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

[Thomas Shey]

Just a note; "the core four" concept probably comes from the fact they appeared first in OD&D (and people are probably lumping half-elves with elves there); even gnomes didn't appear in the original three booklet version.

 

[Oofta]

Um... a scene with dozens of races.

It doesn't need a special term. How would I describe a scene with elves and humans? By saying "You see elves and humans"

And, "Cantina" has specifically been used as an insult. Repeatedly. So getting upset because someone says "You are using a term that is generally used as an insult, so I am seeing negative connotations here" is kind of silly.

Additionally, while I believe you do like Zootopia, other things that generally get thrown around as insulting terms is "cartoons". This actually aggravates me because I know that cartoons are a wonderful medium, but we end up having to use the term "animation" because there are connotations that if you call something a cartoon it is silly and for children only. Which, again, is stupid, but as someone who has tried to get people into watching animated shows, I can tell you that bias runs deep. And, it is present here in these forums. Plenty of people who will compare something they don't like to "cartoons" or "anime" because they think it means those things aren't serious.

You clarified afterward that you really liked Zootopia, but if memory serves you didn't in the original post. So, comparing something to a prominent cartoon by a major producer of children's content, on a forum where people compare things to cartoons to diminish their value? Of course people were going to think you were trying to diminish the value of the thing you were talking about. It sucks, but it is always going to be the case as long as people think that animation and comics are lesser mediums.

I don't keep a dictionary of "words that someone somewhere might find offensive". There are certainly words that are offensive that we all know all too well. If we limited our words to ones that a tiny percentage of the population might find offensive (without knowing ahead of time) then I'm not sure we could write much of anything.

There's also the bad habit of ignoring the intent of the word when it's later clarified. Is every post I or anyone else makes perfect? Of course not. Tone doesn't always carry, some people take these conversations far, far more seriously than I do. But I don't even have a hot tub, much less one that will let me go back in time to change my post. All I can do is, like @Scott Christian, clarify what I meant if someone takes offense.

 

[Oofta]

One other note - most of the "standard" races are used widely in fantasy specific fiction. I doubt many people outside of D&D wouldn't have a clue what a tiefling was. Add in that many of the "exotic" races were in non-PHB books, books that many people have never seen.

There is a core set of "standard" races that fit what many people think of when they think D&D style fantasy. Whether that is a good thing or not is kind of a moot point IMHO.

 

[Scribe]

See, but Tielfings were basically never a "monstrous race"

Tieflings were introduced in 1994 in Planescape, already a playable option. They stayed a non-core playable option until 2008 when they were in the Core Player's Handbook. That is 14 years. They even got their own dedicated book in 2010, two years later.

Until 4e, I would agree. The retcon and 'reimagining' of how they look forcing them into the 'monster' race section was so unnecessary. I still look at them like Assimar. Plane-touched, and more human looking than not.

If one WANTED to have big horns and red skin, thats fine, completely, but if they would rather it be more subtle, I'm all for it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

One other note - most of the "standard" races are used widely in fantasy specific fiction.

That depends what you mean by "widely" and "most". A lot of fantasy authors try to avoid too obviously ripping off Tolkien, and use different races, or only human protagonists. And even the blatant Tolkien rip-offs rarely have gnomes or halflings (or woses).

And then there are those of us who actually read books written before 1954....

I doubt many people outside of D&D wouldn't have a clue what a tiefling was.

They might know what someone with fiendish ancestry was though - like Merlin. The concept is broader than the name.

 

[Oofta]

That depends what you mean by "widely" and "most". A lot of fantasy authors try to avoid too obviously ripping off Tolkien, and use different races, or only human protagonists. And even the blatant Tolkien rip-offs rarely have gnomes or halflings (or woses).

And then there are those of us who actually read books written before 1954....

They might know what someone with fiendish ancestry was though - like Merlin. The concept is broader than the name.

Go to the fantasy section of a bookstore and many will have elves, dwarves and perhaps gnomes (which are even in Harry Potter books, although they are a different incarnation). A few will have cat people or similar. Some will have anthropomorphic animals.

