D&D General What is the purpose of race/heritage?

[Reynard]

If it can be tamed, it doesn't have to be fought. That means it's not a monster by the given definition: it can be lived with, because tame animals are by definition things you can live with. They even gave pegasus as an example of a tame mythical creature.

I don't think that is a definition of a monster used by anyone. I've never seen it, anyway. There is a long Christian tradition of monsters being defeated by faith. That doesn't mean they aren't monsters, it means faith is as strong as the classical era demi-gods and swords.

 

[Scott Christian]

Not every minor ability is a ribbon. A ribbon is a simple and small feature that adds flavor to your character without any meaningful impact on the balance of your character, and which the designers specifically did not weigh in terms of balance when designing the class, race, or other player option.

I promise I will let it go after this. Your defining flavor, one in which the character has been allowed to do since I've been playing. Not an ability. This druid likes squirrels, so all their verbal components to their spells sounds like squirrel clicks. This person is a barbarian from the mushroom fields, and when they rage, they turn gray like a mushroom.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Many gods were monsters in a more casual sense.

I'm more confused why "monster" has to be something you fight. That seems a narrow definition, particularly given just...what mythology is. That makes an awful lot of very mythically-resonant creatures "not monsters" because they're either friendly or merely aloof. The Tarrasque, or rather tarasque in the original French, for example, wouldn't be a monster by that definition because it was tamed by a Christian saint (St. Martha) and only died because the city instantly opened fire on the creature as St. Martha led it back to town.


That doesn't really jive with most of the stuff I've seen from official modules, including some people decry as being "for kids."

It certainly doesn't stop us from writing such characters. Which I have. To great effect. My players very much enjoy hating some of my villainous NPCs.


Well...that's sort of the problem, isn't it? The bolded bit, I mean. Treating people not like other people is one of the key problems humanity has been dealing with since...well, at least the dawn of recorded history and probably for as long as there have been things we could even vaguely call "people." Treating people as non-people because of their physical appearance, or location of origin, or the language they speak, or the contents of their trousers, or the contents of the trousers of those with whom they share their bed, or what things they hold sacred, or...

Having creatures that are genuinely people, and yet also "monsters by form" is becoming difficult to accept now. Particularly because the odds are quite high now that someone in your gaming group either has one of the aforementioned benign traits previously labelled as a "monster by form" trait in the past, or someone they love/care about does. We're starting to see that it's disrespectful, all too often specifically to someone actually playing at your own table.

yes, I would agree the classic tarasque is not a monster, my point is monsters are made to be fought, but not every encounter is with a monster or even needs to be a fight.

monstrous form means it should be treated out of the ordinary, gods can be monstrous and treated outside the ordinary as to be revered is not a common thing to happen to things.

hence my point that if we are to have monsters they have to be deed but there is tension as we can't go so far or parent groups will complain and do crazy stuff again hence it is a problem.

If it can be tamed, it doesn't have to be fought. That means it's not a monster by the given definition: it can be lived with, because tame animals are by definition things you can live with. They even gave pegasus as an example of a tame mythical creature.

well, that is true and I agree hence it is a mythical animal, not a monster.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It seems like people are coming at this from two angles: a desire to have a game world that’s morally complex, and a desire to have a game world where it’s clear who you get to kill and take their stuff. Both are valid preferences, and imprecise words can be selectively interpreted to support either view.

 

[Vaalingrade]

We often hear about players who refuse to fight actual animals of giant versions thereof.

But give the 'sweet doggo' a sonic bark or some spikes and suddenly it's game on.

People are weird.

 

[Willie the Duck]

For example, there's a video game 7 Days to Die. The gist is that you're trying to survive in a zombie apocalypse where a huge horse attacks every 7 days.

I know this is probably an autocorrupt, but part of me really wants to play a zombie apocalypse/horse-battles game now.

 

[Mind of tempest]

We often hear about players who refuse to fight actual animals of giant versions thereof.

But give the 'sweet doggo' a sonic bark or some spikes and suddenly it's game on.

People are weird.

well unless it eats the goblin mascot then the dog dies, people are fine with lots of things unless it affects them they care all of a sudden.

I know this is probably an autocorrupt, but part of me really wants to play a zombie apocalypse/horse-battles game now.

zombies affecting the whole ecosystem is oddly underused.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

It seems like people are coming at this from two angles: a desire to have a game world that’s morally complex, and a desire to have a game world where it’s clear who you get to kill and take their stuff. Both are valid preferences, and imprecise words can be selectively interpreted to support either view.

Thing is, you can still have a morally complex world but with sapient species which are very different from each other physically.

I like race being impactful mechanically, but I think that alignment and beliefs should vary massively among individuals and cultures of those species.

Obviously there will be some cultural differences which are pretty ingrained though. A flying species may build in a way which is inaccessible to those who can't fly. A species with tails will build chairs differently. A thousand year old elf will have a mindset which isn't comparable to any human. A cold blooded species will have completely different attitudes to temperature, rests, and when they're active.

 

[Bill Zebub]

A thousand year old elf will have a mindset which isn't comparable to any human.

AND +2 DEXTERITY!!!!

 

[Scribe]

AND +2 DEXTERITY!!!!

Ideally, yes?