Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
I needed some time and space to delve into a topic that I have been thinking about for some time, and touched on a while back in my 5,294 Greyhawk posts (numbers are approximate). The issue of races (cultures, lineages, peoples) in D&D and roleplaying, as opposed to humanity, is one that I have given some thought to, and I wanted to present those thoughts for a reasonable discussion. You know, the kind you always get on the internet.
First, a disclaimer: I will be using the term 'race' to refer to playable races in D&D as usually defined. I do not mean this to be controversial or the focus of this post. By race, I mean humans, elves, tabaxi, tieflings, tritons, etc. I understand that this term is in somewhat in flux at this point, and that some prefer to use the term lineage, or culture, or people, or some other term.
Given that this will be a lengthy post with section titles that may only make sense to me, I will provide a shortcut TOC and the following thesis statement:
Roleplaying non-human races is about exploring aspects of our humanity.
1. What this essay isn't about (Optimization, Modeling After Fictional Characters)
2. Advantages of Roleplaying Non-human Characters (Why 'guide rails' are helpful)
3. Disadvantages of Roleplaying Non-human Characters (Of crutches and caricatures)
4. The Game-level Perspective (Why some prefer to keep humans at the center of D&D)
5. Conclusion
1. If there is one thing I dislike, it is the man who tries to air his grievances when I wish to air mine.
There are a number of reasons to choose a race that have nothing to do with role-playing. For example, a person might simply want the mechanical bonuses. This has always been true- ability score bonuses and race have gone together in D&D in history like peanut butter and jelly. As such, there is, and has always been, a cadre of players that simply choose a race in order to optimize their ability scores. But not just ability scores- races often had other advantages, too, throughout the various editions. Whether it's infra/darkvision, or thief ability bonuses, or skills, or spells, or movement, or any one of a number of things, playing a different race provides you with different abilities than playing "just" a human. Heck, it might be as simple as "I wanna fly, so give me some wings." In terms of creating your character, race has always been one of the two major choice points (along with class) that you could use to differentiate your character. Along with level and (sometimes) alignment, it was a quick shorthand. "One of my favorite characters was Legolas XVI, the elven fighter magic-user."
There is also another reason - we often want to model fictional characters when we play D&D. Whether it is a straight-up borrowing ("This party consists of Gandalf, Drizzt, Legolas XVI, and Hemoine Granger) or a closely inspired borrowing ("Let's send Kronan, the off-brand Barbarian, and Johannes Wick, the assassin, to scout ahead") people like to play characters from fiction; after all, this is an impulse that runs from childhood on, and D&D and RPGs allow you to act as your hero-by-proxy. And if your hero/modeled fictional character is an elf, or a cat-person, or a merperson (merman, mermaid, triton), then you will probably want to play a non-human character in order to model it. Otherwise, you might end up with-
Player: "I wanna be Drizzt."
DM: "Okay, but only as a human."
Player: "Um, okay, but can I be Legolas?"
DM: "Sure, as a human."
Player: "How about a Cheetah from Wonder Woman?"
DM: "Yep, great as a human."
While there are interesting discussions to be had about how well D&D is as an RPG tool for modeling fiction of different types (as opposed to being D&D), there is no real argument that D&D has a long history of borrowing fictional characters for use in its games; standard character types we take for granted (such as the Ranger or Paladin) have, at the core, the desire for someone to play a particular character from fiction or were modeled after a particular fictional character. From the past (what stats does Gandalf have?) to today (how do you stat up Geralt in the Witcher?), people like understanding fictional characters in the context of D&D, and sometimes playing them.
Anyway, the point is that both choosing a race for its different scores/abilities and choosing a race in order to model a particular fictional character (or fictional archetype) have a long history in D&D; but that's not what I'm discussing here. Instead, I'm discussing choosing a race purely for roleplay reasons. And yes, I understand that almost everyone has mixed motives- "I start with a character concept and optimal build, and then I come up with the RP ..." But I am looking primarily at the pros and the cons of roleplaying non-human characters.
2. I think the mistake a lot of us make is thinking the state-appointed shrink is our friend.
Role-playing a non-human often comes with a built-in advantage. By definition, non-humans are not human. Therefore, they can be roleplayed a certain way. Think of this in terms of 'guard rails' or extra RP instructions. This can have some beneficial aspects. I will delineate them into the following categories- introductory roleplay, special topics, and advanced exploration.
