guy. Can you say more about "Megaventure"? Me and my brother did something very similar, but to us it wasn't a game. It was just "play". It was pretending.

EDIT: Forgot to admire that game concept you just mentioned. It's very similar to a magic system I once dabbled with (but couldn't figure out how to build: I should give it a shot now that I know Hero). In the system, a "magic" was any one of the Patterns of thought that causes magic. Basically, various specific configurations of consciousness have very specific metaphysical consequences. So, the way I set it up was that, "Cantrips" were any Pattern which could be accessed instantaneously at any time under almost any conditions, like Telekinesis, which requires years of training to become proficient in, but is merely a way of thinking that lets you move things by thought alone. 

Anyway, more advanced magic required more advanced Patterns, such as ones which could only be achieved while experiencing a specific taste (potions), engaging in some specific musical experience, dancing some specific dance, yadayada. The most advanced patterns were Gods and Nephilim. Nephilim are those that are chosen by a people. It is caused by a population scale Pattern, requiring cooperation from many people for extended periods of time. People like super-athletes, shaman/priests/The Pope, high profile criminals, etc. These people become empowered in some way proportionate and reflective of the specific type of attention they receive. Gods are basically these Patterns which protect you against demons (which are spirits that infect you and are bad). They demand highly specific thought patterns related to sacrifice, worship, and general religiosity, and can empower you so much that you are able to conquer demons (thereby transforming them into a kind of supernatural Virtue spirit, and turning you into a Paladin).