D&D General Demihumans of Color and the Thermian Argument

[Steampunkette]

Generally I don't care to much it has to be vaguely plausible though unless it's not a vaguely humanoid species.

Current campaign Drow. One player played a kobold one is looking at a mountain dwarf.

Previous game was Caribbean. Anything skin tone from America's, Africa, Europe was fine. I may have said no to a Samurai or something but it never came up.

Previous to that was Nuria Natal (not Egypt). Everyone was not white apart from that one guy who wanted a not Viking and Midgard has that as an option so I allowed it.

Generally I prefer somewhat locals vs far off lands but somewhat far off is plausible so I usually allow that.

The player pick the theme though and 80% of then tend to roll with it and pick the spotlighted options..

Midgard doesn't have Drow and elves are Uber rare so I wasn't allowing either I Nuria Natal but they have a not Egyptian Dwarf which is cool.

And there's a great example of people wanting representation in the other direction.

In a game set in an Egyptian Allegory a dude wanted to play an allegorical Norse European. And you let him, which is great!

And the reason you didn't allow Elves isn't "They're White and shouldn't be here", otherwise the Norse European Allegory wouldn't have been allowed, but instead "Elves are ridiculously rare and this isn't a campaign where elves will be present" which is 100% Cool Beans.

 

[MGibster]

Because we people of color are sick and tired of seeing nothing but white people in Fantasy. White elves, white gnomes, white halflings, white dwarves, etc. And when you're white, it is whatever. But when you're not white, especially in today's racial climate (specifically in America), it sure makes the entire hobby seem a lot more alienating to see that you aren't represented in the vast majority of the art, and that your skin color never gets to be shared by anything as awesome or cool as elves.

Growing up, I always thought teaching was a woman's profession. It wasn't because I never saw male teachers, I did, but the overwhelming majority of teachers at the elementary level were women. Nobody ever told me guys couldn't be teachers, but just looking at the demographic makeup it seemed clear to me that teaching wasn't for boys. Which is poppycock but it was just the impression I had due to a lack of male representation.

So I'm inclined to agree with you. As far as game play goes, in my experience at least, it really doesn't matter whether a PC is a dwarf, elf, halfling, or tiefling and it matters even less what their skin color is. But as far as the players are concerned, I can certainly see why representation matters and in most cases I don't see any reason not to inject a little diversity into the demi-human artwork.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Right now I prefer representing different shades of skin tones over simulationism.

Star trek did not have problems adding dark skinned Vulcans. So there should be no problem adding dark skinned elves that are not drow.

Actually I never really think about skin tones when describing a character. Probably I imagine them as some shade of white. But this is because I imagine european villages from a time where you mostly stayed at home.
But in waterdeep the question of skin color might be more pressing than in a reclusive village.
But here, the race in question does not matter.
Reclusive elf tribe in the north: samey wite skin mostly.
Elves in waterdeep: all kinds of skin tones.

 

[Yaarel]

If Elves, Dwarves, Halflings and Gnomes are all human enough that human diversity concerns do apply, then they should show that diversity, rather than all the illustrations defaulting to the same shade as a single ethnicity of humans.

Norse elves can be any sky colors (daysky-blue, cloud-white, sun-gold, sunset-red, dark-cloud-gray, midnight-sun, eclipse, etcetera)

Brit elves might be any plant color (various flowers, various barks, various leaves, etcetera).

Dwarves can be any stone color or any metallic (almost any color but looks like polished stone or metal).

Heh, Halflings are apparently English Humans.

Gnomes feel trickier to depict.

Any ethnic shapes are possible, because magic.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

So, my thinking is that, unless elves, dwarves, halflings, and gnomes are different enough from humans that we don't care about their race-politics, they are symbolically just lumpy humans. And lumpy humans don't need a different color scheme. Moreover, we should be honest with ourselves that lumpy humans don't really add much to D&D/fantasy fiction beyond just... humans.