If Merlin's fiendish ancestry hadn't been mentioned in this thread I would have never known it. He certainly looked human, nary a horn nor tail in sight.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't keep a dictionary of "words that someone somewhere might find offensive". There are certainly words that are offensive that we all know all too well. If we limited our words to ones that a tiny percentage of the population might find offensive (without knowing ahead of time) then I'm not sure we could write much of anything.

There's also the bad habit of ignoring the intent of the word when it's later clarified. Is every post I or anyone else makes perfect? Of course not. Tone doesn't always carry, some people take these conversations far, far more seriously than I do. But I don't even have a hot tub, much less one that will let me go back in time to change my post. All I can do is, like @Scott Christian, clarify what I meant if someone takes offense.

Sure, but I think it is far easier to keep track of insults used in the thread that you've been following. I mean, it was used as an insult in this thread repeatedly, and called out as such.

Ignoring that is less "there is a tiny percentage of people somewhere that might take offense" and more "I'm going to use the same offensive term other people have used, but its fine because I don't intend it to be an insult unlike those people"

And that is on you.

 

[Chaosmancer]

One other note - most of the "standard" races are used widely in fantasy specific fiction. I doubt many people outside of D&D wouldn't have a clue what a tiefling was. Add in that many of the "exotic" races were in non-PHB books, books that many people have never seen.

There is a core set of "standard" races that fit what many people think of when they think D&D style fantasy. Whether that is a good thing or not is kind of a moot point IMHO.

But, so are other races.

In fact, on one of the sites I write on, the people have to ask "scaly kobolds or fluffy kobolds" because in Anime, most Kobolds are dog-like beings, not lizards.

Lamia are half-snake half-human (or pointy eared human).

Beastfolk are ubiquitous. People born with divine, elemental, or dark powers are a dime a dozen. Lizardfolk are all over the place. Robotic or artificial people are all over the place.

Sure, DnD fantasy is far more limited, but it really makes little sense that it is, because it has offered so much more for decades, so it should be far more broad than it really is portrayed.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Until 4e, I would agree. The retcon and 'reimagining' of how they look forcing them into the 'monster' race section was so unnecessary. I still look at them like Assimar. Plane-touched, and more human looking than not.

If one WANTED to have big horns and red skin, thats fine, completely, but if they would rather it be more subtle, I'm all for it.

The appearance is really the least important part, and the easiest to change for Tieflings.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Go to the fantasy section of a bookstore and many will have elves, dwarves and perhaps gnomes (which are even in Harry Potter books, although they are a different incarnation). A few will have cat people or similar. Some will have anthropomorphic animals.

If Merlin's fiendish ancestry hadn't been mentioned in this thread I would have never known it. He certainly looked human, nary a horn nor tail in sight.

I'm not going to bother listing every series, here are the TV Trope pages for "Cat People", "Lizard People" and "Bull People" as well as the general "Beast People"

Cat Folk - TV Tropes

Cat Folk are Fantastic Sapient Species that are based on felines. They generally have a body type resembling felines to one degree or another, and are sometimes named after Real Life feline species. They can be science-fiction aliens or fantasy …

tvtropes.org

Lizard Folk - TV Tropes

Almost every Standard Fantasy Setting with the Standard Fantasy Races is bound to to have one group of these guys. A civilized or semi-civilized race of humanoid lizards, they vary from being scaly humans to large bipedal lizards to small …

tvtropes.org

A Load of Bull - TV Tropes

Bulls on their own aren't tropes. Here's a list of tropes that "A Load of Bull" may refer to: Brutish Bulls: Bulls are depicted as aggressive. Our Minotaurs Are Different: Various ways minotaurs are portrayed in fiction. Formerly known as A …

tvtropes.org

Beast Man - TV Tropes

A Beast Man (or woman, or what have you) is a humanoid character with traits reminiscent of an animal. They might have claws (even on their toes), fangs, either heavy hair or actual fur, possibly horns or even scales, and their eyes will usually …

tvtropes.org

You could end up deciding to focus just on the "Literature" section, since that covers books in the book store, but I'd also recommend checking out "Comics" and "Anime and Manga" which also have massive sections and are highly influential sources within the Fantasy Genre.