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

[doctorbadwolf]

I just don’t see that happening as a result of allegorical interpretations being granted equal validity,

Just for clarity, it is my very frequent experience that exactly that is happening in both segments of the fandom and academic circles.

I’ve seen professors and students alike outright dismiss Tolkien’s statements as not only irrelevant, but in several cases, dismissed with the suggestion that Tolkien was either full of crap, or ignorant of his own intentions.

This is part of a larger problem in academia that arises from colonialism in education and science, where external perspective is treated as inherently superior to internal perspective, and has outgrowths as far from academia as the medical field, where POC and women especially, but patients in general, are treated as having no idea what their own minds and bodies are doing, often to disastrous result.

The result of this attitude in criticism may not be as disastrous, but it is certainly I desirable and deleterious to the ongoing development of critical thought and the creation and consumption of art.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

An allegory is a story with hidden meaning. If a story is written with no hidden meaning, where's the value interpreting something that isn't there? Anything you find to be allegorical is either imagined or coincidence, and therefore isn't really allegory.

I suppose you could read Tolkien and say, "It would have made a great allegory of X, Y or Z if that was how he had written it," but it will never be a real allegory.

Or at least an intended secondary meaning, lest we get caught up on the definition of “hidden”.

But yes. That is what allegory is.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

I see a bunch of posts here dripping with disdain. Several of you are bucking for a threadban, and possibly a vacation from the boards for being jerks to each other.

Consider what you are posting next. Carefully.

 

[zarionofarabel]

The Human Mind as you know it is not limited to humans because non-human creatures are capable of being virtually identical "people" without being actual Humans.

Virtually Identical is NOT Identical.

A Neanderthal could be a person, an artificial "human" could be a person.

I would need proof of that.

So if Jimmy is playing an Elf, he can simulate that experience because the Elven race is "people" despite not being human.

I disagree. Jimmy can play a human with an Elf hat, or Elf costume, or Elf disguise. Jimmy is still just Jimmy playing pretend with his friends. I know I like playing pretend with my friends, we just don't feel the need for funny hats.

This is why. there's validity to playing other races and why they're not limited to being knockoff humans, because they have equal potential for character depth PLUS fun thinks like anatomical variance, lore, etc.

They are knockoff humans because they are being played by humans. The anatomical variance and lore and etc. is all just fluff. The extra depth you perceive to exist because of the fluff can be achieved without said fluff. In my own personal experience I have found that eliminating the fluff adds depth to a PC because players are forced to create that depth through action within the narrative.

Your parrot example can be taken a little further though, because there is science behind the mind. If you scanned the parrot's brain and studied the chemicals inside, and compared it to your own, if they're the same then it means you think and feel the same.

Definitely not. As I said before we have no idea if my parrot conceptualizes things the way a human does. My parrot says "Dads gotta go to work" and "Dads going shopping" and "Dads going for a walk" but I have serious doubts he conceptualizes those things the way a human would. I think he knows I leave the house and then return later, but all the other concepts that give those different statements different meanings are beyond him.

How we think and feel is informed by physical and chemical attributes with a lot of room for range.

Agreed.

In general, the way I'd recommend looking at it is that species differences, in regards to minds, are like subclasses under the "Mammal Mind" class, with Plant and whatever else as the other classes.

So non-mammals with a brain don't have minds?!?!? That goes against the points you were trying to make earlier and for the points I keep trying to make.

Well, more like sub-sub-sub-sub-sub(...) classes, increasing in what stays the same, to the point that variation is so minor that it forms a gradient that no concrete borders can be drawn. We have too much measurably in common with other creatures for their minds to be alien to ours as you imply.

Disagree.

I'm not saying you're the same as your cat, but I am saying that you and your cat do think and feel in a comparable manner.

Disagree. I highly doubt she thinks like a human because she is a cat.

If you adjusted some sliders (more neurons here or there), your cat would have a ""human mind"" without being human.

I would need proof of that.

It would think and feel like you do, but from inside a cat body.

I would need proof of that.

But if a different creature naturally had that, then should a mind like that be categorized as "human," anyway?

No.

I say no, at least not once we share populations with non-human people.

I agree with the part where you say no. The second part confuses me as I think it means that you agree with my position.

This is proven to be the case because Earth has had non-human "Human Minds" in history,

Citation needed.

and discussing the hypotheticals of what will come in the future will inevitably bring up more cases of non-humans with what you call a "human mind".

How so?

To return to a while back, I call that same thing "personhood" because what we feel is something that extends to others.

To me this is nonsensical, as in, the statement you make here appears to make no sense, at least not to me.