In terms of beginning to roleplay, humans can be the most difficult. Think of in terms of the paradox of choice- because humans can be roleplayed in any way that we know of, it is often more difficult for some people to roleplay humans. When they pick a human, they often just RP as "themselves" or don't really RP at all. A non-human race, on the other hand, either comes with a set of pre-defined characteristics from D&D lore, from fiction, or from other sources that can be used as guidelines for roleplaying. "I'm a hard-drinking type dour type that doesn't like elves and has a Scottish accent." Sure, that might be a mangle of clichés that doesn't necessarily exist in 5e D&D lore, but at least it provides clear guidelines for someone trying to roleplay. For players that need a pre-set hook for roleplaying, non-human races will often provide that.
This same reason is why, IME, non-human races are often helpful for people with autism spectrum disorders or people who otherwise have difficulties either expressing or understanding certain social cues. Again, while this is not the central point of this essay, it has been shown (and I have seen) that RPGs, such as D&D, can be helpful in terms of communication and social skills. Non-human races, which often have "pre-set" emotions and communications that can be used, can be easier to both use and understand.
Finally, there is the central idea; in terms of understanding our own humanity, non-human races allow for advanced exploration of certain topics. This is the area where I want to tread lightly, because it can be referred to (dismissively) as "funny hats" or "crinkly forehead" (from Star Trek). However, the basic concept behind those terms is correct. It is a banal observation to say that science fiction is really about the present. In much the same way, the roleplaying of non-humans at the highest level really tells us about our humanity. The reason for this is simple- when we take a trait of a non-human (such as the elves' extraordinary life-span) and attempt to roleplay it, what we are really doing is attempting to extrapolate what it would mean for us to have such a long life-span. The "funny hat" or "crinkly forehead" is the long life-span. This is common in fiction, where (to the extent it is examined) the existence of the alien and the non-human serves to illustrate points about our humanity.
This isn't a bad thing; I can remember a time when, for some people, it was popular to play elves because of the whole Corellon and gender issues. Given that RPGs and D&D were very much male-dominated and heterosexual, it was not uncommon to see people find a safe way to explore their own gender and attraction issues through roleplaying as an elf. Even though this could be done as a human, it was easier to do as an elf- after all, no one would question you for roleplaying an elf correctly.
And it goes this way, all the way down the races. Even the most alien of the non-human races, such as Kenku and Lizardfolk, force you to consider your humanity while roleplaying them, if you are trying to roleplay them correctly. A race that explicitly states, "Doesn't think like a human," because you are a human, forces you to think about how not to act as a person would act, and therefore causes you think about ... well, how you think.
3. Technically, of course, he was right. Socially, he was annoying us.
So after all that, why do so many people (including, sometimes, me) hate on non-human races? Well, in addition to the game reasons listed below, there tends to two reasons- the crutch, and the caricature. Let us ignore, for a second, the idea that most (some, all?) personality types and concepts could be played by the diversity that is humanity. The very strengths listed above for roleplaying non-humans can also be their two greatest weaknesses.
The first is the crutch. Roleplaying guidelines can be great. The give you a starting point. To mangle this analogy, they are the push to start you walking. But if you keep using them, over and over again, they are just a crutch. "I'm a tabaxi, so I'm like a cat, so my personality traits are that I am impulsive and cough up hairballs." Great! And .... It becomes easy, too easy, when provided a specific set of personality traits to simply lean into that for all occasions. You have the same character and personality at level 1 as you do at level 20, because you're playing your tabaxi. You don't grow, and you don't change, because you are always playing to your guidelines. Your race is straitjacket, and you remain bound to it in all circumstances. And a lot of the time, the choice to roleplay a race as a trait or two for twenty levels that never changes can be really really annoying to other players. That impulse to run into battle which is great & funny for a session can be really tiring after several months. Which leads to ....
Caricature. A dwarf with a Scottish accent. Annoying kender. The trouble with non-human races and caricatures is both micro- and macro. On the individual level, I have seen white players approximate a Miss Cleo accent (if you're young, think dubious Jamaican patois) to play a bullywug. I once knew a player that prefers to play his dwarf with an Irish accent ... because he drank a lot more than the average dwarf. There are a lot of players who will do things with "non-human" races that are ... well, let's just say questionable .... if they were to do it with a human character. And that leads to the macro level. For all of the complaints that led to the change in Tasha's regarding ability scores, there is at least some logical sense behind why ability scores were different, at least for a game (halflings would likely be less strong than a goliath). But what was not addressed is, well, culture. We have long taken for granted that humans throughout game worlds exist in infinite diversity (as do we), but non-humans, while they might be different from game world to game world (Eberron Orcs, Greyhawk Orcs), they are largely the same within a game setting. Which is both wild and crazy when you think about it. That is the essence of caricature and racial essentialism.
