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

[Faolyn]

No, I don't think giving a creature beyond 'its mean' is the issue. The issue is couching everything said about a subject to in essence say nothing at all.

Pick something for the yeti. 'They are generally docile, but a blizzard enrages them.'

Sounds about right. Do you assume that monsters should always be ready to attack? Because I'm fine with monsters that are docile until something provokes them. Especially monsters with nearly human levels of Intelligence.

Maybe they are always helpful. Great.

The description doesn't say that. It says one group of travelers reported being aided by yetis. So a DM can say that this was actually true in their campaign, or that this was a myth in their campaign, or can ignore it completely. I don't see how that's a problem. It's actually really helpful, because it helps a DM to think of the creature as something other than a meat-shaped bag of XP.

As to the Gold Dragon? Certainly, exceptions exist. That's been true forever and ever. Because the DM is always free to change things.

Right, just like how you're free to change things where the monster entry says "maybe this, maybe that."

The question of evil beings, has also had me confront the nature of Gods in my settings, because I feel a setting like FR does actually remove agency from certain races.

As do I. But the loss of agency only happened because those monsters were evil first, so the PCs could kill them and not risk losing XP to an alignment change. When their gods were detailed later, they were made to be evil, because of course an evil monster race wouldn't worship non-evil gods (which is why orcs have an evil god of medicine and fertility, an evil god of strength and loyalty, and an evil god of tactics, and an evil creator who is angry because the other gods cheated him out of good land). In 3e, a lot of these gods and their races became more evil (like with the drow fetus thing), because 3e liked to turn things up to eleven.

And then when 5e rolled around, the decided that simply worshiping evil gods wasn't enough to justify the creature being evil, that the gods had to be so evil as to micromanage their worshiper's lives (but good and neutral gods don't do this, and thus their creations are prone to turning evil on their own, without godly interference).

From a meta-historical perspective, the evil gods are just a justification to killing monsters for XP.

And this doesn't answer the question of what would happen if you chose not to have Gruumsh or Maglubiyet or Lolth or whoever in your game, or to say that those gods aren't actually evil, or that they don't micromanage their creations. Because the books don't discuss what the societies of "free" orcs or goblins or drow are like; just the occasional rebellious individual. You either have to accept 40+ years of lore that say the same thing, or break brand new ground in deciding what a society of orcs, goblinoids, drow, or whatever other race would be like if they weren't controlled by evil. And most inexperienced worldbuilders aren't going to be able to do that.

Which is why I feel that removing or reworking this sort of nonsense doesn't lead to blandness. It leads to options, to providing inspiration for coming up with things that make sense. Yeah, it's a bit more labor-intensive than just having the book spell everything out for you, but just going by what the book says isn't necessarily great.

Gruumsh is an evil God who factually created Orcs. If Gruumsh created Orcs to be bloodthisty reavers then that's what they are. The clerics enforce that, because God is real and can demonstrably be proven, spoken to, channelled, and even SEEN.

And this is why Micah Sweet is wrong when they say "and then make sure that readers understand that exceptions exist." Because as you say, it is factually true that Gruumsh created orcs to be evil. There's no exceptions there. There's no possibility for a world where Gruumsh didn't make orcs to be evil.* It's barely even a possibility for there to not be Gruumsh!

Yeah, you can say "this one orc isn't evil," but the explanations are either problematic (orcs are evil, unless they're raised/influenced by non-orcs) or just silly (this orc wasn't born evil).

I had a brief conversation (online) with a new DM who honestly didn't realize that you didn't have to the players what exactly they were fighting. There will be DMs who don't know that you can rewrite the lore, or feel they need "permission."

-----

*Imagine a setting where Gruumsh created orcs to be the strong, virile race--not evil, but good in battle, because Gruumsh thinks victory in battle against a stronger foe is the best thing. And there's plenty of monsters to fight against, especially the primordial beasts that roamed the land when the gods were actively making people. I don't see this as bland. You remove the evil while keeping the primary aspect of orcs being a tough, warrior race. And it's easy to decide that some of these orcs prefer easy rather than hard prey and thus could still have raider orcs while not making the entire race into raiders.

That's an issue. That is something I believe Eberron and other settings have correctly changed, and a move D&D will embrace fully in 5.5.

Now if you want to make a setting where the dominant goblin culture is friendly? Go nuts.

You want a setting where Succubi are just hippies and all about free love? Go nuts.

Devils are really just lawyers, undead are just afraid of leaving their loved ones, and Halflings are body builders?

