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

[Lyxen]

Nah mate, you're opposing your own misunderstanding of the title. Don Quixote away!

Yeah, right: "The reason for the ability fluidity in the first place is to avoid the appearance of racism." And why Factionalism (and not factionism) and not racialism (instead of the other word).

Can you PLEASE stop antagonizing us. We've already talked about this. You can disagree without trying to make us look bad. This is so disrespectful. You complain we don't respond to your arguments, but you keep doing stuff like this. please stop.

I'm making YOU look bad ? Really ? I am antagonising you? I almost made a pot/kettle reference, but I suppose that this is banned as well because of the comparison in the proverb. Honestly...

 

[Bolares]

Well, I tried...

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Having culture and nations be the first focus also does not exclude those cultures to have racist views. There was a whole purge of shifters done by Thranes that believed they were werewolves is the settings past. The main point is that they were wrong and the nation today has to live with the consequences of the bigotry of the past.

Indeed, when I wrote replaced I thought "as the dominant reasoning" not that it totally removed racism. Though I think it somehow does it, but it's less striking because it has been toned down from many other settings at the same time. Interestingly, the Silver Crusade happened 200 years before the starting default date... Its impact on the current resident of Khorvaire would be like the Napoleonic wars on today's people. I am pretty sure Napeoleon didn't make a good impression in Spain but (and I'd like to have the opinion of Spanish readers here) I don't think many people from Spain still feel outraged by the invasion, and Dos de mayo by Goya has the same impact on any viewer, irrespective of nationality.

 

[Bolares]

Its impact on the current resident of Khorvaire would be like the Napoleonic wars on today's people.

In a world where a lot of people that lived then are still alive I don't think the comparison is 100% fair. There is a faction in Droaam (the dark pact) that was directly affected by the silver crusade, shifter relations in aundair thrane and eldeen reaches are impacted by the silver crusade, the pure flame extremists are impacted by it too.

 

[Lyxen]

I never said Eberron invented factionalism, that's absurd. I just said Eberron does it very well and in all instances of it's world building.

And all Im saying is that there is little in Eberron that does it so much better than other settings including very ancient ones in particular for the demi-humans EXCEPT (but it's a notable exception) for the humanoids, where it's really much better than previous settings. For me this is the crucial change, and it's linked to another very important change in Eberron which was the toning down of alignment except in a few extreme cases. Which is something that a lot of tables had been doing for years in my experience, but it was really refreshing and cool to have it in an official setting.

The difference is that Eberron was created thinking culture first. There are nations that are almost, if not straight up, exclusionists, like Aerenal, the talenta plains and Riedra. But that exclusionism has a reason to happen. Aerenal isn't just "elf nation", there is a reason in lore for that culture to have only elves in it. Every nation has a built in reason for their diversity or lack of it. A setting being nation/culture/faction first doesn't necessarily mean race will not be important, or that there will be no exclusionary nations.

And, once more, you have exactly the same thing in Greyhawk, which has even culture/race pattern (even with humans if you look a suel/baklunish). Nothing exceptional there, and for exactly the same reasons, some races are more reclusive and there are reasons, which is necessary for a setting anyway.

 

[Minigiant]

Sometimes nonsensical, but no, certainly less bland. I'm not sure about the "restrictive". Although I will admit that it's good that WotC adresses the implicit "always" in the alignment of some races, I would like to point out that 3e already did it quite well at the time and honestly, even in BECMI or AD&D we had absolutely no problem ignoring the

Restrictive meaning the culture only working in certain Coates or needing mind control.

But Elf dwarf Halfling orc in D&D are and have always been bland as hell.

And that is exactly what I'm protesting against. At least the racial stats made some sort of sense, as well as the different types of vision in previous editions, it gave at least an edge.

As for the mindset, this is much more about roleplaying, and there have been intersting strong mindsets, although some were quite tolkienish, there were already fairly different takes on them even in previous editions, see the Elfes of Alfheim or those of Spelljammer.

That's the point

People we're roleplaying these bland, low mechanics, easy mode races poorly and sucking it up because fans don't question DMs.

But when those players became DMs and when the internet exploded, they had the ability to criticize lazy or simplistic design in mass.

 

[John R Davis]

That doesn't seem accurate.

In both cases they're humanoids, vulnerable to the same kinds of magic, with the same kinds of strengths and weaknesses. Orcs might hit a little harder in melee and bit a little harder to kill, but it's a small percentage gap.

I don't see how entirely 2/3rds of your tactics would differ from one to the other. In either case, the positioning and armament of the bandits will be vastly more important to your choice of tactics than their race.

Elven Bandits might demand a tactic change because they're invulnerable to Sleep.

Darkvision
Fluff based on previous orc bandit attacks (weapons they favour, tactics they use)
Historic tendency to be less organised
Difficult to try and communicate with if they only speak orc
Historic tendency to want to get into melee quicker, as they can hit harder, and have various traits
Able to drag things off better
and
Fluff based on previous or bandit attacks

so loads, unless orcs in your world are bland and just humans in a rubber mask

 

[Bolares]

"Aggressive.
As a bonus action, the orc can move up to its speed toward a hostile creature that it can see."
I think this is a important tactical reason to specify if the bandits are orcs.

 

[jmartkdr2]

No, I wouldnt say so, certainly not that would supplant a national one.

Anthropologist here: your work absolutely has a culture, as do families, neighborhoods, and provinces. Cultures are fractal.

 

[Marandahir]

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



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.

I'd argue that it's a bit of both. Keith Baker's own blog describes how Elvish minds are truly alien from human ones.

Try reading this blog post about the nature of Elvish, Elves, and Half-elves.
http://keith-baker.com/ifaq-elvish/

In Keith Baker's version of the world, Elves intrinsically known Elvish, as do other Elf-related creatures with Fey Ancestry (such as Half-elves), but if you were a Dwarf somehow raised by a family of Elves you'd have to learn it the hard way. You still might trade Dwarvish for Elvish in your character's Lineage features, but your relationship to the language is different, since Elves are born with the language seared into their brains.

So lineage and culture, in Keith Baker's version of Eberron at least, are two separate layers that should not be confused. Unfortunately, D&D 5e has been bundling the two layers together until now. We can now pull apart the pieces, and the default assumption is that features like basal ASIs and proficiencies (language/skill/tool) are culturally-based while other formerly racial features are lineage-based.

As a side not to this whole discussion, I think there's also a big opportunity to define cultures WITHIN "subraces." The three Drow cultures newly defined are a great example. They'd all share the Elf - Drow features. But they're different domains of the Drow with their own cultures.

Likewise, Sun and Moon Elves are both High Elves (with some Eladrin mixed in) in the FR, while Wood and Wild elves are both Wood Elves in the FR. Gold Dwarves and Shield Dwarves don't fit perfectly into the defined Hill and Mountain dwarf cultures from the 5e PHB, but they're still variations on those lineages, while we've got the 5e Mind-Flayer-enslaved Duergar and the 4e Infernal-pact red-bearded Duergar as great examples of different Grey Dwarf cultures.

We don't need endless varieties of Elves and Dwarves for every environ, but like Humans can have numerous nations and cultures within the already established types. New Elven lineages should not be created unless there's a major reason they can't be reflected in the forms we've already had or can't just have a Prof swap like Aereni and Valenar have in "Eberron: Rising From the Last War."