4. This is dialectics. It's very simple dialectics: one through nine, no maybes, no supposes, no fractions. You can't travel in space, you can't go out into space, you know, without like, you know, with fractions! What are you going to land on: one quarter, three eighths? What are you going to do when you go from here to Venus or something? That's dialectic physics, okay?
Since the beginning, the reason for keeping D&D humanocentric (anthropocentric) has not really changed.
A moment of reflection will bring them to the unalterable conclusion that the game is heavily weighted towards mankind. ADVANCED D&D is unquestionably "humanocentric", with demi-humans, semi-humans, and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of humanity. Men are the worst monsters, particularly high level characters such as clerics, fighters, and magic-users - whether singly, in small groups, or in large companies. ...
The game features humankind for a reason. It is the most logical basis in an illogical game. From a design aspect it provides the sound groundwork. From a standpoint of creating the campaign milieu it provides the most readily usable assumptions. From a participation approach it is the only method, for all players are, after all is said and done, human, and it allows them the role with which most are most desirous and capable of identifying with. From all views then it is enough fantasy to assume a swords & sorcery cosmos, with impossible professions and make-believe magic. To adventure amongst the weird is fantasy enough without becoming that too! Consider also that each and every Dungeon Master worthy of that title is continually at work expanding his or her campaign milieu. The game is not merely a meaningless dungeon and an urban base around which is plopped the dreaded wilderness. Each of you must design a world, piece by piece, as if a jigsaw puzzle were being hand crafted, and each new section must fit perfectly the pattern of the other pieces. Faced with such a task all of us need all of the aid and assistance we can get. Without such help the sheer magnitude of the task would force most of us to throw up our hands in despair. By having a basis to work from, and a well-developed body of work to draw upon, at least part of this task is handled for us. When history, folklore, myth, fable and fiction can be incorporated or used as reference for the campaign, the magnitude of the effort required is reduced by several degrees. Even actual sciences can be used - geography, chemistry, physics, and so forth. Alien viewpoints can be found, of course, but not in quantity (and often not in much quality either). Those works which do not feature mankind in a central role are uncommon. Those which do not deal with men at all are scarce indeed. To attempt to utilize any such bases as the central, let alone sole, theme for a campaign milieu is destined to be shallow, incomplete, and totally unsatisfying for all parties concerned unless the creator is a Renaissance Man and all-around universal genius with a decade or two to prepare the game and milieu. Even then, how can such an effort rival one which borrows from the talents of genius and imaginative thinking which come to us from literature?
DMG (1e), p. 21 (Gygax).
This is the primary argument of the human-centered campaign world. The converse is the so-called "Mos Eisley bar" where it's aliens of all descriptions and sizes. Notably, lost in this discussion is that in the movie the Mos Eisley bar was supposed to be shocking and disconcerting, and if you think back to the original move that had that scene, the main character were all "human" (Luke, Leia, Obi Wan, Han).
On this, I am somewhat torn. I think that there are very good arguments as to why we have human-centered campaign settings in D&D. And why many DMs prefer to keep things human-centered. On the other hand, it is also true that there are a lot more influences (including, but not limited to, non-western ones such as anime and manga) that have a large impact on culture that exist than when Gygax wrote the above, many of them featuring non-human protagonists. It is certainly somewhat difficult to take the above quote from Gygax at face value, knowing that the author was publishing a number of options that would be put together in the upcoming Unearthed Arcana, such as Drow.
5. In my life I have seen people walk into the sea just to find memories plagued by constant misery. Their eyes cast down, fixed upon the ground.
In the end, I am equivocal on the issue. I prefer playing humans, now, in almost all cases, but will occasionally play a non-human when there is some roleplaying concept I really want to explore. But I am interested in the conversation. For the most part, I think the fault lines tend to go down the usual sides- it's the whole "DM sets the rules and strictures for the campaign" v. "Player Agency, you don't tell ME what to do" arguments that get repeated, just with a new coat. I have been somewhat mystified that the focus on non-human races has been on the ability scores as opposed to the racial essentialism that is baked into them for roleplaying purposes. Anyway, these are some baked, half-baked, and somewhat gooey thought for conversation. It's already a long enough post.
