D&D (2024) What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

[Scott Christian]

I mean, that’s how the game works.

Fair enough. Your game works that way.

 

[Charlaquin]

Fair enough. Your game works that way.

Dungeons and Dragons works that way.

 

[Scott Christian]

Dungeons and Dragons works that way.

Ok.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There is an alternate side to this. That something can be "inherently evil."

I find it ironic that true evil in the real world isn't a slavering demonic figure from another plane. True, real life Evil is instead outwardly calm, rational-sounding (maybe even scientific-sounding) justifications for treating other human beings poorly.

 

[codo]

There is an alternate side to this. That something can be "inherently evil." And I am going to use the most hated words for anyone that debates verisimilitude or flying dragons ( @Vaalingrade ) or anything else in the game - because magic.

If magic can be the rule of thumb for so many of the debates on here, why can't it be the rule of thumb for an "inherently evil" species?

I am not saying I am in favor of this. But it seems hypocritical to disregard a god's will, a lich's curse, or even ancestral magic that's tainted, ie. feywild-shadowfell, seelie-unseelie court, hellish planes, demons, etc. If one can make an army of evil bone devils, why can't they have the power to make an army of something on the material plane?

Just a thought.

The problem with species being "inherently evil" is they can also be PCs. Inherently evil creatures are fine, see undead and fiends. Just don't let players choose them.

You can't have your cake and eat it to. A creature is either an inherently evil monster that you kill on sight, or a Person, with their own individual beliefs and moral code. You can't have it both ways.

"All Orc are evil, mindless, monsters that we kill on sight, except for Bob the party's rangers. He's one of the good ones." Is not a good look for the game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There is an alternate side to this. That something can be "inherently evil." And I am going to use the most hated words for anyone that debates verisimilitude or flying dragons ( @Vaalingrade ) or anything else in the game - because magic.

If magic can be the rule of thumb for so many of the debates on here, why can't it be the rule of thumb for an "inherently evil" species?

I am not saying I am in favor of this. But it seems hypocritical to disregard a god's will, a lich's curse, or even ancestral magic that's tainted, ie. feywild-shadowfell, seelie-unseelie court, hellish planes, demons, etc. If one can make an army of evil bone devils, why can't they have the power to make an army of something on the material plane?

Just a thought.

The problem is that one is wielding the magic as an excuse to advance a racist concept: that an entire people is deserving of violence. That's why we label groups 'inherently' evil after all, but in and out of game: in order to make it okay to hurt them, enslave them, take from them.

 

[Yaarel]

I never saw orcs as pure raiders, at least I never saw them as purely tribal raiders. For me, in most settings I made for D&D, orcs often had a range of societies but those societies tended to be martial (i.e. they might sometimes be vikings, sometimes be Romans, sometimes be tribes of hill orcs, etc). The Roman orcs were pretty advanced by the tech level of the setting. Same with goblins and kobolds. You often did have the traditional bands of goblins and kobolds, but you also had kobolds functioning as scribes and as intelligentsia in the Roman orc region. What is cool about races and world building is them having distinct physical and mental characteristics that shape their culture in different ways than humans (for example a race that has extremely acute smell and can see at night is probably going to have a different culture from humans). Obviously inventing cultures whole cloth can be difficult so we find an analog. In my case Rome. But you can deviate more from real world cultures if you are willing to put in the work (it is just harder and requires a lot more thought).

...

Wait.

Youre saying, vikings are nonhumans, and nonadvanced, and tend to only be martial?

LOL! Are you listening to what you are saying?



By the way, I am Norwegian, and I can be less than thrilled about how D&D stereotypes reallife Nordic cultures.

I dont want my game to get bogged down by someone elses stereotypes about my identity.

When gamers from other reallife identities call attention to problematics in D&D traditions, I can empathize with what they are saying.



Moreover, you kinda just said, you make Orcs a stand-in for a reallife ethnicity, such as "Viking" Period Norse cultures.

 

[Yaarel]

Creature type is already a thing though. Humanoid, fiend, fey, elemental, aberration, giant, undead, etc. are creature types.

Im curious about what a D&D taxonomy might look like. The Types are all over the place, but could organize into rankings.

For example, something like:

Lifeform: Thought
• Planarity: Astral
• Planarity (Positive): Celestial
• Planarity (Negative): Fiend
• • Type: Devil
• • Type: Demon
• • Type: Yugoloth
• Planarity: Aberration

Lifeform: Spirit
• Planarity: Ethereal
• Planarity (Positive): Fey
• Planarity (Negative): Shadow
• • Type: Undead
• Planarity: Elemental (elemental spirit is form but not substance)

Lifeform: Matter
• Planarity: Material
• • Type: Beast
• • Type: Plant
• • Type: Ooze

There is much ambiguity with some types. Is Giant an Elemental or a Material creature? Is Elf a Celestial, a Fey, a Material, or any? And so on.

 

[Yaarel]

I dont see a problem with six-limb dragons. They used magic to shapeshift their form, to however limbs they want. Dragons used this same kind of magic to shapeshift themselves into a four-limb bipedal Dragonborn form.

Some of the D&D "evolution" is more like genetic engineering and splicing − by means of magic.

 

[Yaarel]

Choose your creature type for #2, which comes with Humanoid or Fey or whatever along with the descriptor in the parenthesis. Like it currently does.

Also I think it's important to note the distinction between "Creature Type" and just "Type".

Type is sterile. Creature type is more emotive of a fantasy setting. You're a type of Creature. And Creature is defined as "an animal or person or imaginary or fictional being." It fits better with a fantasy game than Species, which I think fits better with a sci-fi game.

If I understand you:

Elf is the "Creature Type".

Humanoid happens to be its ... "Supertype" ... that comes along with it when one chooses Elf?