If you want to say the "Human mind is the human mind by definition," then we can go with that, but you'd still have to accept that a "Neanderthal Mind" or a "Dwarf Mind" are virtually the same thing,

I would need proof for the Neanderthal. A "Dwarf Mind" simply doesn't, and has never, actually existed. "Dwarf Minds" are actually the mind of the writer or roleplayer that is conceiving of them, aka, a "Human Mind".

which is why I advocate for a different approach and use an umbrella term.

Changing terminology around won't validate your argument.

If we assume comparable anatomy, the only difference between a Human Mind and a hypothetical Elven Mind are the little things like lifespan or dark vision, but the rest is the same.

Disagree. Too many assumptions and hypotheticals.

That's why it's easy and feasible to imagine being another creature,

Disagree. I posit that it is impossible.

because you'd be you with superficial physical augmentations.

Thank you for accepting my arguments.

If any of this doesn't make sense, just ask me to clarify or something. I can't tell if this makes sense to you without that.

For the most part it does. I just reject your arguments and maintain my original position. Playing an Elf in an RPG means you are you with a funny hat that makes you look like an Elf. You literally just agreed to that position in your previous statement.

II may go with one or two more replies but I've got new things I got to put attention towards so this can't go on forever.

I understand, philosophical argument takes a lot of attention.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well. That was... An interesting tangent in an otherwise rather cringey thread. I also liked the bit with the proposed fantasy taxonomy.

Yeah, I had completely forgotten the context of that thread before I went looking. Sorry about that.

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

I will drop the subject as people asked. But not before I say something. Read my claim. I never said that. So I don't understand why you are shouting.

Bolded and Underlined

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.

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

I disagree. Jimmy can play a human with an Elf hat, or Elf costume, or Elf disguise. Jimmy is still just Jimmy playing pretend with his friends. I know I like playing pretend with my friends, we just don't feel the need for funny hats.

Okay, let me assume that you are right for a second.

Do you play characters with Magic? Do you play character from a Psuedo-medieval setting that takes place in a world filled with observable evil and monsters that are decidedly not human but have minds?

Congrats. You and your friends wear funny hats too. Because those are not human experiences.

No human on Earth has ever wielded true magic. No human on Earth has ever talked to a non-human mind and had it talk back.

So, since everyone playing DnD is wearing funny hats, can we stop saying it? Because that is the thing that is really getting people's hackles up. You keep presenting people who play races as other than human as somehow doing something lesser than you are doing while playing the game.

You are playing a role in a society and world unlike anything ever seen on Earth. So are they. Stop calling it "wearing funny hats" stop calling it "wearing a costume" stop calling it "wearing a disguise". By doing so you are like the novelist who turns his nose up at someone who is writing comics because "they aren't real art"

And hey, maybe you don't mean it that way, but your point that "man is the measure of all things" is getting drowned out by the large neon sign behind you that makes it seem like you think you are better than the other side. Step to the side, and use more respectful language. Please.

They are knockoff humans because they are being played by humans. The anatomical variance and lore and etc. is all just fluff. The extra depth you perceive to exist because of the fluff can be achieved without said fluff. In my own personal experience I have found that eliminating the fluff adds depth to a PC because players are forced to create that depth through action within the narrative.

And in my experience you are wrong. Adding those extra elements makes me consider the character more deeply. Lets me explore why things are certain ways in our society and how they might differ in other societies.

I literally was writing a story and trying to imagine how a society would react to a biological eusocial knowledge of your place in society. It is a strange perspective, and one that makes me really examine the character within that society far more deeply than I would for a character from a typical human society.

Definitely not. As I said before we have no idea if my parrot conceptualizes things the way a human does. My parrot says "Dads gotta go to work" and "Dads going shopping" and "Dads going for a walk" but I have serious doubts he conceptualizes those things the way a human would. I think he knows I leave the house and then return later, but all the other concepts that give those different statements different meanings are beyond him.

But that is not Crit's point.

Crit's point is that in humans happiness is a result of chemical such as endorphin's in the brain. In parrots, we can observe endorphins acting in the exact same manner in their brains.

Therefore, happiness is happiness for both of us. It feels the same. It acts the same. It has the same chemical source.

And following from that, if a parrot suddenly underwnt ten thousan years of evolution and gained the capability of understanding the words "Dad's going shopping." we have zero reason to believe that their response to those words would be outside of the spectrum of human responses.

Maybe it will be. We can't say with 100% certainty, but considering the structural and chemical similarities it is also not outside the realm of the probable.

To me this is nonsensical, as in, the statement you make here appears to make no sense, at least not to me.

He is referencing what I am speaking to above. The similarities in brain structure, function, and chemical between various animal brains and human brains.

