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

[Scott Christian]

The issue with your argument (roughly, “The author has spoken, now shut up”) can be listed in a few common examples.

That is not my argument. I have said it before, but will clarify:

• An interpreter of a work is not equally as valid as the author's own interpretation, especially when the author specifically tells the interpreter they are incorrect.

That's it.

1. Lying. This may or may not surprise you, but everyone lies. The innocent lie because they don't want to be blamed for something they didn't do and the guilty lie because they don't have any other choice. And authors are within the superset of “everyone.” They might be lying because they want people to engage more with their work. Or because authors can be complicated and temperamental. Or because they think it’s funny. Who do you believe- me or your lying eyes?

True. They might be lying. Most professionals I know do not lie about their work. Even actors (sorry to any actors in here ), who are notoriously "demonstrative" in an effort to gain notoriety, rarely lie about their craft. And the great actors never lie about their craft. Go look at interviews with Sir Patrick or Sir Ian and see if they lie when discussing stagecraft. So if an author lies about their craft, and am sure some have, then they pulled a fast one. But most don't.

2. Incompetence. What someone intends is not always what is produced; for evidence of this, I would show you any and all of my drawings from kindergarten through the present day (“That’s not a sun, that’s an octopus.”). If a text does not match up with the o tent ions of the author, then what matter more- the product (the text) or the never-realized intentions?

One, we are discussing competent artists. People at the top of their craft. Two, I have stated many times interpretations change over time due to context. That's cool. But it should never replace the author's interpretations, nor should it supersede them.

3. Structural/unconscious issues. No author is an island. For all the work that a lyricist, or a writer, or a director, or any other painter might put into something, there will be meanings within the work that they are not aware of. Do you ever watch something (say, commercials) from a period of time like the 80s and see that there are certain signifiers within them? Beyond just the clothes? Things like the camera shots, editing choices, sound mix, blocking and lighting? When they created it, were they intending to create “an 80s commercial” or did they just create something that reflected aspects of the zeitgeist? Now- think about Tolkien and the time that he was living in. Did he think to himself, “ima fancy that loves the country and the queen and will write some books that will make everyone realize that cars and factories and modernity is the devils work.” No. Well, probably not. . On the other hand, when Tolkien was thinking of a way to portray goodness (hobbits) and evil (sauron, orcs) did he use certain images and thoughts that came naturally to him, and would be different than those of someone who believed in progress through technology? Well, you’ve read the books.

See what I wrote in the previous post about authors and their readers.

I appreciate the discussion. I really do. And I respect everyone's opinions and insights. They are well crafted, considerate and thought provoking. But please remember my claim:

• An interpreter of a work is not equally as valid as the author's own interpretation, especially when the author specifically tells the interpreter they are incorrect.

I just do not see myself altering this perspective. I feel it is too dangerous to the author, painter, poet, etc. No author or artist I know complains about an alternative interpretation of their work. In fact, almost all encourage it from their readers, viewers, listeners, etc. Until, that is, the interpretation is wrong. Then they speak up. And that is because they see the same inherent problems with it that I see - the works malleability or passion or meaning will no longer be accessible to the broader reader because of the new interpretation offered by someone who was wrong.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

.
I just do not see myself altering this perspective. I feel it is too dangerous to the author, painter, poet, etc. No author or artist I know complains about an alternative interpretation of their work. In fact, almost all encourage it from their readers, viewers, listeners, etc. Until, that is, the interpretation is wrong. Then they speak up. And that is because they see the same inherent problems with it that I see - the works malleability or passion or meaning will no longer be accessible to the broader reader because of the new interpretation offered by someone who was wrong.

Again, if the artist’s statement is authoritative (“correct”, assuming that there is only meaning which is, you know, kind of a poor work), then it should be apparent from the text WITHOUT the artist’s statement.

If the only way you can get the meaning is with the artist’s statement, then the the text is not done well (the artist is incompetent) and you shouldn’t credit the artist’s statement.

In other words, if you have to rely on the external statements of the artist, then they don’t matter. And if the artist’s statements are supported by the text, then ... they don’t matter.

(I am exaggerating slightly; they can be interesting and informative, but the text is what the text is.)

 

[MGibster]

In the 1950s, Ray Bradbury said that Fahrenheit 451 was based on his fears of book burning in the age of McCarthyism. Decades later he would then say that the book was about television destroying the public's desire to read. So sometimes the author's intent can change over the decades!

I remember one of my professor's holding up a copy of the Iliad and asking, "Who's the hero of this story?" and many students replied saying it was Hector. "Hector? No. It says right at the beginning 'Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus, that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans.' It says right there that this is about Achilles." The Greeks would have interpreted many of their stories differently from us.

 

[Crit]

I disagree, as all the people I have ever met have been human, and all the experiences of people I have ever heard of are those of humans.

That's a bad argument, no matter on what level I could give you ground. There's a world outside of your personal experience. Pre-modern humans were people though they were genetically and anatomically distinct from us. They had cultures, rituals that imply values (death burial with artifacts), and so on. We already know that Human feelings are more or less chemical and electrical reactions which have parallels amongst most mammals, so if an Elephant or Whale has legitimate feelings, then something which feels and "has intelligence" is most certainly a person too- looking to the extinct Neanderthal, Australopithecus and company as my physical proof. There isn't a provable definition of when something ISN'T a person in a situation like this.

Consider: You are talking with a Human. After a friendship of 20 years and nothing seeming off, you find a DNA test that shows they are genetically nothing like a human despite identical anatomy. Are they still a person? Alternative: they have a different internal organ system, but are genetically the same. Are they still a person? You meet something that looks like a monster, but its brain and genes are Human in composition and construction. Are they still human? If you answer no to these, then why?

