D&D 5E (2014) What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[MGibster]

Is all fiction naughty word?

To quote my advisor when asked if all history was naughty word, "Yes. But it's well constructed naughty word."

 

[Charlaquin]

Um ..... what?

I will write a longer post about this tomorrow, but I thought this was self-evident.

We write things, including things about imaginary aliens and races, to further explore what it is to .... be human.

Stories about immortality are usually stories about coping with loss and aging.

The Left Hand of Darkness used alien races to explore (human) concepts of gender and culture.

It was not uncommon in early D&D for some people to play androgynous elves (as in Corellon) as this was a safe way for people to express themselves in what was a very male, very heterosexual community at the time.

And so on. The entire purpose ... is to explore humanity. I thought this was obvious? But maybe not.

I suspect @Shardstone was speaking rhetorically.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Anyway, whilst the practical demonstration of which posters have at least a rudimentary understanding literary theory and which do not has been most enlightening, I too would like to get back to the actual topic. I like the fantasy races to be actually somewhat different from humans and I prefer if their inclusion has more purpose than just stats or aesthetics (not that those are inherently wrong reasons to play one.) And to emphasise that I prefer if most of the characters (or at least some!) are humans, as then you can better create some contrast with the non-humans in the group. Like how in original Star Trek Spock's alien nature is contrasted with the humans and the same is done with Worf and Data in TNG. If everyone is some sort of an 'alien' it really cannot work in the same way.

 

[Charlaquin]

This may be another sign of the coming apocalypse, but I agree with you. People are free to discuss whatever they want of course, but I've pretty much given up on doing more than briefly skimming this thread.

People will interpret literature and see things much like a Rorschach test and see things that may or may not be there. How valid what they see or if there's any deeper meaning is in the eye of the beholder.

Speaking of which ... if you could play a Beholder (assuming you could balance it mechanically) would you? Or do PC races have to be anthropomorphic?

That’s an interesting question! I think it depends on the campaign. In most cases, probably not, but I can imagine a context in which it might be appropriate. Maybe for a one-on-one game where we had a lot of space to really delve deep into the character’s psyche without making other players feel sidelined.

For me, being anthropomorphic isn’t the key factor though. Being an appropriate protagonist for the story being told is more important, which is why I say I can imagine a context in which a Beholder character would be appropriate. But for a typical D&D campaign I don’t think it would be a good fit.

 

[MGibster]

Speaking of which ... if you could play a Beholder (assuming you could balance it mechanically) would you? Or do PC races have to be anthropomorphic?

I'd allow it. Very often in science fiction or fantasy, the non-human exist as a way to examine human issues. In Traveller, there's a race of non humanoids called Hivers who have a six-fold radial symmetric bodies with four legs/arms, a modified leg/arm, and a head. They have no spoken language and communicate with other races via what I like to refer to as a modified Speak & Spell, they are master manipulators which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and they have very few social inhibitions like most humanoids. i.e. You might be in a business meeting with a Hiver when he scuttles off to the bathroom in the corner to take a dump without ever losing eye contact with you.
The Hiver can fit in just fine when it comes to stories about people. It gives us an opportunity to examine some facet of our own culture. Why do we attach shame to certainly biological functions that we all have? I could see playing a beholder and having fun with him trying to fit into human society.

In my Acquisitions Inc. game I ran, the PCs were hired by a beholder to recover a magical cheese wheel. The beholder came into their shop wearing a clever disguise consisting of a trench coat and a fedora. Almost everyone saw through the disguise immediately but went along with it because BEHOLDER! One of the PCs failed his roll and just thought he was dealing with a very rotund human with a penchant for hats. For the rest of the campaign every time he ran into the beholder the character thought he was a human.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Oh, cool! That’s something I’d love to read! Reminds me a bit of 4e’s take on gnomes.

Just For Fun: Most Attractive D&D Females & Males - Page 12

So, there's three opinions. What do you playgrounders think? I say: (in no particular order): Females: half-elves, humans, elves, tiefling Males: Humans, half-orcs, goliaths, aasimar.

forums.giantitp.com

It seems to be much more shallow than I remember (how my memory plays with me) but post #349 and #352 seem to cover it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Chaosmancer do you have more ideas like that Elf=prey wild idea? I love this stuff and would love to see more of it.

Sure, I've been tinkering with it for a while. Want to PM me and I can chat with you about what I've put on the subject matter?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is Robert asking for an opinion from an expert in a specific field designed to analyze actions/patterns and cause/effect. Unless Robert is lying to himself, or does not bother to self-reflect in a deep way, then he is the one who is correct. An author, especially one such as Tolkien, lived his life reflecting on his work. Deep reflection. Same with most author's I have learned about. To dismiss them because an esoteric expert decides a different interpretation doesn't make the new interpretation correct. It might add a new layer - specifically due to the historical context changing - but it should not change what the author says. And therefore, cannot be equal to the author's interpretations.

Okay, a few parts to unpack here.