 

[Gammadoodler]

So, judging by the number of times 'humans wearing funny hats' seems to come up, can I assume that the OP is questioning the value of contests of speed between wizards (and bards...I guess)?

 

[Gammadoodler]

More responsively...

In my personal experience, the mechanical impact of the choice of race has been a leading component for why I choose to play that race.

(Edit: to be fair though, I also have not yet been involved in a game where there are strong racial hooks to get involved in.)

I suppose it could sometimes be a 'power' thing, but generally I think it's more just a 'do I find the interactions interesting' thing. From a 5e perspective, the base human's mechanics are pure statistical increase, which I don't find particularly interesting on it's own.

But, once I choose a race, I try to think through what that race selection might mean. What's it like to be a gnome in a crowded human bar (I'll bet it smells terrible). What extra parts of history (world and personal history) might I have experienced if I choose a long lived race? So I think there's aspects of both the mechanical and role-playing elements.

I do find the exclusion of elves and dwarves from the 'weird' category pretty interesting. Like, elves don't sleep and have 10x the average human lifespan. Dwarves have similarly long lifespans and literally different physical perspective on the worlds they inhabit. Generally speaking, I think the cat people and lizard people, and even turtle and bird people, are going to have a generally 'more humanlike' life experience than these 2 standard races.

 

[Monayuris]

I've been away from the thread due to the holidays.

I've followed some of the direct responses to my message but not the entire thread. I just wanted to state that I've reached the conclusion that this was a thing that's personally 'on me'. I've made my post a little more aggressive and accusatory than was fair to the community. For that I apologize.

I can see the fun in exploring different races and types, branching beyond traditional fantasy, and trying something new and interesting.

But, I've always approached my own campaign concepts as being human-centric. I suppose due to my experience in the hobby... human characters and traditional races (dwarf, elf, halfling) are more relatable to me. I have a better concept of characterizing those races (although to be honest, for me, there is enough interesting ideas and character concepts in human that there is no need for any non-human race and I can be satisfied with a human only fantasy campaign).

It becomes harder from a practical approach to gauge interactions with more fantastic race selections in such a campaign setting. If I am presenting a human-centric world then I have to deal with unusual races that players may choose. I don't want to go with the "Frankenstein Monster" approach (where weird races are immediately distrusted and prejudiced against), but I don't also want to completely ignore it (as an aside, I can take a point of view as a DM to just not care about their selection and run the game as if they are human... the player can have fun imagining themselves as a bird-person, but I just imagine the character as human... of course that just ignores the issue and creates the possibility of crossed expectations.).

I suppose I can limit to just core PHB races, which would solve the problem. But, this seems to impact the desires of many players.

Because I have less of an understanding of a race, the further from human they are, it is harder for me to characterize NPCs of that race and harder to characterize responses of NPCs towards those races.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've been away from the thread due to the holidays.

I've followed some of the direct responses to my message but not the entire thread. I just wanted to state that I've reached the conclusion that this was a thing that's personally 'on me'. I've made my post a little more aggressive and accusatory than was fair to the community. For that I apologize.

I can see the fun in exploring different races and types, branching beyond traditional fantasy, and trying something new and interesting.

But, I've always approached my own campaign concepts as being human-centric. I suppose due to my experience in the hobby... human characters and traditional races (dwarf, elf, halfling) are more relatable to me. I have a better concept of characterizing those races (although to be honest, for me, there is enough interesting ideas and character concepts in human that there is no need for any non-human race and I can be satisfied with a human only fantasy campaign).

It becomes harder from a practical approach to gauge interactions with more fantastic race selections in such a campaign setting. If I am presenting a human-centric world then I have to deal with unusual races that players may choose. I don't want to go with the "Frankenstein Monster" approach (where weird races are immediately distrusted and prejudiced against), but I don't also want to completely ignore it (as an aside, I can take a point of view as a DM to just not care about their selection and run the game as if they are human... the player can have fun imagining themselves as a bird-person, but I just imagine the character as human... of course that just ignores the issue and creates the possibility of crossed expectations.).

I suppose I can limit to just core PHB races, which would solve the problem. But, this seems to impact the desires of many players.

Because I have less of an understanding of a race, the further from human they are, it is harder for me to characterize NPCs of that race and harder to characterize responses of NPCs towards those races.

Completely, it is a lot more work for the DM and I fully admit having forgotten what race a player is on a fairly regular basis.

One thing I do find interesting though that didn't get discussed much is that a lot of these races that seem so much stranger to some people, are some of the oldest races in the genres. Lizard people is an old idea. It is also just an idea that has only recently started being seen as a possible player option.