I am sick to death of trying to convince people "representation matters" when I might as well be talking to a brick wall. I see some people are still fighting the good fight, more power to them. Instead I'm going to focus on this point in the quote.

The dominant cultural perception of elves, dwarves, halflings, etc., is "lumpy humans". They're visually distinct in one or two key ways, they each have a few innate abilities that humans don't have, but otherwise they're pretty much human. I'd argue that's what most people first bring to mind when they hear "elf" or "dwarf" or whatever, and going too far from that in your work may cause parts of your audience to be turned off because of the mismatch in expectations.

There are exceptions, usually by taking inspiration to existing mythological and religious ideas such as the Fair Folk, but in those cases they're usually either the bad guys or an inscrutable, unknowable force. And in games, both tabletop and roleplaying, those kinds of demihumans don't tend to be playable, both because they're too difficult to casually roleplay for somebody who isn't a master of the Stanislavski Method, and because they don't tend to be likeable and relatable in a way that most people want from their viewpoint characters.

As for making demihuman more visually inhuman as opposed to mentally inhuman, well then it becomes a case of the Ship of Theseus. How much of a thing can you change before it is no longer the thing it originally was? How unique can you make your elves before they're no longer recognizable as elves? If your "elves" are insect people with four arms and four wings with a eusocial social structure, and do not resemble Tolkien or Warhammer or Warcraft elves at all, I have to wonder if "elf" is really the best name for them. At that point, I'd say that they're a new type of creature entirely.

 

[steeldragons]

I think, and apologies for anyone whose sensibilities this offends, but fantasy races -and the games containing them- have no reason or obligation to "be the same/have the levels of diversity" of humans.

The "lumpy forehead humans" argument is only emphasized and exacerbated by saying "all demihumans have to have all the same skin tones and cultural differences as humans have [and, somehow, also MORE fantasical and bizarre variations of color and style]. You're actually making the species MORE just dull variations of humans with pointy ears.

What is really important here, is how the species are defined or created within the game setting. Were they made to just be mirrors of their surroundings? If so, then all the humans, elves, dwarves, halflings of an "tropical/jungle/African-inspired" analogue area would be darker skinned? Ok, fine, if that's what you want. Then the "northern/tundra/snowy/Scandanavian-Norse-Vikingish analogue realms are all fair-haired alabaster skinned warrior cultures? Sure. Why not.

Is that "inclusion" really making a fantastic magical world feel LESS "racial" motivated or narrow?

I mean, if that's how it things are in your world, then great. More fun for your table? More bettah. But don't pretend that somehow makes the game or any particular product, "more/better fantasy" or "improves D&D."

What if the Elves are the result of a blood splatter of star gods from a battle in the time before time? Timeless. Magical. Pure "divine essence" [Spirit] made Physical in form by direct mixture with the physical/natural world of Creation - but not "made" or shaped by- the source of their existence. Bringing magic to the world, by their very presence. Being simultaneously and spontaneously created and sustained by that same world, now infused with magic... that they are/caused.

Do they have blue or grey skin if they live in the mountains/attune to the sky and green (or brown, woodlike) skin if they live in the woods? Do they have every skin color that humans -not yet created/in existence in this world- have? Do they have skin tones in all colors imaginable?

Is it "not inclusive enough" to say elves who have -over centuries- migrated and attuned to the desert to be sandy or golden in complexion? Is that racist/racism? Is it more or less racist/racism if you "can't" play a "desert elf" with african-american skin tone? Or if ALL have african-american skin tones but you "can't" be caucasian or have celtic-colored eyes/hair [if you're a desert elf...or a mountain elf...or a swamp elf?]