1) A person with a Masters Degree in Literature is also an expert from a specific field designed to analyze actions/patterns. If you can go to a psychiatrist and get an expert opinion on what is going on in your own mind, what is different about going to a Literature Expert and asking for their expert opinion on what is going on in a text?

2) NO ONE IS DISMISSING TOLKIEN'S INTERPRETATION. I put that in all caps because it has been said, repeatedly, and you keep acting like that is what is being done. No one disputes that Tolkien says that he did not intend to write an allegory. No one is dismissing his view on what he wrote. However, there exist other valid interpretations that do not take what he says about what he wrote, and instead analyze what he wrote. And those interpretations of just reading the text are equally valid, and they are equally valid because of a very key reason.

3) Specific vs General. Tolkien is a very specific author to discuss. Tolkien was a literature and language professor. Tolkiens thought deeply about all his work and corresponded with people about his work, leaving a record of his thoughts on the matter. Not all authors are Tolkien. Let me take for a moment, Alan Moore. Alan Moore is one of the greatest comic book writers of our age. According to him, his work "Promethea" is a magical spell meant to bring about the end of the world.

Many people have interpreted that to mean that he was writing it to expose audiences to spiritual ideas and concepts that would ideally create a revolution of thought. Are their interpretations lesser than Moore's claim that it was a spell meant to end the world?

And this is the bigger part of this. Maybe Tolkien's opinion on his work shou;d be seen as superior to any other interpretation, but not only does that shut down all possible discussion of the work, but you can't take that methodology and apply it to every single author who has ever written.

Just wanted to say these are nice examples. (I mean that. No snide comment there. It made me think, so thanks.) Here is what I thought of:
The subconscious is strong - in everyone. That includes other interpreters. They have the same amount of biases as the author, many might have more. They read through their window frame. You, the author, writes, reads, and edits through your window frame and your editors and, even sometimes I bet, your readers. Who then sees the larger picture? The author or the reader?

None of us. Because assuming one person sees the larger picture and the other doesn't assumes a superior position is possible. And it isn't.

Maybe I wasn't the most clear here, so apologies. I am not talking about an audience. Artists don't always need an audience, but it sure helps pay the bills. I am discussing another person interpreting the work and teaching/lecturing/pushing the interpretation out to the general public. No one in the Fayetteville library book club is going to change the interpretation or have the ability to sway a large audience to dismiss the author's perspectives. But a teacher (which is where my argument originated), a book publisher, a critic, a talking head, etc. Those are the people I was referencing.

In other words, an author's message can be carried by the common folks without another person there to interpret the works. Millions of people still read King without having the works interpreted for them. And many come away with their own viewpoint of what he is trying to say.

Sure, you don't need someone to study a piece of literature for deeper meanings. But, quote often, those interpretations can offer explanations for why people come away with the viewpoints they have.

I recently watched a review of the theatrical version of Stephen King's "The Shining" the original one, and the reviewer was tackling why King said that the director had made a movie "to hurt people". What made it so terrifying, what made it stick so fiercely to people's minds, what was he doing with this movie?

And the author or director of mangaka are not always the best people to provide that interpretation. Their inishgts are valuable, but they do not have a view point that stands above other interpretations.

In fact, I have another example that I just remembered. I heard this from Scott McCloud's "Reinventing Comics" book.

Legend has it that Wil Eisner at a meeting of the National Cartoonist's Society in the 60's went and spoke to one of the founders and first president of the society, Rube Goldberg (the cartoonist responsible for the Rube Goldberg machine.) Eisner was talking to Goldberg about this idea he had, that comics were a legitimate artistic and literary format.

Goldberg slammed down his cane and said "That's naughty word, kid! We're not artists! We're Vaudevillians! And don't you ever forget that!"

Many many many of the greatest names in Comic book history thought that comic art was... worthless. Entertainment for children and the uneducated. On the same page he lists a quote from George Herriman saying "Inspiration! Who ever heard of a comic artist being inspired?". Herriman was the creator of Krazy Kat, which inspired many many other works, but is also notable for an article written by a critic named Gilbert Seldes which was the earliest example of a critic from the high arts giving serious attention to a comic strip.

The artists tell us that their work is not worth critiquing, not worth admiring. It is a sideshow that was meant to be shallow fun. Critics disagreed, finding meaning and inspiration in their works, leading to an industry that can tackle heavy themes and make statements of the nature of man.

Who should we listen to?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, whilst the practical demonstration of which posters have at least a rudimentary understanding literary theory and which do not has been most enlightening, I too would like to get back to the actual topic. I like the fantasy races to be actually somewhat different from humans and I prefer if their inclusion has more purpose than just stats or aesthetics (not that those are inherently wrong reasons to play one.) And to emphasise that I prefer if most of the characters (or at least some!) are humans, as then you can better create some contrast with the non-humans in the group. Like how in original Star Trek Spock's alien nature is contrasted with the humans and the same is done with Worf and Data in TNG. If everyone is some sort of an 'alien' it really cannot work in the same way.

Sure, but it ends up mattering a lot for setting, which makes it very tricky to say anything about the races. It would be difficult to suddenly go into the Realms and make all of the races more alien than they currently are. Even when we have the building blocks, no one really utilizes them.

