D&D 5E What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[nevin]

A side effect of being a philosophical reductionist.

For this I reference my earlier post...

The bold parts are why I don't understand the appeal of playing Non-Humans.

If people couldn't imagine what it's like to be non human, most scifi and fantasy wouldn't exist. There are many books that play Aliens and fantasy races with different motivations and viewpoints from Humans. The only thing I get from your ongoing statements is that you personally can't do that so you can't believe anyone else could. And if that's the case that's would be fine if you didn't come across as so judgmental and harsh on other people who may have different strengths and abilities than you do.

 

[Minigiant]

Some people play weird, alien, or exotic races as their appearance, history, and mechanics gives them hooks into personalities, ideals, traits, and bonds of the potential character they plan to make.

Some people play humans and human-like races as their overall familiarity and blandness might force them to develop personalities, ideals, traits, and bonds of the potential character they plan to make.

 

[zarionofarabel]

If people couldn't imagine what it's like to be non human, most scifi and fantasy wouldn't exist. There are many books that play Aliens and fantasy races with different motivations and viewpoints from Humans. The only thing I get from your ongoing statements is that you personally can't do that so you can't believe anyone else could. And if that's the case that's would be fine if you didn't come across as so judgmental and harsh on other people who may have different strengths and abilities than you do.

How could any Human possibly know what an Alien (Non-Human) motivation or viewpoint is?

I mean, I will gladly concede the point that a Human could know what a Non-Human motivation or viewpoint is if we ever meet Non-Humans that can communicate such complicated ideas, and they then agree that our completely absolutely uninformed guess as to what they are is correct. Until then I'll stick with the fact that all Non-Human motivations and viewpoints as presented in fiction are just a thinly disguised filter for Human motivations and viewpoints. Sorry, but I don't believe a Human can truly understand the viewpoint of an ant.

 

[Umbran]

The bold parts are why I don't understand the appeal of playing Non-Humans.

So, here's the basic flaw in the position. It is based in the first few bolded words - "I don't for a moment believe..."

You are saying you do not understand what others do, based on YOUR beliefs. What you are doing is rather like saying, "I do not understand cat people, because I believe all pets should be like dogs."

The fact is, your beliefs on the matter are not really relevant to the desires of others. You don't come to understand other people by looking at their behavior, and filtering that through your beliefs.

Stop telling people what they are doing, and start listening to them, and accepting that maybe your beliefs are not the end-all, be-all, and then maybe you can come to understand others.

 

[zarionofarabel]

So, here's the basic flaw in the position. It is based in the first few bolded words - "I don't for a moment believe..."

You are saying you do not understand what others do, based on YOUR beliefs. What you are doing is rather like saying, "I do not understand cat people, because I believe all pets should be like dogs."

The fact is, your beliefs on the matter are not really relevant to the desires of others. You don't come to understand other people by looking at their behavior, and filtering that through your beliefs.

Stop telling people what they are doing, and start listening to them, and accepting that maybe your beliefs are not the end-all, be-all, and then maybe you can come to understand others.

I was reiterating why I do not understand the appeal. Nothing more, nothing less. My beliefs directly inform my positions on such things as they are the things I believe and only with sufficient evidence am I prone to change my beliefs. Thus far, no one has presented me with evidence to the contrary. As I said in my first post, I believe all Non-Human PCs are humans in funny hats, and nothing more.

If others like it they are more than welcome to play Non-Humans, I will not for a moment try to stop them. I will also continue to not allow Non-Human PCs in the games I run. Is that a sufficient position for me to take to make everyone happy?

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I feel like people are overthinking this.

Again, consider the furry (I mean this in the kindest way possible, this is in no way meant to be pejorative).

Even outside that specific example, most of the people I've talked to/observed who prefer playing non-human characters do so because:
A) it lets them act out a specific fantasy/mental image, whether that be an allegory for something they want in life or just the fantasy of being an awesome lizard person;
B) there's a setting element or narrative hook related to that non-human species that the player wants to explore in the game; or
C) they think the character concept is cool, nothing more to it.

Are there players who get more cerebral and philosophical with it? Yes, there certainly are. But it's not something that necessarily goes through the mind of the non-human roleplayer, and I don't think they should be judged as inferior for such.

 

[Shardstone]

Tolkien was a literature professor before deconstruction defined an entire generation worth of philosophy and theory. In Tolkien's era, what the author intended was paramount; see movements like modernism where authorial intent is the important aspect of the work in question, and where the reader is supposed to pick their way through the work in order to decipher all that is being said.

We live in a post-post-modern world though, so things are different now. For what its worth too, people are right to call me out for saying that what Tolkien said was meaningless. That was shallow by me, and fueled by being too tired to give my post the amount of detail and nuance it deserved. That being said, again, while Tolkien did not intend to write an allegory, and while the Lord of the Rings is NOT an allegory, it can be read through an allegorical lens, that reading would be valid, and that reading would be worth discussing, because it would reflect certain inherit biases of Tolkien, as well as the culture that he grew up and lived in.

So yes, LotR is not an allegory, but an allegorical reading of it is not only valid, but a pretty easy reading to make.

I think I've derailed the thread though, so I won't go on more about it, or address the insulting points some people like to keep throwing out.

 

[Goliath Coins]

Maybe just boredom and wanting to try something new.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Tolkien was a literature professor before deconstruction defined an entire generation worth of philosophy and theory. In Tolkien's era, what the author intended was paramount; see movements like modernism where authorial intent is the important aspect of the work in question, and where the reader is supposed to pick their way through the work in order to decipher all that is being said.

We live in a post-post-modern world though, so things are different now. For what its worth too, people are right to call me out for saying that what Tolkien said was meaningless. That was shallow by me, and fueled by being too tired to give my post the amount of detail and nuance it deserved. That being said, again, while Tolkien did not intend to write an allegory, and while the Lord of the Rings is NOT an allegory, it can be read through an allegorical lens, that reading would be valid, and that reading would be worth discussing, because it would reflect certain inherit biases of Tolkien, as well as the culture that he grew up and lived in.

So yes, LotR is not an allegory, but an allegorical reading of it is not only valid, but a pretty easy reading to make.

I think I've derailed the thread though, so I won't go on more about it, or address the insulting points some people like to keep throwing out.

I'm not a English literature major, but it sure seems dumb to disregard what the author themselves said about their work.

 

[nevin]

How could any Human possibly know what an Alien (Non-Human) motivation or viewpoint is?

I mean, I will gladly concede the point that a Human could know what a Non-Human motivation or viewpoint is if we ever meet Non-Humans that can communicate such complicated ideas, and they then agree that our completely absolutely uninformed guess as to what they are is correct. Until then I'll stick with the fact that all Non-Human motivations and viewpoints as presented in fiction are just a thinly disguised filter for Human motivations and viewpoints. Sorry, but I don't believe a Human can truly understand the viewpoint of an ant.

a human could imagine what an alien viewpoint might be like. Of course you can't know what an Alien viewpoint is till you meet the Alien. That doesn't mean your imagination can't ever be close. The idea that you can't imagine it before you know it is contrary to the entire history of mankind.