• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

Chimps have a small, child-like frame and are about twice as strong as a human is.
That's common misconception. Both parts. Chimps are larger than people usually assume. We tend to see young bonobo chimps, as those are used to perform tricks on TV etc. Male adult common chimpanzee (these are the ones which are really dangerous if they attack) can be almost five feet tall and weight 70 kilos. And they still are only one and half times as strong as humans pound for pound. Meaning that a large and strong human is actually stronger than a chimp.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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 don't think that "cleverness" has anything to do with it. It's just less expected in most cases. Paladins are still often thought of as "always good holy warriors", even if it is a common trope to turn that on its head. The same applies to every single D&D trope. I wouldn't say that any of the tropes that Eberron subverts/inverts are particularly "clever" exactly, but most of them are interesting (IMO), and there is more than one way to play with a trope. If you need an example, just read some books by Brandon Sanderson (Mistborn for example).
 
Last edited:


That's common misconception. Both parts. Chimps are larger than people usually assume. We tend to see young bonobo chimps, as those are used to perform tricks on TV etc. Male adult common chimpanzee (these are the ones which are really dangerous if they attack) can be almost five feet tall and weight 70 kilos. And they still are only one and half times as strong as humans pound for pound. Meaning that a large and strong human is actually stronger than a chimp.
If you're referring to the New Scientist article, even that one says that chimps are stronger, it's just that humans have more endurance than they do, so we can usually out-perform them.

But anyway, the differences in muscle and bone between humans and chimps and bonobos--I had another article that indicated that bonobos could out-highjump humans by quite a bit, but then my computer crashed and I lost the page--even if it's only a slight difference, means that there could very well be differences in the muscle and bone between humans and halflings, so that halflings can be as strong as humans (which they basically are anyway) and having one who's super-strong isn't a biological impossibility.
 

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.
It's pretty well accepted in the psychological community that biology plays a larger role in how you think, feel and make decisions than the environment does. I've seen a lot of happy infants turn into happy kids and then happy adults, while the grumpy infants turn into grumpy kids who turn into grumpy adults.

 

If you're referring to the New Scientist article, even that one says that chimps are stronger, it's just that humans have more endurance than they do, so we can usually out-perform them.
Stronger for their weight yes.

But anyway, the differences in muscle and bone between humans and chimps and bonobos--I had another article that indicated that bonobos could out-highjump humans by quite a bit, but then my computer crashed and I lost the page
There definitely are differences. Chimps are stronger for their weight than humans, so it makes sense they could be better at jumping (jumping requires you to move your own weight after all.)

--even if it's only a slight difference, means that there could very well be differences in the muscle and bone between humans and halflings, so that halflings can be as strong as humans (which they basically are anyway) and having one who's super-strong isn't a biological impossibility.
Sure, in theory this could be the case. And the elephant people could have weaker muscles. But at least to me is strains credulity if nature would somehow conspire to make it so that every intelligent species would just happen to be equally strong despite to their size. 🤷
 

It's pretty well accepted in the psychological community that biology plays a larger role in how you think, feel and make decisions than the environment does. I've seen a lot of happy infants turn into happy kids and then happy adults, while the grumpy infants turn into grumpy kids who turn into grumpy adults.


Factor? Absolutely. Biggest factor? Perhaps.

I unfortunately have considerable personal experience with behavioral issues, psychological issues, and mental health throughout my family, both immediate and extended.

Clearly, biology plays a factor, but its not the only factor.

That said, if we want to say 'behavior is biology' in D&D, well be my guest. That doesn't exactly dissuade me from my argument that there would be 'typical' alignment (if Alignment is behavior), any more than a chimp (biologically distinct from a human) has a different ASI spread than humans would either. ;)
 

Race as class! Race as class!

Seth Meyers Lol GIF by Late Night with Seth Meyers
 

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.
You know, nobody is actually offended by alignments. Annoyed that alignments are used primarily as a shortcut to saying what monsters can be killed while not having any true justification for it, and bothered that sometimes, the terms used to describe the evil races has disturbing similarities to real world racism (such as the "domesticated" orcs in Volo's). But offended? No.

And the next question is, why do you need to know what the "typical" whatever is prone to attacking or not? If you have an adventure in the snowy mountains and you want to have some monsters attack, and you like the idea of the yeti's paralyzing gaze and fear of fire, use them! You don't need the book's permission to have them attack. You just need to know that this one particular yeti or group of yeti will attack. You don't even need to make a reason for the attack, if you don't want to. This one group of yeti just attacked.

But when you decide that the typical whatever will attack, then yes, you need to have a very good reason for that.

Pretty much, since there is an expectation that individuals can differ from the 'typical' that is representative of the whole.
So... what are humans typically like?

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.
You may want to read up on this sort of stuff. It's pretty fascinating. Humans are controlled a lot more by their biology than many people want to think.

Heck, you don't even have to look at humans. Look at cats and dogs. Purebred animals have so many behavioral traits that are linked to their breed, which yes, can include general disposition. We had a cat that we found as an young adult stray, a big fluffy gray cat with furry pantaloons, who always used to follow us around when we went from room to room. We liked to joke that she was using us to check for land mines. Purely by luck, we discovered that she had all the traits of a non-show quality nebelung, which at that point was a very new breed (coincidentally, we had named her Nebula, because she was a cloud of dust). One of the breed's traits is following their favorite humans around from room to room. We think that she had been thrown out for not being show quality--either that, or it's because she ate furniture.

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. ;)
Sure. But an adult halfling with adult musculature and an adult skeletal system--which is going to be different than that of a human because they are different species--could also, potentially, lift quite a lot as well.

(And yes, that poor kid.)

Correct. Racial ASI.
No, because (a) racial ASI isn't being used anymore, especially since there are far more flavorful ways to indicate racial traits than a dull stat bonus, and (b) still would indicate "the norm", so a creature could be radically different from that.

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.
Sure. Now you just have to ignore 40+ years of canon lore to rewrite it in a way that you prefer.
 

Sure, in theory this could be the case. And the elephant people could have weaker muscles. But at least to me is strains credulity if nature would somehow conspire to make it so that every intelligent species would just happen to be equally strong despite to their size. 🤷
Well, there's your problem: evolution isn't really a thing in D&D-land. Everything was made by the gods, or at least by beings of godlike power. I mean, it's a setting where not only humanoids and dragons can interbreed, despite being part of radically different classes of animal, but where humanoids can interbreed with intelligent rocks and water to produce viable young.

Nature washed her hands of it all and went off to get very, very drunk ages ago.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top