Is it "not inclusive enough" to say these beings, magically, spontaneously, created by drops of godly blood are uniformly pale-skinned -even, legends say, sometimes luminous- with golden or silver hair, and sparkling vibrant eyes all the shades of the sky -day or night? That they, similarly, have a uniformity of form and shape, growing in a lithe fitness and toned musculature, making the differences in [what humans consider] male and female body types blurred -paying homage, if nothing else, to the longstanding descriptions of androgyny of the appearance of D&D elves? Is it "lumpy forehead" to say elves do not possess "souls" as humans (and some -not all- other species) but are, themselves, independent of spirit and can -but do not necessarily- carry on to "an afterlife," posthumously, as human mythos and religions claim human souls do.

Is that more "too samey" as humans or less?

Were the dwarves carved -deliberately - secretly - from the bones of the earth with the breath of life [the soul] placed within them by the Elder deity of stone and smithy to be his servants/helpers? Is it "inclusively appropriate" for them to be any human skintone? Or all the colors found in rocks and ores? OR a uniform dull "stone" grey? Or rich earthy brown? Loam or wrought iron black? Were they "made" to be diverse?

What if halflings are descended from the original Eight Clans of gnomes. Now calling themselves by various names in various regions, the "halflings" were merged with the Material plane. Unlike other clans that wandered to the realms of Faerie or Shadow, the Elemental Plane of Earth and other places, halflings "never left" the green fields and quiet dales of the world they were originally birthed from [by the ancient titans...or dragons?] to tend? What if they have long-forgotten their origins, to the point of any ancestry mixed with the gnomes is found laughable by all. That they have lost nearly all magical power/prowess they possessed in the age of dragons and titans. But they have mixed so much with other species through the eons, since their origin of species, they are found in all skin tones and facial features familiar to humans...but still all have hairy feet and a slight point to the ear. OR can they be found in all the colors of tubers/roots? Or are they a uniform "ruddy tan" from their hours (and love) of outdoor work, pastoral past times, love of drink, and "earthy" associations? Which is more fantastic? Which makes more sense based on the species' creation in the setting?

My point is, does inserting "racial diversity/inclusivity" -across the board, of all species- make sense to the world? Does its insertion improve the FANTASY... the internal consistency of a given setting? IF you find that it does...and it provides or improves the fun at your table, GREAT! Awesome. Have at it.

But, I truly do not think/see how a uniform proclamation of such, by the company as, somehow, made D&D "canon" in the game would/could be an overall benefit. A mention/nod/sidebar that it is completely possible for any table/setting. Sure. But not - IF the goal is to make semi-humans feel and play LESS "funny/different shaped humans" - as a matter of course.

 

[Oofta]

If we ever meet a truly alien intelligent species, we will end up just believing they have human traits and personalities. Any differences will be attributed to "cultural differences" and "Zorgs are just misunderstood". We can't understand truly alien intelligence, we will always judge them by our framework reference.

So I think the differences can be more than just skin, eye and hair color it can also be fundamental differences in how they think or how their brain is structured. There's no reason to think that non-human intelligences would think of good and evil right or wrong in the same way that we do. In the video the guy talks about how it's "flawed" to have a certain species behave in a way people don't like. If they are not human I see no reason to believe they have to have anything related to human morality, I don't think it's "wrong" to depict an alien creature finding what we would consider abhorrent behavior enjoyable.

However, that's a topic that will lead to the thread being shut down.

On the other hand, when it comes to skin color I have the same response as before. It's largely based on how close to the equator your ancestors were. Even then, there will always be exceptions to the general rule. I like seeing a variety of skin tones in art, but I rarely describe differences in my own campaigns other than a quick mention of general skin tone in a region.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

This is how it has always been since the game was invented. 99.99% of people play what they think is cool... not to get into the mindset of an alien creature and trying to give an accurate representation of what being that type of creature would be. This is a game first and foremost, not an acting exercise.