For Example: Mordenkainen's tells us that Elves of the Realmls that are getting close to dying of old age get cataracts in the shape of crescent moons in their eyes. Not only have I never seen that in an elf, but I have never heard of elves professing confusion of why humans or dwarves do not have similar signs to their impending death.

And, I think, this is part of things for people choosing even more exoctic races. There is less written or known about them. If I say that a Firbolg doesn't really understand the concept of money, and their culture is based more on the sharing of stories to facilitate trade pretty much no one at the table is going to call me out for just making that up. There is so little written about Firbolgs that most players have no idea what they are.

But if I try to do the same thing with a dwarf, then I've got to get the buy-in of the other players and the DM, because there is so much knowledge and so many dwarven NPCs that it is going to fairly mmediately be obvious that this is something about MY dwarf, not dwarves in general.

So, more exoctic races can also be seen as having more freedom to make your own interpretations and explorations, which is exciting.

 

[zarionofarabel]

So should people just never write?

Well that would be boring.

Is all fiction naughty word?

Essentially, yes! Well constructed (or not depending on the work) BS as another poster alluded to, but BS none the less. It is by no means an account of something that actually happened or is actually real. Those books fall under non-fiction at my library.

We know what it's like to be human, but not to be other people, not truly, not 100%. At least, going by the definitions here.

Agreed. What we don't know is how to be Non-Human.

Why even roleplay?

It's fun.

I'm not a human with magic. I never will be. How could I understand what its like to be a sorcerer or wizard or druid?

You can't.

 

[Crit]

Hahaha! You think fictional "persons" written by Humans are valid examples of real actual "persons" or are you making a funny?!?

Or do you not understand what the word fictional means?

Of course fictional characters written by Human minds have minds identical to Humans they were written by a Human mind!

Oh, you! You're so funny.

I almost think it would be insulting to you to explain the obvious intention behind that sentence, but apparently it's necessary. That sentence meant that the fictional races were rightfully comparable to in-universe humans. Done.

That final sentence is beautiful...ly terrible. If a (hypothetical) Neanderthal wrote fiction, then the minds of the character would still be the same despite not being from a human mind. You are refusing to see that "Human mind" is not a good catch-all term for this. Your idea of a human mind is, truly, outside of fiction, not limited to humans, so it's wrong to call it a "human mind." Can you agree to that?

 

[D1Tremere]

In a potentially vain attempt to get this topic back on track I will say that part of the problem is the the topic title (and its assumption). Why do people want to play "weird" races? I would argue that the things which makes them weird to some is that they are not the traditional fantasy trope race, which I think is exactly why some want to play them. Most of the fantasy races play like a human with some unusual physical and psychological characteristics. A dwarf is a short and sturdy human with a love of mining and metal, an elf is a tall human with pointy ears who loves nature, etc. That is all fine, and obviously those races can be played in various ways by a PC who is supposed to be exceptional (especially with Tasha's). The problem is they don't offer much role playing or stylistic choice beyond what it means to be the run of the mill human no matter how far you stretch them.
Take a Drow. The old weird race standby from way back. What could be the appeal of playing a race that doesn't come from a society that defaults to more or less modern ideas of morality? Where beauty is a curse, power is survival, and women are death incarnate. This is still just a human from a somewhat inverted society, but with obvious and striking physical signs of their differences. A tiefling takes this even further. An Aarokaa lets the player take this even further, exploring a character from not only an alien (to humans) social world but also one with functional physical differences that play into their characters psychology (delicate bones, wings, feathers, etc.). A kenku adds to that the need to reevaluate how you communicate in a world where you can only speak things you have heard before, perhaps without understanding their true meanings. Etc.
In short, it is a way to stretch a character examination beyond the bounds that typically have restricted their imagination.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Oh, you! You're so funny.

I almost think it would be insulting to you to explain the obvious intention behind that sentence, but apparently it's necessary. That sentence meant that the fictional races were rightfully comparable to in-universe humans. Done.

That final sentence is beautiful...ly terrible. If a (hypothetical) Neanderthal wrote fiction, then the minds of the character would still be the same despite not being from a human mind. You are refusing to see that "Human mind" is not a good catch-all term for this. Your idea of a human mind is, truly, outside of fiction, not limited to humans, so it's wrong to call it a "human mind." Can you agree to that?

No. I can't.

How could a "human mind" not be exclusively limited to humans?

My African Grey Parrot does not have a "human mind" he has a "parrot mind" because he's a parrot.

My mom's cat has a "cat mind" because she's a cat.

Whilst I agree that my parrot talks (or more specifically is capable of speech), and does demonstrate understanding of context, as in, he uses the word "toy" to describe his, well, toys. While he is capable of understanding context, I do not know, and probably will never know, if he conceptualizes his toys the same way I do. Maybe he thinks I'm a gigantic idiot because what I conceptualize as "a fun thing to play with" he sees as a "horrible invasion of his personal space" that he just can't seem to convince me to get rid of!