D&D General No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures

[DEFCON 1]

A lot of people feel that race mechanics were already too sparse, so it is pretty understandable if they aren't super pleased with getting rid half of the little we had.

Yep. It all comes down to personal perspective.

 

[Umbran]

Part of this is on purpose, they are meant to mimic (or scapgoat/satire) parts of human conditions. That is because the show is very much a human show about humans. lots of writers use those races to make social and political commentary (that I wont bring up) BECUSE those races are humans in funny hats.

I think a term that fits what you intend here might be "morality play".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think a term that fits what you intend here might be "morality play".

Considering the very religious origin of morality plays, the general lack of depth or nuance most people associate with them, no, I don’t think morality play is the best term for every story that has a point that intersects at all with morality.

 

[HammerMan]

I think a term that fits what you intend here might be "morality play".

I like that... it is a good term (although I had not heard it before) some (not all) of trek has been used as a morality play.

 

[Umbran]

I like that... it is a good term (although I had not heard it before) some (not all) of trek has been used as a morality play.

For those who are not familiar with the term, it comes from 15th and 16th century drama.

"Morality plays typically contain a protagonist who represents humanity as a whole, or an average layperson, or a human faculty; supporting characters are personifications of abstract concepts, each aligned with either good or evil, virtue or vice.

The clashes between the supporting characters often catalyze a process of experiential learning for the protagonist, and, as a result, provide audience members and/or readers with moral guidance..."

The modern forms are rather less blatant than the period works, but the basic structure is often there in Trek.

 

[HammerMan]

For those who are not familiar with the term, it comes from 15th and 16th century drama.

"Morality plays typically contain a protagonist who represents humanity as a whole, or an average layperson, or a human faculty; supporting characters are personifications of abstract concepts, each aligned with either good or evil, virtue or vice.

The clashes between the supporting characters often catalyze a process of experiential learning for the protagonist, and, as a result, provide audience members and/or readers with moral guidance..."

The modern forms are rather less blatant than the period works, but the basic structure is often there in Trek.

I can not thank you enough. I did look it up and get that, but I am sure most didn't. It is a super helpful lesson that you have provided... most likely more useful then some English teachers(atleast pre college level).

 

[Faolyn]

Anyone can rewrite stuff. Or write additional stuff. If you have 'well they are this, or they could be this' and you dont like/want either option then what?

One option --> if you don't like it, rewrite.
Two options --> if you don't like, rewrite. Same as above, only there will be a greater chance that you'll like one of the options.

Not at all. I have my own view on things that I iterate on all the time.

You say that, but...

Fizban's is great for example, because it TELLS YOU what these various Dragon types are like, what they value, where they set up, and how they function.

You can then tweak it, ditch it, or use it.

"Maybe the yeti are hungry, or they may just be mean, or maybe there are 2 kinds." doesnt do that.

You could tweak, ditch, or use the "maybe this, maybe that, maybe both" options. You just don't want to. However, you're perfectly fine with other people having to tweak, ditch, or use a single option.

With the yeti (for those who are not Scribe and reading this and are confused, this is a reference to the yeti as presented in Level Up), there were a couple of options, IIRC: yeti are generally cruel and evil, yeti are generally peaceful unless hungry, yeti are generally peaceful except during blizzards.

You want the yeti to be evil, because of reasons? That's covered. You want the yeti to not be evil, but to still be dangerous? That's covered? You want the yeti to not be evil but to still be dangerous because powerful evil entities of ice and snow, like Auril or Thrym or an archfey or Ithaqua drives them to madness and violence by sending out psychic calls during blizzards? That's covered.

Seriously, though. How is not having a choice better than having a choice?

The difference is, you can have 'well it could be this, or that, or maybe this' or you can have something definitive. I'll take difinitive any time, because at least then you have something to ignore/change/add to.

Some undefined nebulous fluff, is pointless. Its not 'providing options' its refusing to say anything about X, that can then be either reviewed or extrapolated upon, just for the sake of being as inoffensive and safe and 'bleh' as possible.

So your belief is that, by having monsters as not just being evilevilevil so you can kill them, that means they're inoffensive and safe and bleh. Gotcha. You know, if you prefer black-and-white morality and guilt-free murderhoboing, just say so. That's fine. You can game like that all you like. But why force the rest of us to game the same way?

 

[Umbran]

I can not thank you enough. I did look it up and get that, but I am sure most didn't. It is a super helpful lesson that you have provided... most likely more useful then some English teachers(atleast pre college level).

The quote is actually from wikipedia, to be honest.

 

[Scribe]

So your belief is that, by having monsters as not just being evilevilevil so you can kill them, that means they're inoffensive and safe and bleh. Gotcha. You know, if you prefer black-and-white morality and guilt-free murderhoboing, just say so. That's fine. You can game like that all you like. But why force the rest of us to game the same way?

Did I say any of that.

At all?

 

[Faolyn]

Did I say any of that.

At all?

Way to ignore everything else I wrote.

But yes, you've certainly implied that by saying "just for the sake of being as inoffensive and safe and 'bleh' as possible." You seem to think that giving a monster a reason to attack (such as being) that isn't just "they're mean" is "bleh." I'm pretty sure I've seen you write that you prefer racial alignments in general. That would suggest that you prefer monsters that are just evil. Why? You either have a grand world concept in mind, with true Good Versus Evil, or perhaps Evil Entity Corrupts Good Beings. Or you just prefer to kill things without a moral conundrum involved.

I do find it interesting that you like Fizban's for telling you what the dragons are like--when the Ideals section for each dragon has both good and evil traits in it! Even gold dragons can be evil if you roll for their Ideal and roll a 6 for Sovereignty, according to Fizban's! This is literally the same as for the Level Up monsters, except it's in a table, not in the body of the flavor text.