Why are you comparing mortal, flesh-and-blood humanoids to fiends and undead? You do realize that fiends and undead have a very alien mindset and physiology due to what passes for their biology, right?

And if you're fine with "emerald dragons are mostly lawful and reclusive, but there can be exceptions," then you should be fine with "halflings are mostly weak, but here's an exception: a bodybuilding halfling who is strong." But strangely, you want there to be limitations on the halfling. Hmm.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You could.

But then why are the Paladin's doing this? Its not a very 'Good' act.

Because they consider the orcs to be impure. Also orc lands have valuable natural resources. But grats for figuring out that the paladins are the bad guys in this scenario. They of course claim to be righteous, and probably even believe it themselves. That's how these things go.

 

[Ixal]

And if you're fine with "emerald dragons are mostly lawful and reclusive, but there can be exceptions," then you should be fine with "halflings are mostly weak, but here's an exception: a bodybuilding halfling who is strong." But strangely, you want there to be limitations on the halfling. Hmm.

And a Str 13 halfling is pretty strong.
For a halfling when everyone else is Str 8. (assuming a -2 Str which they had in the past)

 

[Scribe]

Sounds about right. Do you assume that monsters should always be ready to attack? Because I'm fine with monsters that are docile until something provokes them. Especially monsters with nearly human levels of Intelligence.

Nope, various creatures can have different motivations. Especially 'thinking' ones. Not a problem.

Right, just like how you're free to change things where the monster entry says "maybe this, maybe that."

Sure, I do so all the time.

From a meta-historical perspective, the evil gods are just a justification to killing monsters for XP.

I think so too. A bit of revisionist history type thing. In the end, saying a God did it still doesn't work, as you noted.

Which is why I feel that removing or reworking this sort of nonsense doesn't lead to blandness. It leads to options, to providing inspiration for coming up with things that make sense.

That's fine. I like my purchases to say something beyond heres a grab bag of options.

Why are you comparing mortal, flesh-and-blood humanoids to fiends and undead? You do realize that fiends and undead have a very alien mindset and physiology due to what passes for their biology, right?

Who says? Why should a fiend or thinking undead not have the same scope for thought as an Orc, or Elf, or Human?

I like my thinking undead.

And if you're fine with "emerald dragons are mostly lawful and reclusive, but there can be exceptions," then you should be fine with "halflings are mostly weak, but here's an exception: a bodybuilding halfling who is strong." But strangely, you want there to be limitations on the halfling. Hmm.

Because one is a behavior, the other is a biology limitation, at least in any logical World building when looking at a small child like frame.

 

[Minigiant]

It all boils down to how well the setting is designed. That's it. Nothing else.

If the DM has a vibrant world with clear, defined, and consistent cultural motifs, themes and behaviors - then your problem is solved.

If the DM wants to run a cantina setting where players get to choose, which is most D&D tables, then they are humans in funny hats.

The last factor is that of limitations. If you, as DM created a world with two races, each distinct and at war with one another, there would never be a talk about humans in funny hats. Never. But, the more options you add, the greater risk you run of humans in funny hats.

In my humble opinion, you will never lose the two sides. It is a balancing act on the DM's part. It is up to the table to decide which they prefer.

I think it's less more opinions and more opinions without greater differentiation.

The more races you add, the more work you have to put in to make races feel different. Because the more races you have the more similarities races will have with humans and each other UNTIL the designer says they don't.

 

[Scribe]

Because they consider the orcs to be impure. Also orc lands have valuable natural resources. But grats for figuring out that the paladins are the bad guys in this scenario. They of course claim to be righteous, and probably even believe it themselves. That's how these things go.

Well thats the thing though. They are performing an Evil act, assuming the Orcs are not doing anything to provoke such behavior. This is a very standard trope we see in any kind of fiction.

The Lawful 'Good' organization becomes too absorbed in fighting Evil, that it eventually finds Evil wherever it looks. Organization then has a reckoning, and a protagonist (or companion of the protagonist) highlights the injustices perpetrated by the Lawful 'Good' organization, who either protest to the end that they are justified, leading to conflict, or a schism is introduced in the organization, or, they repent and the hero/companion gets their time in the sun as they bring the organization back to their original noble ideals.

I dont know, all I see here, is a nice plot hook, where Alignment makes perfect sense, assuming there is an understanding of Good, and Evil that the table agrees upon or at least can understand.

I again, must bring up Wrath of the Righteous.

There is a character.

