D&D 5E Yes to factionalism. No to racism.

[Lyxen]

You haven't "shown" (i.e. demonstrated proof) of anything except that you don't understand was "factionalism vs racism" means, sorry.

And you haven't even read my post. I protest against the removal of races with extremely different characteristics as a driver for differences. See how it is on earth, with simply ethnicities with no technical differences, we already have very strong cultures derivation and differences. I think it's stupid, in a purely fantasy world where there are huge technical differences between various races/species, to deny that it makes for a much richer and vibrant world when the cultural differences logically derive from these differences (and where these differences can be traced back to myths and legends, which make it even better).

And "factions" is just another silly word thrown in there without reason, because "culturism" doesn't make the cut where as racism can be totally ambiguous, especially when, again as demonstrated, it is certainly used in a much more nasty context by the same poster on exactly the same kind of topic. And when, as you pointed out, when factionalism was used, but no, racialism was rejected out of hand although it's the same kind of construct, instead falling back on the insulting word. This is intentional and degrading.

So no, "factionalism" leads only to humans in funny hats, and actually to just different kind of stereotypes, most of which will end up being taken as offensive anyway. At some point, you need to recognize what is happening for what it is.

 

[Bolares]

Well, it was good while it lasted. Let’s go back to the same old discussion about floating ASI and tashas changes we had 25 times…

 

[Lyxen]

Don’t you see the irony that this is exactly what you’ve done from your first post here? Not trying to start a fight or anything, but c’mon, this is not the first time this happens. No one is calling anyone racist here, that’s not what’s happening.

But it is, unfortunately, otherwise a different, less provocative title would have been chosen, especially when you look at previous posts from the same author. But please enjoy making factions without them being, of course, tribes, nomadic, primitive, etc. because all of these are insulting too.

And, once more, if you want to discuss, you are welcome to answer the part of my post where I explain where factions are merely funny hats, whereas fantasy races, potentially linked back to myth, make a much stronger support for a richer culture. All of this avoiding any real world stereotypes, like Runequest Trolls, Morokanths or elves do, so that there is no possible confusion.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, though I think positioning is very important too.

There will be situations where the race is of high importance. Orcs aren't one of those, because their specific abilities just make them slightly more dangerous in melee.

Dragonborn would matter because potentially a bunch of them could use their breath weapons, and if the party was stacked, that could easily cause a problem.

Satyrs or Yuan-Ti would matter because they have generalized magic-resist so it might be a bad idea to use spells on them as a primary tactic.

Some other races might have specific resistances, but the impact is likely to be low in most cases.

Yes, outside of a few races the race race of a potential attacker in D&D is usually of low priority.

Even for dragonborn, it really doesn't matter as npc dragonborn dragon breath is so weak that it really is the number of attackers you worry about. And if the numbers are high, race again doesn't matter.

 

[Minigiant]

And, once more, if you want to discuss, you are welcome to answer the part of my post where I explain where factions are merely funny hats, whereas fantasy races, potentially linked back to myth, make a much stronger support for a richer culture. All of this avoiding any real world stereotypes, like Runequest Trolls, Morokanths or elves do, so that there is no possible confusion.

The point you miss is that most tables don't roleplay race that deep. WOTC and TSR have both set up the community to roleplay weakly and after a few decades it had effects.

They usually roleplay factions deep because WOTC, TSR, and other companies taught factions better.

 

[Bolares]

But it is, unfortunately, otherwise a different, less provocative title would have been chosen, especially when you look at previous posts from the same author.

C'mon, @Ruin Explorer has already explained why the title is not saying what you thought it said when you first read it. It happens to the best of us, let it go. No one was calling anyone a racist, if they were, moderation would've already steped in.

And, once more, if you want to discuss, you are welcome to answer the part of my post where I explain where factions are merely funny hats, whereas fantasy races, potentially linked back to myth, make a much stronger support for a richer culture. All of this avoiding any real world stereotypes, like Runequest Trolls, Morokanths or elves do, so that there is no possible confusion.

