D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

[Charlaquin]

I kind of view lineages as a little different though. A damphir is not a unique race, it's a PC that used to be some other race. I don't think lineages are necessarily bad, just not sure how indicative it is of the future.

You may be right. But thinking about it from WotC’s perspective, I imagine something like this would look like the smartest option. Fantasy races have become controversial, but everyone has different ideas about what is and isn’t appropriate, so I expect the most appealing choice to them will be to sidestep the issue by not saying anything definitive about any races in core material. Give stats, and suggestions of different ways a DM might present them, and leave specific lore for specific campaign settings.

 

[HJFudge]

Lawful does not have to mean laws of the land.

Murder is always evil. Killing doesn't have to be, but if can't be good.

Then killing a bandit, by your definition, makes a character not good. No chaotic good characters killing bandits. Or goblins. Or anyone. If you can't kill and still be considered of a good alignment, the concept of the Paladin slaying evil (even the ability Smite Evil) means no paladins are good. Ever.

Which is clearly not the intent of the game.

If by not supported by RAW, you mean the default RAW, then I agree. From the PHB alignment section.

"Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn't tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil."

Yet you can't even define what evil actually is in the real world, let alone a game. No one can, really.

That's absolutism. Further, the planes of existence make no sense if morality is relative. They are based on hard alignments. Hard morality.

You can play with relative morality as one way of playing D&D, but it isn't supported well by RAW.

I mean yes, the planes make no sense. I agree. They make no sense in large part because good and evil really don't make any sense if you view them from an absolutist perspective.

If a Devil does something, to plane-logic whatever he does no matter what it is IS lawful evil. Is he a devil? Then what he is doing (whatever it might be!) is lawful evil. He is not lawful evil because of what he does. This is nonsense, but it is nonsense written into the setting that we aren't supposed to really look at.


PUT more simply, my point is this:

Can a good person do bad things? Yes. Clearly. Both in the game world and the real world. The converse is also true.
Can a bad person do good things? Yes, clearly. Unless its in the planes-logic of devilness or whatever.

The concept of 'Good people can only do good things and bad people only do bad things' is quite religious in nature. The clearest example I can think of is the Infallibility of the Pope. The Pope, as I understand, cannot do bad things or even be mistaken. Whatever he does or says, no matter what it is, is Good and True.

 

[Charlaquin]

How many races/species are there in 40K? It's easy to have more detail when you aren't talking about dozens, if not hundreds of unique creatures.

From a glance at the wiki, looks like over a hundred.

Races

warhammer40k.fandom.com

 

[Oofta]

From a glance at the wiki, looks like over a hundred.

Races

warhammer40k.fandom.com

How many are intelligent and/or are important to the game? I mean, I will admit I don't have a clue.

In any case, I think D&D has room for sub-cultures, just that it should be campaign specific.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

You may be right. But thinking about it from WotC’s perspective, I imagine something like this would look like the smartest option. Fantasy races have become controversial, but everyone has different ideas about what is and isn’t appropriate, so I expect the most appealing choice to them will be to sidestep the issue by not saying anything definitive about any races in core material. Give stats, and suggestions of different ways a DM might present them, and leave specific lore for specific campaign settings.

If they provide some pre made options they cannot really go wrong. They don’t lose plug and play which is what default D&D is good for. Diverse options are ok but I think the class based system and monster stat block system with behavior sections helps D&D not be gurps or some other fantasy game requiring unwanted work or fumbling around.

as oofta said above, I like variations between campaigns in particular and some set expectations within a setting.

 

[Scribe]

From a glance at the wiki, looks like over a hundred.

Races

warhammer40k.fandom.com

Playable? Not remotely.

Human.
Ork.
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Tau.
Chaos.
Nids.
Necron.

You have subfactions under those, but that's it, and that's being generous that Eldar are even distinct.

Subfactions are how GW pushes product, you just keep selling the same kits in different colours.

 

[Justice and Rule]

How many are intelligent and/or are important to the game? I mean, I will admit I don't have a clue.

In any case, I think D&D has room for sub-cultures, just that it should be campaign specific.

I mean, over a dozen I'd say? And for an RPG, there are many, many more detailed.

 

[HJFudge]

How many are intelligent and/or are important to the game? I mean, I will admit I don't have a clue.

In any case, I think D&D has room for sub-cultures, just that it should be campaign specific.

Important for? I dont know.

But you really don't need any races other than human (edit: Actually it doesnt have to even be human, it can be machines or elves or anything...but it only has to have the one) to tell a compelling story and run a compelling game.

I guess maybe I do know the answer for important: However many your table happens to want to play or interact with.

That answer, however, does not help with the discussion of 'default'

 

[Scribe]

How many are intelligent and/or are important to the game? I mean, I will admit I don't have a clue.

In any case, I think D&D has room for sub-cultures, just that it should be campaign specific.

7.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Playable? Not remotely.

Human.
Ork.
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Tau.
Chaos.
Nids.
Necron.

You have subfactions under those, but that's it, and that's being generous that Eldar are even distinct.

Subfactions are how GW pushes product, you just keep selling the same kits in different colours.

I mean, the Tau themselves would have multiple races beneath them, like the Kroot and Vespids. And within the Imperium you have at least two distinct races that are active within the guard (Ratlings and Ogryns). Orks have Grots and Snots, which come from the same growth-cycle but are absolutely distinct. Aeldari and Drukari are definitely different at this point.

But that's for army stuff. Within the RPGs, much more are detailed because the RPGs have room to detail more stuff because they are obvious more personal. The Hrud are one example, and there are those people made up of collective of worms whose name escapes me.