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

[Gammadoodler]

Well, in all fiction I have encountered non-humans generally follow the same pattern of being restricted by the tropes that are applied to the character. These tropes are then played up to highlight how they are different from humans. Human characters on the other hand are generally presented as not being restricted by any tropes. When humans are presented as being restricted by tropes it is generally so they can later break free of such tropes to show that humans are indeed not restricted by such tropes. If the human character is restricted by tropes they refuse to break free from it is generally used to show how other human characters are not restricted by such tropes, or how allowing yourself to be restricted by such tropes is a bad thing.

I never said it was a bad thing, and I am completely lost on how syllogism has anything to do with what I said.

Your interpretation of the value of non-human characters is presented as if it is logically true. And it appears to work like this.

Premise: non-human characters are used as a lens to examine humanity

Conclusion: all non-human characters are less valuable than all human characters.

Buuuut..In order for your conclusion to hold up logically, there must be a premise missing.

From my perspective the missing premise appears to be:
Usage of a character's non-human race to examine humanity is bad (in fact it's so bad that it no collection of traits redeems it sufficiently that the character can be better than even the most thinly written, nonsensically motivated human character.)

 

[zarionofarabel]

I feel like you are edging into incredibly dangerous territory by declaring that "these people are stereotypes, and stereotypes are less than human"

Steroetypes are short hand, they are not meant to capture a full version of whatever the stereotype is. But we know that steroetypes are incomplete at the best of times, and that individuals can grow and exist past them.

I hate to use the term stereotype to describe what I am trying to say because of the negative connotations that go along with it but I am unsure of a better term to use.

Yeah, the problem with this is that a lot of human characters are also stereotypes and used as a lens through which we can examine the greater human whole. See... everything in all fiction.

This is point I try to make with the post I made that you quote in the latter part of your post, aka, the quote that appears right below the quote I am responding to, as in, stereotype characters can be used as a lens to examine the greater human whole. With non-human characters this is always the case as they must be less than the greater human whole, or they just become human. Often non-human characters strive to become more human, like Data in Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Yeah, this is not a very good reading of the genre of fiction. Sometimes this is true, but "not restricted by tropes" is more often presented as "character growth" and even then they often grow from one trope into a different trope.

I meant "not restricted by tropes" to mean "character growth" as my reading of fiction backs this up. I also agree that growing from one trope to another is a standard premise of fiction and the essence of character growth.

And if humans can be "restricted by tropes" such as... Mother Abigail in Stephen King's "The Stand" who is about a big of a stereotype of the "wise, pious mentor" as you can get, then seeing a non-human character who has tropes about them doesn't make them inferior to human characters.

Can't stand Steven King so I have no idea who Mother Abigail is, sorry.

Heck, go and read TV Tropes. There are tropes for every single thing you can see happen in fiction, and most of them involve human characters.

Oh I know, I've been on TV tropes.

I was using tropes in a general sense to point out that non-human characters must always be limited by some sort of trope so they can be pointed to as something other than a human that looks different.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I hate to use the term stereotype to describe what I am trying to say because of the negative connotations that go along with it but I am unsure of a better term to use.

Caricature.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Your interpretation of the value of non-human characters is presented as if it is logically true. And it appears to work like this.

Premise: non-human characters are used as a lens to examine humanity

Conclusion: all non-human characters are less valuable than all human characters.

Buuuut..In order for your conclusion to hold up logically, there must be a premise missing.

From my perspective the missing premise appears to be:
Usage of a character's non-human race to examine humanity is bad (in fact it's so bad that it no collection of traits redeems it sufficiently that the character can be better than even the most thinly written, nonsensically motivated human character.)

Less valuable? I don't understand how you think I am assigning value to a character, or even really what you mean by that statement. I'm a literature layman and don't understand the specialized language that goes along with it.

I never said using non-human characters to examine humanity is a bad thing. I have always just been presented with non-human characters that are some sort of caricature, either played to contrast a human aspect, or so they can grow out of that caricature and become more human.