And that's the biggest kicker. Keep the game to the "core four" and you still have a land full of strange and weird races. Trolls, Mindflayers, Lizardfolk, Gnolls, Oni, Beholders, Dragons. These groups tend to be villainous, or otherwise NPCs, but they still exist as cultures within the world.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Okay, let me assume that you are right for a second.

Yay!

Do you play characters with Magic?

Yes.

Do you play character from a Psuedo-medieval setting that takes place in a world filled with observable evil and monsters that are decidedly not human but have minds?

Maybe to evil, I'm not sure what you consider observable evil. Monsters, yes. No to the minds, as I don't worry about how they think or what they think, I only worry about what they do. If you mean humanoid monsters, no, as the only intelligent humanoids in my games are human.

Congrats. You and your friends wear funny hats too. Because those are not human experiences.

Maybe. I agree that those are not human experiences. However I am not sure the "funny hat" applies as all situations are approached from the perspective of a Human Mind.

No human on Earth has ever wielded true magic.

Agreed. I do not believe there is any metaphysical aspect to reality.

No human on Earth has ever talked to a non-human mind and had it talk back.

My parrot talks. However I assume you mean talk back with the same intellect and understanding that a Human Mind is capable of, in which case you are correct. This also means that we literally have absolutely no idea if Non-Human Minds are reconcilable with Human Minds. As an added bonus, my parrot literally perceives the world on a different scale, as he can see into the ultraviolet spectrum and hear far better than a human can. He is also 12 inches tall and can fly under his own power. His perception of the world is significantly different than that of a human, adding to my conviction that his Non-Human Mind is not reconcilable with a Human Mind.

So, since everyone playing DnD is wearing funny hats, can we stop saying it? Because that is the thing that is really getting people's hackles up. You keep presenting people who play races as other than human as somehow doing something lesser than you are doing while playing the game.

You are playing a role in a society and world unlike anything ever seen on Earth. So are they. Stop calling it "wearing funny hats" stop calling it "wearing a costume" stop calling it "wearing a disguise". By doing so you are like the novelist who turns his nose up at someone who is writing comics because "they aren't real art"

And hey, maybe you don't mean it that way, but your point that "man is the measure of all things" is getting drowned out by the large neon sign behind you that makes it seem like you think you are better than the other side. Step to the side, and use more respectful language. Please.

What should I call it then? You have quoted three different analogies I have used to attempt to describe what I mean. If you have a better analogy to describe what I mean that people won't take offense to please let me know as I have already provided three different analogies to describe what I mean. I am sorry that I have been unable to come up with a better analogy myself. I do tire though of being told that because someone doesn't like my analogy I should abandon said analogy without providing a better one for me to use.

And in my experience you are wrong. Adding those extra elements makes me consider the character more deeply. Lets me explore why things are certain ways in our society and how they might differ in other societies.

Our experiences obviously differ as I have always seen people be constrained by extra elements being added to their characters. As an example, players playing Klingons, or actors playing Klingons in a TV show, are constrained by the idea that Klingons are honor bound and proud warriors. So they have one of two choices. They can either stick with those constraints, and be something less than human. Or they can buck those constraints. In which case, why play a Klingon? As bucking the constraints means they are no longer playing a Klingon. They are in essence, playing a human again, as they are no longer constrained as a Klingon would be.

I literally was writing a story and trying to imagine how a society would react to a biological eusocial knowledge of your place in society. It is a strange perspective, and one that makes me really examine the character within that society far more deeply than I would for a character from a typical human society.

I have my doubts that you imagining something means that that is how it truly is or would be. Very little fiction gets the future right despite the author imagining such things. I grew up on eighties science fiction and 2020 doesn't look anything like they predicted it would be. Back To The Future teased me with hover boards and yet they do not exist. The movie 2001: A Space Odyssey told me we would have artificial intelligence twenty years ago, and yet we still don't have it. Your imagination is not a miraculous thing that makes things you imagine real.

But that is not Crit's point.

Crit's point is that in humans happiness is a result of chemical such as endorphin's in the brain. In parrots, we can observe endorphins acting in the exact same manner in their brains.

Therefore, happiness is happiness for both of us. It feels the same. It acts the same. It has the same chemical source.

Emotions do not equate to intellect or understanding.

And following from that, if a parrot suddenly underwnt ten thousan years of evolution and gained the capability of understanding the words "Dad's going shopping." we have zero reason to believe that their response to those words would be outside of the spectrum of human responses.

Maybe it will be. We can't say with 100% certainty, but considering the structural and chemical similarities it is also not outside the realm of the probable.

As you literally said, we cannot say, thus we do not know.

He is referencing what I am speaking to above. The similarities in brain structure, function, and chemical between various animal brains and human brains.

Which equates to what? Because animals have similar chemical reactions in their brains they must think and understand the way a human does. That simply does not follow.