Do We Really Need Half-Elves and Half-Orcs?

[jgsugden]

My advice: Do not limit your options needlessly.

I rarely say that something is not in my world. Rather, as a DM, I just don't use the things that do not fit my ideas. If the players bring it up, I consider why they do so. If they create a good evolution to the story by introducing it, I add it. If not, I let them know they've never heard of it or that all they've heard are rumors that could be false.

Half-races are problematic in some groups where they are the byproduct of assaults. In other games, where they are pure breed races or the product of love, they can be absolutely fine.

If I had your views, I might say nothing about it to the players. I would just not have them in my game. When/if pkayers decided to play a half PC, I would offer them the opportunity to use the stats for the half rice for a pure blood version of the race. If they wanted to play the half version as a half, I'd explore a backstory with them and let them know that such a half race is extremely rare... if not unique.

 

[Blue]

So I've been thinking more on this as I read the thread, and I realize at least part of my problem with half-elves in particular is how utterly boring their stats are in 5E. The only option they're given is "pick two skills." No subraces, no big choices.

Do you have the same problems with humans?

 

[jayoungr]

I don't have a problem with them, but that doesn't matter for your table. The whole point of D&D is to do what works for you and your group. So if you don't like 'em, ditch 'em!

 

[Blue]

When I DM I usually impose very few restrictions. Half races and such are the easiest thing to remove.

Really, this heavily depends on the setting. Taking half-elves out of Eberron means removing one of the Dragonmarked Houses. Taking them out of my Errantas setting removes the mortal/fae connection that was a big deal since my elves were immortal in that they never died of old age, but had issues bringing back from the dead because the had unchanging spirits instead of souls. Removing half-orcs from the Dragon Empire setting means is a big deal, as their orcs half just bubble out of evil from the ground and half-orcs can come from any parents and seem to be nature's adaption to orcs.

In a generic setting, there's a style of player who wants outcast/generally-evil types for how they envision their character arcs. Tieflings made it into the PHb when Aasimar didn't because they were more popular. Drow and Tieflings fit different niches then the half-orc.

Sure, you can remove them - and anything else - for a setting. And you should - tailoring choices is a great tool for giving specific feels to your setting. But a blanket statement that they are the "easiest" to remove shows your biases just as much as if I said that dragonborn are the easiest to remove because they weren't around in earlier editions. We need to look at how it fits in any particular setting to give a call for that context.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What are you talking about? D&D hasn't even been around for centuries...

I never said that they are "all evil", but if you would bother to actually read my post, look in the PHB, and read the description of Tieflings, you would understand exactly why I wrote what I did. Since you don't seem willing to do this, let me put it here.

"To be greeted with stares and whispers, to suffer violence and insult on the street, to see mistrust and fear in every eye: this is the lot of the tiefling." For further evidence, read the section on Mutual Mistrust. While the Tiefling's heritage doesn't mean it must be evil (one of the Tieflings in my game is Chaotic Good, actually...), I simply warned my players about the reaction they are likely to get, which comes directly from the PHB. Dragonborn follow a similar bend.



Well, then, what "history" are you pulling from? As I said, those are the only two I have read about so far. I am sure there are other novels, fanwork, etc. about Tieflings, but unless you have a source for your history you have nothing to base it on.



Sure. Nothing necessitates it since every DM can run the game as he or she wants, but the evidence quoted from the PHB supports initial reactions of shunning and mistrust.

At any rate, if you choose to ignore the text in the PHB, that is your choice. But this thread is about half-races, so I am not going to debate the issue with you further as this is not the place for it. Have a nice day.

Lol dude, how do go from talking about in game reactions to characters, to thinking I’m talking about out of game history? That’s pretty weird.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I have yet to see a strong enough justification by a DM for removing a PC race from play. “Because the setting....” doesn’t cut it.

Look at Dark Sun; perfect example of a setting with some alternate race options, and some of the standard ones removed. Now add a gnome PC. Athas does not come crashing down because of the presence of a gnome. There are still plenty of races that can be cited as having been hunted to extermination by the sorcerer kings. The other, far more important elements of the setting, remain unchanged.

Homebrew worlds aren’t really going to be any different. The setting will get by if you allow a tiefling or a dragonborn or a drow. None are so game changing as to undo the feel of a setting. Or perhaps if they are, then there really isn’t much to the setting to begin with. To lean on Dark Sun again as an example, when asked to describe the setting of Athas, how many people will list “there’s no gnomes” first in their description? Zero.

Even @lowkey13 would put that behind “no paladins”.

There are two exceptions that I can think of; the first being a quasi-historical setting that requires only humans. The other is the “all one race” game, like we’re all drow or we’re all dwarves, or whatever. These limits do seem to be justified in the sense that a specific feel can be attained. But both examples actually advocate for the removal of ALL other race options and not just one or two. And both of these examples also seems much more likely to have recieved some level of player buy in prior to play. They’re large enough departures from what’s expected to warrant letting the players know. By comparison, a DM not liking drow because of Drizzt, and barring them from play seems much more like something that will only come up once someone says “I’m gonna make a drow.” Which is a dick move.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I am guessing you missed my little " " in my post? It was a joke referring to your "centuries" that have no mention in the core books at all that I've seen.

 

[JeffB]

Really? I’m getting rid of humans. Tell me how your idea works when you test it!

Works fine. I have run plenty of humanocentric games/campaigns over the years.

 

[Fluerdemal]

I ran a humanocentric game for years in 1E, my campaign world has been running and evolving for quite some time now...

I don't have half-orcs (I don't orcs at all, just several varieties of goblins) but I do have the "Khazan" a sorcerously-created race of terror troops similar to Saruman's half-orcs but otherwise just being reskinned. When it comes to half-elves, while there are an occasional human-elf byblow, most "half-elves" are a rare, but as a true-breeding race are instead considered the High Men to the more normal "Common Men" - very much like Tolkien's Númenóreans.

D.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*