EDIT: Removed offensive term and replaced with bolded term.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Less valuable? I don't understand how you think I am assigning value to a character, or even really what you mean by that statement. I'm a literature layman and don't understand the specialized language that goes along with it.

I never said using non-human characters to examine humanity is a bad thing. I have always just been presented with non-human characters that are some sort of caricature, either played to contrast a human aspect, or so they can grow out of that caricature and become more human.

EDIT: Removed offensive term and replaced with bolded term.

The reason I'm assuming you are assigning a value to a character is as a result of this quote:

All non-human characters are stereotypes of humans, thus they are less than human. The stereotype exists specifically to highlight how they are not human.

"Less" is typically used to compare value or quantity. If I've misunderstood, I would appreciate a clarification. There's not really any specialized literature jargon at work, just common English.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Stereotype characters can be used as a lens to examine the greater human whole. With non-human characters this is always the case as they must be less than the greater human whole, or they just become human. Often non-human characters strive to become more human, like Data in Star Trek: The Next Generation.

I was using tropes in a general sense to point out that non-human characters must always be limited by some sort of trope so they can be pointed to as something other than a human that looks different.

What you seem to be missing is that this is not just a trait involving non-humans. And that the phrase "less than the greater human whole" is a bit of nonsense.


This is edging into dangerous territory, but if I were to read Robinson Crusoe most of the natives of the island would be limited by a trope, because they are being pointed at as something different. You could say the same thing about any "category" of people. Read the Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Ichabod Crane is strange, he has long limbs and odd interests. Watch Beauty and the Beast. Belle is a strange girl, she likes reading and wants to go on adventures.

Sometimes, like with Belle, it is a drive by trope. Mentioned then gone and never brought up again, other times like with Ichabod, it is much more defining of the character.

Whether human or not, if an author wants to say "hey, they are different" they usually give them a trope to define them. And I'm not sure I'd use the term "limit" which gets into the second issue here.


What do you mean by "less than the greater human whole"? The only thing I can think of is that you are trying to say that this person has a defined set of traits that is only a subset of all possible traits.

The immediate issue though is that no one, not an individual nor a group of humans, presents the "greater human whole"

Quakers were pacifists. The Janissaries were very much not pacifists. So, if I were to right a story about Quakers, and the fact that they were pacifists, I would by your definition, make these human beings "less than the greater human whole"

And you might say, "But they are human, they could choose not to be pacifists" and you would be right, but then they wouldn't be Quakers, and there are reported tales of Quakers choosing to stand by and do nothing while they were being killed, because they believed so strongly in pacifism.


So, in a way, you are right, non-humans only take a subset of human traits and exemplify those. But we don't talk about anybody as embodying every single possible aspect of humanity. To write about a man is to take a subset of humanity, because women are not men, and they have different traits. To write about a man who is a police officer is to take an even smaller number of traits, because most of humanity are not officers of the law, and being an officer of the law implies certain things. Writing about a man who is a police officer in Tokyo is making an even smaller subset, because police in Tokyo are different than police in the states or in Iraq or in North Korea.

To define a character at all, is to make them "less than the greater human whole" so presenting that as a problem with writing non-human characters is nonsensical. Sure, maybe there is not a single Klingon who is not honorable. There is also not a single Math professor who can't do Algebra. Defining a group, by its very nature, limits them from all possibilities to some smaller set of possibilities.

 

[zarionofarabel]

"Less" is typically used to compare value or quantity. If I've misunderstood, I would appreciate a clarification. There's not really any specialized literature jargon at work, just common English.

Are you being facetious?

 

[zarionofarabel]

What you seem to be missing is that this is not just a trait involving non-humans. And that the phrase "less than the greater human whole" is a bit of nonsense.