I am not sure. I'd say 90%, but not 99.99%. Non-humans are the hardest, but the same problem arises with values within a civilization of humans. Let's say the PC is from a slaver empire, like Rome. Are 99.99% roleplaying 20th century westerner trying to abolish slavery, or is there a significant part of them at least trying to roleplaying being from that culture, being raised in it and embracing its values? It's not as difficult/borderline impossible as non-human, but I have seen a significant part of players engage with it and have fun. I have also, from the same group, seen people bored to death by a session-long in-character discussion about a finer point of the setting's politics and whether it is ethical to bind elementals to propel airships (while most of the group had fun). I agree that it's not the most common type of play, and I don't imply any play style is superior to another, nor that I don't engage in dungeon-delving sometime and have fun, but I think it's more prevalent than you estimate.

It's a cognate subject, but it also affects representation: can cultural values other than 21th century, Western ones be represented in a setting at this point? Can lizardmen be strongly territorial, human flesh eaters AND a playable race? Of course, if you don't play them as an "acting exercise" to borrow your words, it doesn't really matter because you won't say "hey, Bill the Warrior just failed is 3rd death save... dibs on his liver!" except for comedic value and not really roleplay the fact that you're stooping to adventuring with foreign livestock for some unfathomable reason that would make your ancestor disgusted. Same goes with a cannibalistic, HUMAN, society. Most settings make a point of having gender equality nearly everywhere, making fantasy societies more socially advanced than what we currently enjoy (at least among the groups available to PCs)... Can you still depict a strongly patriarcal or matriarcal society without incurring criticism nowadays? Most setting are free of intra-species prejudice (there is few example of overtly racist [in the real life sense] societies, and few overtly racist against other species (even the dwarf/elf hatred is more a friendly rivalry than a dark, "go sit at the back of the bus" relationship). I am feeling that not only self-insertion lessens the need to have other species as available to PCs, but also that some cultures, whenever PCs can hail from them, are (increasingly?) 21th century United States replicas because of the need of anyone being able to self-insert. If your numbers are true and 99.99% of the people don't care about how their species (extra hard) and cultural values (very hard) would influence their decision making, then it's better for the game to have maximum diversity... but then I don't see the added value of having varied cultures and species depicted in game if the ultimate goal is to roleplay them the same way. I'd feel that the settings writers are making a lot of effort that would go to waste.

 

[Charlaquin]

Any argument about what they are/should be in any particular setting is, ultimately, a Thermian Argument or an ethics/politics argument. It's either:

1. The tradition of description of elves in D&D (or other property) is that they are XYZ; elves need to have XYZ characteristic or they aren't really elves.
2. Elves should inclusively represent diverse groups--thereby promoting equality/fairness--and should, therefore, be unbound by prior XYZ conventions.

That’s not a Thermian Argument at all, did you even watch the video you linked? A Thermian Argument is one that tries to refute critique of a work of fiction based on the in-fiction lore and logic, ignoring the fact that the fiction was written by real humans who had the option to write it differently. Saying “elves/dwarves/gnomes/etc aren’t human, so they don’t have to have human ethnic features” is a Thermian Argument. It attempts to refute critique of the lack of POC representation in most modern fantasy fiction based on in-fiction lore and logic, ignoring the fact that the fiction is written by real humans who have the option to write it differently.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think, and apologies for anyone whose sensibilities this offends, but fantasy races -and the games containing them- have no reason or obligation to "be the same/have the levels of diversity" of humans.

The "lumpy forehead humans" argument is only emphasized and exacerbated by saying "all demihumans have to have all the same skin tones and cultural differences as humans have [and, somehow, also MORE fantasical and bizarre variations of color and style]. You're actually making the species MORE just dull variations of humans with pointy ears.

What is really important here, is how the species are defined or created within the game setting. Were they made to just be mirrors of their surroundings? If so, then all the humans, elves, dwarves, halflings of an "tropical/jungle/African-inspired" analogue area would be darker skinned? Ok, fine, if that's what you want. Then the "northern/tundra/snowy/Scandanavian-Norse-Vikingish analogue realms are all fair-haired alabaster skinned warrior cultures? Sure. Why not.

Is that "inclusion" really making a fantastic magical world feel LESS "racial" motivated or narrow?

