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

[Lyxen]

Backgrounds are especially useful to represent a culture because each specifies one of the roles within the culture.

No, background do nothing to represent culture. As written, there is absolutely zero difference between an acolyte in a fairly primitive culture and one in a very civilised one. Also, generic backgrounds are, RAW, available in any culture, whereas backgrounds provided in adventures are not necessarily tied to a specific culture, but just to an environment. For example the variation on acolyte in BGDiA just ties it to one religious community in Baldur's GAt,e but after that it might be in a specific area of BG or even in Little Calimshan which has its own very specific culture, and there is no specification there.

A background is just a role within society, but if that society is multicultural (which is often the case in developed settings), it does nothing in itself to define the culture.

 

[Yaarel]

Consider the D&D gith tradition, since the 2e Fiend Folio. There are the githyanki variant and the githzerai variant.

The githyanki variant associates with what looks like an assemblage of separate cultural factions. The factions mainly describe different military traditions, thus these kinds of factions favor particular combat classes.

Githyanki include the following characterizations:

• Vaguely necromantic, theyre visually skeletal, lich-led, apparently wielding death magic as the astral-cord-cutting "silver sword".
• Theyre the original "gish", a Fighter/Magic-User.
• A Magic-User is called a "warlock".
• Illusionists are known among them.
• Theyre famously psionic, relating to their earlier alteration by mindflayers.
• There is a Fighter tradition.
• There is even an "anti-paladin" "knight" tradition.

D&D describes a complex military culture. At least, these are distinctive institutional cultures, perhaps even separate githyanki ethnicities subjugated by an imperial lich monarch.

Minimally, there are at least three cultural factions, if we combine some descriptions into a faction. For example, presumably, the arcane faction that comprises gish and warlock is also responsible for the necromancy that produced the lich and the necro theme. The Fighter tradition might train psionically. Depending on esthetic preference, one might characterize the factions as follows.

Necro faction
• Eldritch Knight, "gish"
• Necromancer Wizard or Undead Warlock, "warlock"

Psi faction
• Psi Knight
• Psion (?)

Sacred faction
• Vengeance Paladin (against mindflayers?)

Illusionist faction (perhaps Necro or Psi)
• Illusionist Wizard (or perhaps GOO Warlock?)

Possibly, the necro faction under the leadership of the historical lich monarch (who is still extent) conquered the other factions, forcing them to serve in her military. Each faction has its own history, its own culture, and its own backgrounds. For example, the necro faction might include a background that grants necromantic spell knowledge. The psi faction might have a background granting a psionic "special asset". The sacred faction might have a background for adherents to adopt a sacred way of life, without necessarily becoming Paladins.

In any case, these factional customs and combat traditions describe cultures. It is nurture rather than nature.

 

[Yaarel]

No, background do nothing to represent culture. As written, there is absolutely zero difference between an acolyte in a fairly primitive culture and one in a very civilised one. Also, generic backgrounds are, RAW, available in any culture, whereas backgrounds provided in adventures are not necessarily tied to a specific culture, but just to an environment. For example the variation on acolyte in BGDiA just ties it to one religious community in Baldur's GAt,e but after that it might be in a specific area of BG or even in Little Calimshan which has its own very specific culture, and there is no specification there.

A background is just a role within society, but if that society is multicultural (which is often the case in developed settings), it does nothing in itself to define the culture.

For example, the Descent adventure tweaks the Acolyte background to specifically interact with the interfaith culture of the city of Baldurs Gate. Thus the Acolyte background for this particular local urban culture is different from the Acolyte background elsewhere.

 

[Lyxen]

For example, the Descent adventure tweaks the Acolyte background to specifically interact with the interfaith culture of the city of Baldurs Gate.

There is no such thing as "the interfaith culture", there are multiple faiths very different from each other. The acolyte is just one guy who is connected to these faiths, but it does not create a culture out of it.

Which is why it's another good example of backgrounds not being related to culture.

 

[Lyxen]

D&D describes a complex military culture. At least, these are distinctive institutional cultures, perhaps even separate githyanki ethnicities subjugated by an imperial lich monarch.

Or, you know, these are just classes as in any other military and there is only one military culture there. And maybe the factions are completely political and not based on classes or background or anything technical in the game.

I am not against factions, I love factions in all my adventures, and putting the PCs in the middle of it. But they are not specifically supported by anything in the system, and they don't replace races or religions. Races and religions are also fantastic examples of factions in a fantasy world, and they are part of many perfectly acceptable fantasy tropes. The problem, once more, is not about races or religions or factions or whatever, but about those that mimic real world ones too closely.

So can you please stop trying to reduce the game to only factions ? Yes, factions are great, but they are not a goal in and of themselves and are not a reason to destroy other really good game elements and source of drama.

So, yes to factionism, yes to religious conflict, yes to races conflict, yes to everything that creates drama and adventure as long as everyone around the table is comfortable.

 

[Yaarel]

Decent into Avernus:

"
ACOLYTE
Its said that every faith in the world has a believer in Baldurs Gate. Not only are most established faiths tolerated − even if some of them, including most of the openly evil faiths, are relegated to the Outer Citys Twin Songs neighborhood − but new ones arrive constantly, carried by travelers and proselytizers from far-flung lands. A character with this background might aspire to greater things, not for themselves, but for their faith.

BALDUR'S GATE FEATURE:

RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY
Youre tightly connected with the religious community of Baldurs Gate. You know if a deity has a following in the city and any places that faith openly congregates and the neighborhoods those faithful typically inhabit. While this isn't remarkable for most of the citys larger faiths, keeping track of the hundreds of religions newcomers bring with them is no mean feat.

"

Notice, in Baldurs Gate, the "religious community" (singular) comprises many "religions" (plural).

The adventure utilizes backgrounds to describe the distinctive local urban culture of the city of Baldurs Gate.

 

[Scribe]

Yes, regional job training. Not culture.

 

[Lyxen]

The adventure utilizes backgrounds to describe the distinctive local urban culture of the city of Baldurs Gate.

No, it provides jobs for people in local cultures, since there are obviously many different such cultures (once more, the best example is Little Calimshan). Since the backgrounds are across all these cultures or sub-cultures, it defines none of those.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, regional job training. Not culture.

A "job" is a "systemic culture".

Whether the job is serving as a page in the senate, or making poisoned arrows out of treefrogs, the single job is a single star that is part of the context of the wider constellation that characterizes the ethnic culture.

As jobs change, the culture evolves.

We evolved from medieval agricultural culture into a modern urban culture − because the jobs changed.

 

[Scribe]

A "job" is a "systemic culture".

Whether the job is serving as a page in the senate, or making poisoned arrows out of treefrogs, the single job is a single star that is part of the context of the wider constellation that characterizes the ethnic culture.

As jobs change, the culture evolves.

We evolved from medieval agricultural culture into a modern urban culture − because the jobs changed.

I disagree. Unless your position is that the totality of all you do and experience is your culture (and therefore useless as a game device) then no, your training, is not culture.

Learning to lay bricks, is not a cultural touch stone.