First, a disclaimer: I will be using the term 'race' to refer to playable races in D&D as usually defined. I do not mean this to be controversial or the focus of this post. By race, I mean humans, elves, tabaxi, tieflings, tritons, etc. I understand that this term is in somewhat in flux at this point, and that some prefer to use the term lineage, or culture, or people, or some other term.
Given that this will be a lengthy post with section titles that may only make sense to me, I will provide a shortcut TOC and the following thesis statement:
Roleplaying non-human races is about exploring aspects of our humanity.
1. What this essay isn't about (Optimization, Modeling After Fictional Characters)
2. Advantages of Roleplaying Non-human Characters (Why 'guide rails' are helpful)
3. Disadvantages of Roleplaying Non-human Characters (Of crutches and caricatures)
4. The Game-level Perspective (Why some prefer to keep humans at the center of D&D)
5. Conclusion
1. If there is one thing I dislike, it is the man who tries to air his grievances when I wish to air mine.
There are a number of reasons to choose a race that have nothing to do with role-playing. For example, a person might simply want the mechanical bonuses. This has always been true- ability score bonuses and race have gone together in D&D in history like peanut butter and jelly. As such, there is, and has always been, a cadre of players that simply choose a race in order to optimize their ability scores. But not just ability scores- races often had other advantages, too, throughout the various editions. Whether it's infra/darkvision, or thief ability bonuses, or skills, or spells, or movement, or any one of a number of things, playing a different race provides you with different abilities than playing "just" a human. Heck, it might be as simple as "I wanna fly, so give me some wings." In terms of creating your character, race has always been one of the two major choice points (along with class) that you could use to differentiate your character. Along with level and (sometimes) alignment, it was a quick shorthand. "One of my favorite characters was Legolas XVI, the elven fighter magic-user."
There is also another reason - we often want to model fictional characters when we play D&D. Whether it is a straight-up borrowing ("This party consists of Gandalf, Drizzt, Legolas XVI, and Hemoine Granger) or a closely inspired borrowing ("Let's send Kronan, the off-brand Barbarian, and Johannes Wick, the assassin, to scout ahead") people like to play characters from fiction; after all, this is an impulse that runs from childhood on, and D&D and RPGs allow you to act as your hero-by-proxy. And if your hero/modeled fictional character is an elf, or a cat-person, or a merperson (merman, mermaid, triton), then you will probably want to play a non-human character in order to model it. Otherwise, you might end up with-
Player: "I wanna be Drizzt."
DM: "Okay, but only as a human."
Player: "Um, okay, but can I be Legolas?"
DM: "Sure, as a human."
Player: "How about a Cheetah from Wonder Woman?"
DM: "Yep, great as a human."
While there are interesting discussions to be had about how well D&D is as an RPG tool for modeling fiction of different types (as opposed to being D&D), there is no real argument that D&D has a long history of borrowing fictional characters for use in its games; standard character types we take for granted (such as the Ranger or Paladin) have, at the core, the desire for someone to play a particular character from fiction or were modeled after a particular fictional character. From the past (what stats does Gandalf have?) to today (how do you stat up Geralt in the Witcher?), people like understanding fictional characters in the context of D&D, and sometimes playing them.
Anyway, the point is that both choosing a race for its different scores/abilities and choosing a race in order to model a particular fictional character (or fictional archetype) have a long history in D&D; but that's not what I'm discussing here. Instead, I'm discussing choosing a race purely for roleplay reasons. And yes, I understand that almost everyone has mixed motives- "I start with a character concept and optimal build, and then I come up with the RP ..." But I am looking primarily at the pros and the cons of roleplaying non-human characters.
2. I think the mistake a lot of us make is thinking the state-appointed shrink is our friend.
Role-playing a non-human often comes with a built-in advantage. By definition, non-humans are not human. Therefore, they can be roleplayed a certain way. Think of this in terms of 'guard rails' or extra RP instructions. This can have some beneficial aspects. I will delineate them into the following categories- introductory roleplay, special topics, and advanced exploration.