I mean, if that's how it things are in your world, then great. More fun for your table? More bettah. But don't pretend that somehow makes the game or any particular product, "more/better fantasy" or "improves D&D."

What if the Elves are the result of a blood splatter of star gods from a battle in the time before time? Timeless. Magical. Pure "divine essence" [Spirit] made Physical in form by direct mixture with the physical/natural world of Creation - but not "made" or shaped by- the source of their existence. Bringing magic to the world, by their very presence. Being simultaneously and spontaneously created and sustained by that same world, now infused with magic... that they are/caused.

Do they have blue or grey skin if they live in the mountains/attune to the sky and green (or brown, woodlike) skin if they live in the woods? Do they have every skin color that humans -not yet created/in existence in this world- have? Do they have skin tones in all colors imaginable?

Is it "not inclusive enough" to say elves who have -over centuries- migrated and attuned to the desert to be sandy or golden in complexion? Is that racist/racism? Is it more or less racist/racism if you "can't" play a "desert elf" with african-american skin tone? Or if ALL have african-american skin tones but you "can't" be caucasian or have celtic-colored eyes/hair [if you're a desert elf...or a mountain elf...or a swamp elf?]

Is it "not inclusive enough" to say these beings, magically, spontaneously, created by drops of godly blood are uniformly pale-skinned -even, legends say, sometimes luminous- with golden or silver hair, and sparkling vibrant eyes all the shades of the sky -day or night? That they, similarly, have a uniformity of form and shape, growing in a lithe fitness and toned musculature, making the differences in [what humans consider] male and female body types blurred -paying homage, if nothing else, to the longstanding descriptions of androgyny of the appearance of D&D elves? Is it "lumpy forehead" to say elves do not possess "souls" as humans (and some -not all- other species) but are, themselves, independent of spirit and can -but do not necessarily- carry on to "an afterlife," posthumously, as human mythos and religions claim human souls do.

Is that more "too samey" as humans or less?

Were the dwarves carved -deliberately - secretly - from the bones of the earth with the breath of life [the soul] placed within them by the Elder deity of stone and smithy to be his servants/helpers? Is it "inclusively appropriate" for them to be any human skintone? Or all the colors found in rocks and ores? OR a uniform dull "stone" grey? Or rich earthy brown? Loam or wrought iron black? Were they "made" to be diverse?

What if halflings are descended from the original Eight Clans of gnomes. Now calling themselves by various names in various regions, the "halflings" were merged with the Material plane. Unlike other clans that wandered to the realms of Faerie or Shadow, the Elemental Plane of Earth and other places, halflings "never left" the green fields and quiet dales of the world they were originally birthed from [by the ancient titans...or dragons?] to tend? What if they have long-forgotten their origins, to the point of any ancestry mixed with the gnomes is found laughable by all. That they have lost nearly all magical power/prowess they possessed in the age of dragons and titans. But they have mixed so much with other species through the eons, since their origin of species, they are found in all skin tones and facial features familiar to humans...but still all have hairy feet and a slight point to the ear. OR can they be found in all the colors of tubers/roots? Or are they a uniform "ruddy tan" from their hours (and love) of outdoor work, pastoral past times, love of drink, and "earthy" associations? Which is more fantastic? Which makes more sense based on the species' creation in the setting?

My point is, does inserting "racial diversity/inclusivity" -across the board, of all species- make sense to the world? Does its insertion improve the FANTASY... the internal consistency of a given setting? IF you find that it does...and it provides or improves the fun at your table, GREAT! Awesome. Have at it.

But, I truly do not think/see how a uniform proclamation of such, by the company as, somehow, made D&D "canon" in the game would/could be an overall benefit. A mention/nod/sidebar that it is completely possible for any table/setting. Sure. But not - IF the goal is to make semi-humans feel and play LESS "funny/different shaped humans" - as a matter of course.

This post here, for example, is chock-full of Thermian arguments - using in-fiction logic to try and refute meta-fiction critique.