D&D (2024) Does the concept of subspecies of Elves come across as racist to you

[Scribe]

Does that bring them in line with 4e? (Or was it a different past edition?)

I thought they were playable in 4e? Maybe I'm misremembering that however.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Does that bring them in line with 4e? (Or was it a different past edition?)

I can't speak to 4e, but gnolls were Humanoids in MM 2014. They were even playable Humanoids in Volo's Guide to Monsters. But when the Volo's stat blocks were reprinted in MotM, gnolls became Monstrosities.

EDIT: Apparently, I can speak to 4e. When I was thinking of gnolls being playable, it was in 4e, not Volo's.

 

[Clint_L]

I will definitely agree it doesn't give tons of detail, that not everyone finds them that useful, and that a full paragraph certainly gives more information than two words (each chosen from a list of three) - but it feels either facetious or insipid to say Chaotic Evil "could mean anything". And if that's the worst you could imagine coming up with it feels like you need to work more on your imagination and less on your hyperbole. ;-). Which is not to say it is the two word writing prompt I would give either or that I like where message boards go when people argue over their usefulness.

I appreciate the tip but have more than two decades teaching creative writing and I have yet to encounter any writer or writing guide that uses or would view "alignment" as a useful way to start building a character. The problem with words like "chaotic evil" is that they don't really mean anything on their own. Both imply value statements, but how do you interpret that into a character? For example, Gary Gygax gave examples of Lawful Good behaviour that I would describe as psychopathic.

That's why a longstanding pastime of D&D nerds is to argue about what alignment a famous person or character would belong to - we can't agree because alignment is not a realistic way to describe anyone.

"Psychopathic," on the other hand, would be a useful starting place. But more useful would be something like "create a character inspired by a classic movie monster" or "inspired by an object in this room" or "inspired by the person you disliked the most when you were in Kindergarten."

 

[Cadence]

I appreciate the tip but have more than two decades teaching creative writing and I have yet to encounter any writer or writing guide that uses or would view "alignment" as a useful way to start building a character. The problem with words like "chaotic evil" is that they don't really mean anything on their own. Both imply value statements, but how do you interpret that into a character? For example, Gary Gygax gave examples of Lawful Good behaviour that I would describe as psychopathic.

"Psychopathic," on the other hand, would be a useful starting place. But more useful would be something like "create a character inspired by a classic movie monster" or "inspired by an object in this room" or "inspired by the person you disliked the most when you were in Kindergarten."

I think I have a vaguely worthwhile response in me somewhere to this, but all I have in my brain now is the sitcom-esque disaster where the teacher takes that last prompt and give it to a bunch of second or third graders who were all at the same school together for kindergarten.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Regarding species being assigned alignments: I noticed in Monsters of the Multiverse that WotC now states in every Humanoid stat block that members of the species in question can belong to any alignment. Except gnolls, who are apparently so Chaotic Evil, the book retcons them to be Chaotic Evil Monstrosities instead of Humanoids. Sure, gnolls are humanoid in shape, and presumably sapient. But WotC apparently doesn't have a problem reclassifying the entire species as Monstrosities just to keep Chaotic Evil in their stat block.

If there was a specific story that the designers have always wanted for gnolls, in that they were transformed in a monstrous fashion by Yeenoghu, so the designers' new "Humanoid" paradigm no longer work for gnolls, then "Monstrosity" may be the better classification. Illithids and Medusae are humanoid in shape, but are not "Humanoids."

I don't mind there being a common "raider" monster that every settlement and caravan should fear. Those monsters could have been orcs if orcs were created destroyers (like the Uruk-hai in LOTR), but Orcs have gotten a redemption arc in modern fantasy. That's fine.

I still want a "Beastfolk" race that can represent non-avian, non-feline, animalfolk humanoids, like those that take after dogs, wolves, foxes, rats, and why not... hyenas.

 

[gamerprinter]

No the concept on Elf subspecies, doesn't bother me, nor does subspecies of any other major setting specie bother me - whether that's orcs, humans or otherwise. I generally only run surface elves vs. Drow, as the primary subspecies in any of my games, knowing that older editions have a variety more. Elves are just another species in my settings, not a favorite species and never have been. I've played humans for the majority of my characters across 5 editions or game systems of play. On those rare ocassions I play a non-human, it pick halfling, gnome, half-orc - almost never any kind of elf or half elf. I let all the other players run elves/half elves, since it's often their favorite. I hate cliche, so I avoid other people's favorites in all kinds of things, in and out of the game.

 

[Mistwell]

I appreciate the tip but have more than two decades teaching creative writing

This might be the disconnect here. You're assuming your preferences, based on a wealth of experience in a profession which is super helpful in creating and evolving the ideas we're discussing, is a good baseline for you to judge if people with other perspectives and lacking your experience get some use out of this concept.

It really just comes down to people say they get use out of it and they're not liars. So why not let them have that tool that you don't get use out of. Trust that your experience isn't universal, we all have different tastes, and this particular thing doesn't harm your game style by being in there but its absence would harm some others.

Ultimately, to bring it back to the topic at hand, this is why we're changing from Race to Species to begin with, right? Some might get no use out of that change, but others will. It costs people very little if they don't get use from the change as the new version works just as well, but benefits some people a lot to make the change. So why can't we apply that same logic to the issue of alignment as well? Some get benefit from it and it costs you nothing - why not let them get their benefit rather than advocate it be modified to satisfy your preferences?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I thought they were playable in 4e? Maybe I'm misremembering that however.

They definitely were. Changing them was one of 5e's missteps.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can't speak to 4e, but gnolls were Humanoids in MM 2014. They were even playable Humanoids in Volo's Guide to Monsters. But when the Volo's stat blocks were reprinted in MotM, gnolls became Monstrosities.

Even worse. Changed mid-edition.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Yeah if they want something like gnolls to be a pure monster, it needs to be consistently not playable.

Not adding it as a playable, letting people make characters/stories as that species and get attached to them, and then change things again to make them a pure evil unplayable monster.