In terms of beginning to roleplay, humans can be the most difficult. Think of in terms of the paradox of choice- because humans can be roleplayed in any way that we know of, it is often more difficult for some people to roleplay humans. When they pick a human, they often just RP as "themselves" or don't really RP at all. A non-human race, on the other hand, either comes with a set of pre-defined characteristics from D&D lore, from fiction, or from other sources that can be used as guidelines for roleplaying. "I'm a hard-drinking type dour type that doesn't like elves and has a Scottish accent." Sure, that might be a mangle of clichés that doesn't necessarily exist in 5e D&D lore, but at least it provides clear guidelines for someone trying to roleplay. For players that need a pre-set hook for roleplaying, non-human races will often provide that.
This same reason is why, IME, non-human races are often helpful for people with autism spectrum disorders or people who otherwise have difficulties either expressing or understanding certain social cues. Again, while this is not the central point of this essay, it has been shown (and I have seen) that RPGs, such as D&D, can be helpful in terms of communication and social skills. Non-human races, which often have "pre-set" emotions and communications that can be used, can be easier to both use and understand.
Finally, there is the central idea; in terms of understanding our own humanity, non-human races allow for advanced exploration of certain topics. This is the area where I want to tread lightly, because it can be referred to (dismissively) as "funny hats" or "crinkly forehead" (from Star Trek). However, the basic concept behind those terms is correct. It is a banal observation to say that science fiction is really about the present. In much the same way, the roleplaying of non-humans at the highest level really tells us about our humanity. The reason for this is simple- when we take a trait of a non-human (such as the elves' extraordinary life-span) and attempt to roleplay it, what we are really doing is attempting to extrapolate what it would mean for us to have such a long life-span. The "funny hat" or "crinkly forehead" is the long life-span. This is common in fiction, where (to the extent it is examined) the existence of the alien and the non-human serves to illustrate points about our humanity.
This isn't a bad thing; I can remember a time when, for some people, it was popular to play elves because of the whole Corellon and gender issues. Given that RPGs and D&D were very much male-dominated and heterosexual, it was not uncommon to see people find a safe way to explore their own gender and attraction issues through roleplaying as an elf. Even though this could be done as a human, it was easier to do as an elf- after all, no one would question you for roleplaying an elf correctly.
And it goes this way, all the way down the races. Even the most alien of the non-human races, such as Kenku and Lizardfolk, force you to consider your humanity while roleplaying them, if you are trying to roleplay them correctly. A race that explicitly states, "Doesn't think like a human," because you are a human, forces you to think about how not to act as a person would act, and therefore causes you think about ... well, how you think.
3. Technically, of course, he was right. Socially, he was annoying us.
So after all that, why do so many people (including, sometimes, me) hate on non-human races? Well, in addition to the game reasons listed below, there tends to two reasons- the crutch, and the caricature. Let us ignore, for a second, the idea that most (some, all?) personality types and concepts could be played by the diversity that is humanity. The very strengths listed above for roleplaying non-humans can also be their two greatest weaknesses.
The first is the crutch. Roleplaying guidelines can be great. The give you a starting point. To mangle this analogy, they are the push to start you walking. But if you keep using them, over and over again, they are just a crutch. "I'm a tabaxi, so I'm like a cat, so my personality traits are that I am impulsive and cough up hairballs." Great! And .... It becomes easy, too easy, when provided a specific set of personality traits to simply lean into that for all occasions. You have the same character and personality at level 1 as you do at level 20, because you're playing your tabaxi. You don't grow, and you don't change, because you are always playing to your guidelines. Your race is straitjacket, and you remain bound to it in all circumstances. And a lot of the time, the choice to roleplay a race as a trait or two for twenty levels that never changes can be really really annoying to other players. That impulse to run into battle which is great & funny for a session can be really tiring after several months. Which leads to ....
Caricature. A dwarf with a Scottish accent. Annoying kender. The trouble with non-human races and caricatures is both micro- and macro. On the individual level, I have seen white players approximate a Miss Cleo accent (if you're young, think dubious Jamaican patois) to play a bullywug. I once knew a player that prefers to play his dwarf with an Irish accent ... because he drank a lot more than the average dwarf. There are a lot of players who will do things with "non-human" races that are ... well, let's just say questionable .... if they were to do it with a human character. And that leads to the macro level. For all of the complaints that led to the change in Tasha's regarding ability scores, there is at least some logical sense behind why ability scores were different, at least for a game (halflings would likely be less strong than a goliath). But what was not addressed is, well, culture. We have long taken for granted that humans throughout game worlds exist in infinite diversity (as do we), but non-humans, while they might be different from game world to game world (Eberron Orcs, Greyhawk Orcs), they are largely the same within a game setting. Which is both wild and crazy when you think about it. That is the essence of caricature and racial essentialism.