Spoiler

Named Ember. She is Good. Like, FULL ON GOODNESS. She prays for the Demon Lords to repent and be happy. She defends a Demon being bullied. She's just flat out, pure NG. She would defend the Orcs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because they consider the orcs to be impure. Also orc lands have valuable natural resources. But grats for figuring out that the paladins are the bad guys in this scenario. They of course claim to be righteous, and probably even believe it themselves. That's how these things go.

At this point, having the paladins be the bad guys is no more clever than the other way around. Upended tropes eventually just become more tropes.

 

[Scribe]

At this point, having the paladins be the bad guys is no more clever than the other way around. Upended tropes eventually just become more tropes.

I mean it literally is a trope at this point, has been for a very long time.

 

[Faolyn]

Nope, various creatures can have different motivations. Especially 'thinking' ones. Not a problem.

So why is it a problem that some yeti docile and some are mean?

That's fine. I like my purchases to say something beyond heres a grab bag of options.

So, you're OK with creatures having different motivations as long as the text doesn't say that they can have different motivations?

Who says? Why should a fiend or thinking undead not have the same scope for thought as an Orc, or Elf, or Human?

I like my thinking undead.

Because one is a behavior, the other is a biology limitation, at least in any logical World building when looking at a small child like frame.

Behavior is biological in nature. I say this as someone who is an aspie and takes medicine for psychological issues. When I was little, my parents thought I was an adorably quirky little girl. Then, several decades later I got my diagnosis and discovered that a lot of those adorable quirks were actually entirely typical behaviors for autistic girls. If a monster has a particular mentality--like emerald dragons being lawful and reclusive (and, in 2e at least, paranoid)--then that means that their mentality is also biological in nature.

Chimps have a small, child-like frame and are about twice as strong as a human is. There are actual real-world children who are body-builders and can lift a lot, like Richard Sandrak. After all, the average halfling in 5e has Strength 10 (no matter how much you might homebrew them with a penalty, by RAW it's Strength 10), meaning they're exactly as strong as an elf or tiefling and only a wee bit weaker than an average, Strength 11 human. So there's no real reason to assume that one couldn't be stronger. (Plus, halflings could be build like chimps.)

So if a creature can have a mentality that's different than the norm, then there's nothing to say that a creature can have a physical ability that's different than the norm either.

As for fiends and undead, there's that pesky negative energy and raw evil that tends to alter how they think. If you want to have vampires and liches and the like not be animated by the negative energy plane, and fiends not be created out of damned souls and molded by the pure evil emanations of the lower planes, go ahead.

 

[Scribe]

So why is it a problem that some yeti docile and some are mean?

It isnt. Just give me the 'typical' without the wishy-washy humming and hawing over what it could be because we dont want to offend anyone.

So, you're OK with creatures having different motivations as long as the text doesn't say that they can have different motivations?

Pretty much, since there is an expectation that individuals can differ from the 'typical' that is representative of the whole.

Behavior is biological in nature. I say this as someone who is an aspie and takes medicine for psychological issues. When I was little, my parents thought I was an adorably quirky little girl. Then, several decades later I got my diagnosis and discovered that a lot of those adorable quirks were actually entirely typical behaviors for autistic girls. If a monster has a particular mentality--like emerald dragons being lawful and reclusive (and, in 2e at least, paranoid)--then that means that their mentality is also biological in nature.

Ehh...kind of. I dont know that we need to get into this without going off the rails. Biology absolutely has a hand in psychological issues, but are we going to really say that someone is cheerful and outgoing simply due to biology? I dont think I buy that one.

Chimps have a small, child-like frame and are about twice as strong as a human is. There are actual real-world children who are body-builders and can lift a lot, like Richard Sandrak.

Sure thing, and Richard (yikes, not a fan of his story) if he had continued (and had not absorbed any trauma as a child to his body...) could lift FAR FAR more as an adult. Yes, biologically distinct entities can have different attributes, thats what a +2 to Str is for after all.

So if a creature can have a mentality that's different than the norm, then there's nothing to say that a creature can have a physical ability that's different than the norm either.

Correct. Racial ASI.

As for fiends and undead, there's that pesky negative energy and raw evil that tends to alter how they think. If you want to have vampires and liches and the like not be animated by the negative energy plane, and fiends not be created out of damned souls and molded by the pure evil emanations of the lower planes, go ahead.

I dont agree with that. While the planes could/will (interpretation's depending on Good/Evil/Planar Influence) it doesnt have to be that way.

After all, as Wrath of the Righteous asks "If an Angel can fall, why can't a Demon ascend?"