This is edging into dangerous territory, but if I were to read Robinson Crusoe most of the natives of the island would be limited by a trope, because they are being pointed at as something different. You could say the same thing about any "category" of people. Read the Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Ichabod Crane is strange, he has long limbs and odd interests. Watch Beauty and the Beast. Belle is a strange girl, she likes reading and wants to go on adventures.

Sometimes, like with Belle, it is a drive by trope. Mentioned then gone and never brought up again, other times like with Ichabod, it is much more defining of the character.

Whether human or not, if an author wants to say "hey, they are different" they usually give them a trope to define them. And I'm not sure I'd use the term "limit" which gets into the second issue here.


What do you mean by "less than the greater human whole"? The only thing I can think of is that you are trying to say that this person has a defined set of traits that is only a subset of all possible traits.

The immediate issue though is that no one, not an individual nor a group of humans, presents the "greater human whole"

Quakers were pacifists. The Janissaries were very much not pacifists. So, if I were to right a story about Quakers, and the fact that they were pacifists, I would by your definition, make these human beings "less than the greater human whole"

And you might say, "But they are human, they could choose not to be pacifists" and you would be right, but then they wouldn't be Quakers, and there are reported tales of Quakers choosing to stand by and do nothing while they were being killed, because they believed so strongly in pacifism.


So, in a way, you are right, non-humans only take a subset of human traits and exemplify those. But we don't talk about anybody as embodying every single possible aspect of humanity. To write about a man is to take a subset of humanity, because women are not men, and they have different traits. To write about a man who is a police officer is to take an even smaller number of traits, because most of humanity are not officers of the law, and being an officer of the law implies certain things. Writing about a man who is a police officer in Tokyo is making an even smaller subset, because police in Tokyo are different than police in the states or in Iraq or in North Korea.

To define a character at all, is to make them "less than the greater human whole" so presenting that as a problem with writing non-human characters is nonsensical. Sure, maybe there is not a single Klingon who is not honorable. There is also not a single Math professor who can't do Algebra. Defining a group, by its very nature, limits them from all possibilities to some smaller set of possibilities.

This is interesting. It's also a great example of why I stick with reading non-fiction. I'm afraid the rabbit hole has gone too deep...

 

[Maxperson]

Yep. Hell growing up in a town of Tabaxi means Tabaxi are more like humans than like house cats.

Yes, but would a Tabaxi coach driver be a Tabaxi cab?

 

[DammitVictor]

While I'm certainly not saying that's fair of the the DM, or that the kind of passive-aggressive behavior you're describing is a good way to handle it, the fact remains that if the players insist on playing something the DM doesn't like, everyone's enjoyment of the game is reduced.

Sure. It's a negotiation... and like any negotiation, goes a lot better if every party is honest about what they want and honest about what they're going to deliver once they agree to it. If someone agrees to a game, they don't bar someone's participation from that game with unexpected, hysterical persecution based entirely on their out-of-game biases and character defects.

And if someone cares to argue that it "isn't unexpected" because "any player who wants to play something that weird should have expected that response", please cite from your favorite PHB or other book with playable races in it, the actual quote wherein it says that so-and-so race are going to be killed on sight.

Because I can show you numerous counter-examples where it doesn't work like that, starting with Gygax in the 1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide.

Point blank, this isn't about the rules and it isn't about logical consistency-- what part of D&D is?-- it's about personal preference. And when it comes to personal preferences in D&D, there are basically four ways to handle it: 1) give them what they prefer, gladly, 2) insist upon what you prefer, firmly, 3) negotiate an agreement that you all find acceptable, 4) be a passive-aggressive screaming douchebag.

I think #3 is usually the best option, but as the DM sometimes put my foot down for the tones and themes of my world. And sometimes, I do just shrug my shoulders and say "let's do this!".

But... I don't think there's any room in our hobby for #4. Screaming children only grow up to reasonable adults after years of being sent to their room until they can calm down, round up their thoughts, and act like humans. What hope is there for screaming adults when there's nobody at the gaming table who can do the same for them?