4. This is dialectics. It's very simple dialectics: one through nine, no maybes, no supposes, no fractions. You can't travel in space, you can't go out into space, you know, without like, you know, with fractions! What are you going to land on: one quarter, three eighths? What are you going to do when you go from here to Venus or something? That's dialectic physics, okay?
Since the beginning, the reason for keeping D&D humanocentric (anthropocentric) has not really changed.
A moment of reflection will bring them to the unalterable conclusion that the game is heavily weighted towards mankind. ADVANCED D&D is unquestionably "humanocentric", with demi-humans, semi-humans, and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of humanity. Men are the worst monsters, particularly high level characters such as clerics, fighters, and magic-users - whether singly, in small groups, or in large companies. ...
The game features humankind for a reason. It is the most logical basis in an illogical game. From a design aspect it provides the sound groundwork. From a standpoint of creating the campaign milieu it provides the most readily usable assumptions. From a participation approach it is the only method, for all players are, after all is said and done, human, and it allows them the role with which most are most desirous and capable of identifying with. From all views then it is enough fantasy to assume a swords & sorcery cosmos, with impossible professions and make-believe magic. To adventure amongst the weird is fantasy enough without becoming that too! Consider also that each and every Dungeon Master worthy of that title is continually at work expanding his or her campaign milieu. The game is not merely a meaningless dungeon and an urban base around which is plopped the dreaded wilderness. Each of you must design a world, piece by piece, as if a jigsaw puzzle were being hand crafted, and each new section must fit perfectly the pattern of the other pieces. Faced with such a task all of us need all of the aid and assistance we can get. Without such help the sheer magnitude of the task would force most of us to throw up our hands in despair. By having a basis to work from, and a well-developed body of work to draw upon, at least part of this task is handled for us. When history, folklore, myth, fable and fiction can be incorporated or used as reference for the campaign, the magnitude of the effort required is reduced by several degrees. Even actual sciences can be used - geography, chemistry, physics, and so forth. Alien viewpoints can be found, of course, but not in quantity (and often not in much quality either). Those works which do not feature mankind in a central role are uncommon. Those which do not deal with men at all are scarce indeed. To attempt to utilize any such bases as the central, let alone sole, theme for a campaign milieu is destined to be shallow, incomplete, and totally unsatisfying for all parties concerned unless the creator is a Renaissance Man and all-around universal genius with a decade or two to prepare the game and milieu. Even then, how can such an effort rival one which borrows from the talents of genius and imaginative thinking which come to us from literature?
DMG (1e), p. 21 (Gygax).
This is the primary argument of the human-centered campaign world. The converse is the so-called "Mos Eisley bar" where it's aliens of all descriptions and sizes. Notably, lost in this discussion is that in the movie the Mos Eisley bar was supposed to be shocking and disconcerting, and if you think back to the original move that had that scene, the main character were all "human" (Luke, Leia, Obi Wan, Han).
On this, I am somewhat torn. I think that there are very good arguments as to why we have human-centered campaign settings in D&D. And why many DMs prefer to keep things human-centered. On the other hand, it is also true that there are a lot more influences (including, but not limited to, non-western ones such as anime and manga) that have a large impact on culture that exist than when Gygax wrote the above, many of them featuring non-human protagonists. It is certainly somewhat difficult to take the above quote from Gygax at face value, knowing that the author was publishing a number of options that would be put together in the upcoming Unearthed Arcana, such as Drow.
5. In my life I have seen people walk into the sea just to find memories plagued by constant misery. Their eyes cast down, fixed upon the ground.
In the end, I am equivocal on the issue. I prefer playing humans, now, in almost all cases, but will occasionally play a non-human when there is some roleplaying concept I really want to explore. But I am interested in the conversation. For the most part, I think the fault lines tend to go down the usual sides- it's the whole "DM sets the rules and strictures for the campaign" v. "Player Agency, you don't tell ME what to do" arguments that get repeated, just with a new coat. I have been somewhat mystified that the focus on non-human races has been on the ability scores as opposed to the racial essentialism that is baked into them for roleplaying purposes. Anyway, these are some baked, half-baked, and somewhat gooey thought for conversation. It's already a long enough post.
