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

[Oofta]

I think @Bacon Bits touched on the heart of the issue and it's solution.

Poor form:
"You're surrounded by orcs, roll for initiative."

Better form:
"You're surrounded by orc bandits, roll for initiative."

Best form:
"You're surrounded by bandits, roll for initiative."

I agree ... however I do think whether the bandits are orcs, elves, humans or gnomes chittering from the trees staring down at you with their beady black eyes glinting evilly does give some flavor and context to the scenario.

 

[Umbran]

I'm making YOU look bad ? Really ? I am antagonising you?

Mod Note:
Having read through your exchanges, yes, actually, you are.

You enter to reject the notion of the thread, and then to stand there and continue to reject it for page after page after page, not adding anything new, and getting in the way of other discussion. That is antagonizing.

You seem to have said your piece, so it is time for you to go, or to actually add something new and constructive.

 

[Bolares]

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."

Oh, I've read that ifaq, I try to read every article Keith makes. I'm not saying race doesn't matter in Eberron. Of course it does. Most of the elf cultures are greatly impacted by racial features like elf longevity. What I'm saying is that Culture is first and race is second.

 

[Oofta]

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.

When you have dozens (hundreds?) of races and sub-races how much depth can you expect?

 

[Bolares]

When you have dozens (hundreds?) of races and sub-races how much depth can you expect?

Well, you don't need to have depth for all races in every setting as a default. You can develop the race when a player shows interest in it. And not every race has to be a sprawling culture. They can be an experiment, planar or arcane creation, curse, demonic bargain. A player can be unique or the race rare....

 

[Minigiant]

"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.

Eh.

Only if the orcs start really far away.

 

[Bolares]

Eh.

Only if the orcs start really far away.

Or want to pass the meat shield and focus the weak casters, or want to go for another target after hitting the frontline.

 

[Minigiant]

The point is many people don't even roleplay the BASE races well.

Then if they manage that they barely add more factions or surfaces.

We rarely get to 12.

When you have dozens (hundreds?) of races and sub-races how much depth can you expect?

 

[Marandahir]

Oh, I've read that ifaq, I try to read every article Keith makes. I'm not saying race doesn't matter in Eberron. Of course it does. Most of the elf cultures are greatly impacted by racial features like elf longevity. What I'm saying is that Culture is first and race is second.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you Bolares in particular needed schooling in Keith's musings on Eberron and this topic.

Just thought it was important to add to the discussion and was building off your post in particular (my post was as much a response to Minigiant and Lyxen as it was to you!). I think culture is definitely important, but I think we're vastly under-utilising the potential of alien mindset and experiences when it comes to playing non-humans.

There's a real danger that some others in this forum have alluded to and that is that everything becomes a planet of hats - humans in all but name - rather than really exploring what it means to be an Elf or a Dwarf or a Minotaur or a Vedalken or a Warforged in this fantasy world.

And in some settings, that's okay. Some people just want them to be humans in all but name, and have badass abilities but not have to worry about how an Elf would approach this differently.

But even grandpappy J.R.R. Tolkien tried to dive into the physiology and psychology of differences between Elves and Humans and Dwarves and Ents and Hobbits and Orcs and Trolls and Dragons and Maiar and Valar; in his world, you have your lineage first, and then your culture is a subsection of that because Dwarves and Elves and Humans build entirely different cultures. He also had people like Tuor and Eärendil and Aragorn who lived large portions of their lives in settlements of other cultures (Gondolin, Falas, and Rivendell respectively), so you could definitely say that those cultural aspects affected them and their characters. But as a rule, you didn't have mixed-lineage cultures in Middle-Earth because the uniting of different cultures was the whole point of the campaign (whether the Last Alliance, the Company of Thorin, or the Fellowship of the Ring). These are stories of mixed bedfellows fighting against a common enemy.

It should also be noted that even Tolkien said the Wise would advise that if an orc has been captured or has surrendered, they should be offered mercy even in their confinement, rather than killed for being an orc, but that in times of war, not all "free peoples" did the right thing and the sides of battle become a lot murkier. I believe that Peter Jackson et al were trying to portray this muddled morality when the elven-king Thranduil murders an Gundabad orc hunter that Legolas and Tauriel had captured, just for saying that his master serves "the One" i.e. Sauron. Thranduil is morally muddled much like Boromir or Denethor are. The Orc was evil, but evil alone does not mean kill it and take its stuff. It might mean kill it if that's the only way to survive the combat encounter, though, and certainly orcs were used as cannon fodder.

But look at the orcs of Goblin-town (in the movies). They're bad, and aligned with Azog's Gundabad orcs. But Thorin's passing through their domain is as much a political conflict as it is a moral-ethical dilemma. The orcs and dwarves have been at war for centuries, Thorin himself has killed many orcs, and now he's brought a company of orcs trespassing into the Great Goblin's domain. This is a whole society, even if a wretched abomination of one. And Thorin is a fellow king that is, at first, offered a humorous bow from the Goblin King - he is King Under the Mountain. Only, he hasn't got a Mountain. And he's not really a king anymore. Smaug, in fact, is now King Under the Mountain. And other factions like Thranduil's elves or Saruman the White and Elrond or Bard the Bowman's supporters in Lake-town who remember the fall of Dale don't want to let Thorin back in the mountain lest he wake the sleeping Dragon and create problems for their nations and interests. So The Hobbit is telling a story of home and theft and conquest and trying to take back homelands and all the political intrigue that comes along with it, which beyond the good and evil factions can be explored with opposing nations of obstensibly good or neutral peoples. It's more like a modern day political border crisis like when a country invades their neighbours and seizes territory, but nobody will do anything about it because they don't want full-scale all-out war.

Where am I going with all this? I guess my point is that lineage should not go the way of the dodo and be replaced by culture. In some worlds, culture is higher priority for a character's background than lineage is. But in other worlds, your lineage defines your culture, by and large, so culture should be subservient. Especially when in those worlds, the actual NPC peoples might be racist and kill all orcs or drow on sight because they've never met a good orc or drow. But when we come to BASELINE ASSUMPTIONS of the game, D&D is enthusiastically a generalist TTRPG, and has to remain so, so it has to serve both masters, those who want clear moral lines and those who want ambiguity and cultural flexibility.

Any layering of factionalism into D&D as a primary character pillar should be in such a way that it does not diminish lineage but can be interswapped or swapped in priority with lineage. That is to say, you should be able to pull apart the factional and lineage pillars in the DM's toolbox to create character stories that serve the needs of the campaign world. But the game should also have easy prefab options that suggest ASIs, proficiencies, etc lest the game lose players in the confusion of options paralysis...

 

[Bolares]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you Bolares in particular needed schooling in Keith's musings on Eberron and this topic.

Oh no worries, I will NEVER get mad for someone posting one of keith's blogs