Back to real world: Is someone born with a missing organ still a human person, or one who has had organs replaced by machines, or if their genes are off by some metric? If they still count as people, birth defect or otherwise, then anatomy or genetics can't be the deciding factor. Species are just a label of similar enough creatures, but this is not a metric for personhood. You can't definitively draw an accurate line as to where personhood, humanity and Humanity apply or do not.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That's a bad argument, no matter on what level I could give you ground. There's a world outside of your personal experience.

(snip)


See, I think that you have a terrible argument. Yes, there is a world outside of our personal experience. A world of ... people.

Despite your hypotheticals, no one can recount the literature (or the “feels”) of anything other than people. To the extent that we have dealt with unexplained emergent phenomenon from complex artificial systems, the main surprise to date is how alien and inexplicable it is.

And, should we be lucky enough to encounter aliens, we will find out if they are within our conception and feels, like a TNG episode, or if they are truly different.

 

[Charlaquin]

In the 1950s, Ray Bradbury said that Fahrenheit 451 was based on his fears of book burning in the age of McCarthyism. Decades later he would then say that the book was about television destroying the public's desire to read. So sometimes the author's intent can change over the decades!

Everyone remember when the Sage Advice ruling on elves’ Trance feature changed, and Jeremy Crawford said the intent changed? That was a thing that happened in D&D and related to non-human races.

 

[Crit]

(snip)


See, I think that you have a terrible argument. Yes, there is a world outside of our personal experience. A world of ... people.

Despite your hypotheticals, no one can recount the literature (or the “feels”) of anything other than people. To the extent that we have dealt with unexplained emergent phenomenon from complex artificial systems, the main surprise to date is how alien and inexplicable it is.

And, should we be lucky enough to encounter aliens, we will find out if they are within our conception and feels, like a TNG episode, or if they are truly different.

I ask to you, who cares about aliens or literature? Neither are relevant. As a response, this is a whole load of nothing. At this moment I am only enforcing the idea of non Human people existing, through describing common systems that exist in Humans as well as other creatures. If an animal has all of the same brain-lobes and chemicals correlating to emotions, then that all I need to make my claim. Personhood goes deeper into the realm of other Life Forms than Humans, so you can't say that something acting like a "person" is acting like a "Human".

I see, pretty unanimously, fictional species having almost completely identical emotional patterns and specific anatomy fitting within the human branch, so they are pretty much unquestionably people.

Recounting the feels of something that isn't a person is irrelevant twice over, because I'm exclusively talking about things that feel like people do. My hypotheticals got that across, and so did my real world cases.

If you want me to concede that there are alien life forms possible, sure. Of course. Thanks for the non sequitur.

 

[Minigiant]

One thing mentioned a lot in this thread is people heavily roleplaying their race.

I think one issue is that D&D really treats all the humaniods very humany.
The fey tinted races don't have mild allergies to iron.
Young adult humans, elf, and dwarf wizards have the same class features at the same speed despite one is 18, another is 100, and the last is 40.
Short races don't develop new fighting styles to match their smaller stature, extra area in a square, and different center of balance.
Everyone eats the same food with no issues.

"Excuse meow. Do you have anything else to drink except orange juice? And no onions on my meat, food serf. Now if you need me I will be waiting on the rafters."

I get some of it is balance. You don't want to make these default mechanics. You might now want elves to start with 20 bonus spells but have trouble learning more. Or a dogman always succeeding on survival by "reading" messages "marked" on trees.
You also don't want the PHB adding 2-3 pages of mental analysis on each race. 3 paragraphs of geology in the dwarf section might be too much.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I ask to you, who cares about aliens or literature? Neither are relevant. As a response, this is a whole load of nothing. At this moment I am only enforcing the idea of non Human people existing, through describing common systems that exist in Humans as well as other creatures. If an animal has all of the same brain-lobes and chemicals correlating to emotions, then that all I need to make my claim. Personhood goes deeper into the realm of other Life Forms than Humans, so you can't say that something acting like a "person" is acting like a "Human".

I see, pretty unanimously, fictional species having almost completely identical emotional patterns and specific anatomy fitting within the human branch, so they are pretty much unquestionably people.

Recounting the feels of something that isn't a person is irrelevant twice over, because I'm exclusively talking about things that feel like people do. My hypotheticals got that across, and so did my real world cases.

If you want me to concede that there are alien life forms possible, sure. Of course. Thanks for the non sequitur.

Concede? Whole lot of nothing? Non-sequitur?

You must be fun at parties. So go have that conversation at one.

 

[Scott Christian]

Again, if the artist’s statement is authoritative (“correct”, assuming that there is only meaning which is, you know, kind of a poor work), then it should be apparent from the text WITHOUT the artist’s statement.

If the only way you can get the meaning is with the artist’s statement, then the the text is not done well (the artist is incompetent) and you shouldn’t credit the artist’s statement.

In other words, if you have to rely on the external statements of the artist, then they don’t matter. And if the artist’s statements are supported by the text, then ... they don’t matter.

(I am exaggerating slightly; they can be interesting and informative, but the text is what the text is.)

In my example, the author is responding to an interpretation. Like I stated several times before, artists are open to interpretations of their work. They respond when they see an incorrect interpretation. Are you saying alternative interpretations are never wrong?

The artist responds to interpretations. They don't produce something and then say: This is about (fill in the blank). They respond to questions that generally offer an interpretation. Most of the time they are open about the idea. Sometimes they are not. When they are not, they are the authoritative voice on the subject, not equal or lesser than an interpreter.