Factions can be funny hats, sure, but races can be too, there is a thread with hundreds of pages archived here in enworld discussing how halflings are just humans with funny hats. faction here is interchangeable with nation and culture. all those serve the same purpose here, giving more depth and diversity to races. I think it's really lazy to make every single race so monolitical. The same race should have more than one culture, the same culture should have more than one race. I've said it before here, but Eberron does this very well for the most part of two decades now. Race is way less important than nation for cultural identity in that setting, and it is one of the settings with the least ocurrances of "humans in funny hats". It's okay for you to not like factionalism, just don't state it as a fact that it can't be done well.

 

[Lyxen]

Yes, outside of a few races the race race of a potential attacker in D&D is usually of low priority.

And that's because the races have been rendered bland and uninteresting. It used to be (and it's still the case in other RPGs) that being attacked by elves in woods (although there the natural hiding might actually be a good differentiator), dwarves underground or (for Runequest) trolls in darkness actually made it terrifying, and choosing your battlefield compared to your foe was actually really interesting. These are common fantasy tropes and sufficiently removed from standard stereotypes that they should not cause any problem. And all these come from race, not culture and not faction.

 

[Lyxen]

Factions can be funny hats, sure, but races can be too, there is a thread with hundreds of pages archived here in enworld discussing how halflings are just humans with funny hats.

And that is because halflings did not find their niche despite a number of attempts, they could not be hobbits so they became even blander than other races in D&D.

faction here is interchangeable with nation and culture. all those serve the same purpose here, giving more depth and diversity to races. I think it's really lazy to make every single race so monolitical. The same race should have more than one culture, the same culture should have more than one race.

And I have certainly advocated for that as well, for example in my example in Glorantha, Trolls have many cultures, whereas a number of various races (human, agimori, morokanth, baboons, etc. even the chaotic broos to some extent) all share in the nomadic global culture of Prax (still wtih their local and sometimes important differences due to race and myth).

But all this points out to the fact that nations & cultures are certainly nice to have, but it's the combination with race that really brings in the strength and variety of the fantasy world.

And it has the huge additional advantage of making the stereotypes definitely non-human, as in the examples I gave, which in turn prevents any insinuation of applicability to the real world and defuses appropriation of the concept for other purposes.

I've said it before here, but Eberron does this very well for the most part of two decades now. Race is way less important than nation for cultural identity in that setting, and it is one of the settings with the least ocurrances of "humans in funny hats". It's okay for you to not like factionalism, just don't state it as a fact that it can't be done well.

It's not entirely true for Eberron, in particular if you look at the gnomes and the elves. Eberron did a better mix than some other settings in some areas, it's true, but I would like to point out that, even right at the start, even the drow culture of Erelhei-Cinlu was certainly not monolithic.

 

[Minigiant]

And that's because the races have been rendered bland and uninteresting. It used to be (and it's still the case in other RPGs) that being attacked by elves in woods (although there the natural hiding might actually be a good differentiator), dwarves underground or (for Runequest) trolls in darkness actually made it terrifying, and choosing your battlefield compared to your foe was actually really interesting. These are common fantasy tropes and sufficiently removed from standard stereotypes that they should not cause any problem. And all these come from race, not culture and not faction.

It was always bland, restrictive, and sometimes nonsensical.

Nothing about the D&D elf makes it the most ultimately suited race for woodland fighting. And they barely have special woodland powers nor features. And they don't have alien mindsets. So end up with a race restricted to a climate to make up for bad rules or saving book page space.

 

[Bolares]

And I have certainly advocated for that as well, for example in my example in Glorantha, Trolls have many cultures, whereas a number of various races (human, agimori, morokanth, baboons, etc. even the chaotic broos to some extent) all share in the nomadic global culture of Prax (still wtih their local and sometimes important differences due to race and myth).

This is exactly what the OP is asking for. So what, in the thread are you oposing to?

It's not entirely true for Eberron, in particular if you look at the gnomes and the elves. Eberron did a better mix than some other settings in some areas, it's true, but I would like to point out that, even right at the start, even the drow culture of Erelhei-Cinlu was certainly not monolithic.

Gnomes have a big faction with it's own culture (house sivis), a nation with a separate culture (Zilargo) and can be found in more mixed cultures like the five nations. Elves have a drangormarked faction, two distinctive nations, three distinctive drow cultures and also can be found in the five nations well integrated. Those are perfect examples of what we are talking about here. Being an elf is the least thing that describes your culture in Eberron. Where that elf is from is waaay more important. Culture/nation/faction first, race second is the way eberron has ever gone.