D&D (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not sure it is a problem. If I were reading a novel, most novels at least, little world building tidbits like that kind of nag at me. Because you're absolutely right, it takes a tremendous amount of resources to train, equip, and maintain a significant fighting force and that will rely on some very sophisticated infrastructure (even when taking into account magic and whatnot).

But I admit that I take a slightly different approach to world building for a game. I typically only concern myself with what matters during the actual game play. Does it matter how my city of a million people feeds itself? Not unless it matters during the adventure. Does it matter how a seemingly "tribal" society with no cities, countries, or empires of their own maintain a well trained and equipped standing army? Not unless it matters during the adventure.

And it gets a little odder still, because while I accept that for fantasy games like D&D, I don't necessarily accept that kind of thinking in other games. I've a tough time figuring out how a wooden suburbian home in what was once the United State s is still standing after 200 years of neglect or how Yum Yum Deviled Eggs can remain in their package for the same amount of time and be edible. I just sing to myself:

If you're wondering how he eats and breathes/
And other science facts/
Tra la la/
Just repeat to yourself/
It's just a show/
I should really just relax

But my way is not the only way. I recogize the validity of your approach to world building and recognize that it leads to a richer more interesting setting.

Right, the issue though is that we don't just have the game. We have the setting. We have the maps and the numbers and when we see that a place the size of a medieval city has a population of a modern super-urban center, we start realizing that the set dressing is fake. And that means the world doesn't draw us into considering the problems it presents us with.

And if you have the orc lands, the giant lands, the dragon lands, and all these places mapped out, then you have a massive hobgoblin army appear out of nowhere, you may be able to get your players to ignore it... until you give them a name. Until you say "this is the army of [Blank] led by [Blank]", which you need to do. You need this army to be personalized, it needs leaders, it needs goals and directives, especially if it is a major antangonist... and that leads to "wait, where did they come from?" and "Why didn't anyone notice this problem sooner?" And you can say "from the hobgoblin lands" but when the players ask "where is that on the map you gave us?" then you are in deep trouble. Because it isn't on the map. And the Realms is particularly vulnerable/bad about this, because the Realms is highly detailed, with little left to the imagination... and no hobgoblin kingdoms. No place where they have ACTUALLY conquered the land and taken over.


And again, this may not matter during actual play... unless you players want to do literally anything about this threat other than try and kill every hobgoblin in the army. You can't negotiate with them if they have no lands, because then they have no wants or needs, you can't find allies that aren't already established, because no one else is threatened by them by having a border with them. Everything suddenly becomes much harder for the players, because all of this information is just... non-existent

 

[Guest 85555]

This brushes against some rules, but the idea that humans have a divine origin and are "special" has existed in almost every single culture, religion, and region in the world since the dawn of history.

Which means every war, every genocide, every atrocity was committed by a society that had the conception that humanity as a whole was special and deserved to be protected. And many of these would claim they were protecting "true humans" from the corruptions, evils, and malices of those who were less human than them.

So whether or not a definition perfectly covers all humans or not, I don't think it really matters. Because people will commit unspeakable acts on other humans for reasons they find "justify" the crime, no matter how we phrase it.

This does brush up on that, and human history has no shortage of hypocrisy, and even religions that claim humans are special and not to be harmed, have contradictions and conflicting interpretations, so I am not saying religion is a cure here. So I am not going to tell you not to feel or think how you do on this topic (I've personally gone from an early upbringing of intense religious belief, to agnosticism, atheism, a re-exploration of religions and ultimate faith again-----which I say just to note I can appreciate the arguments you are drawing on here and don't take them lightly). I am just pointing out a good chunk of the population thinks humanity is inherently special on religious grounds (personally I would argue such paradigms do matter and while they can lead to their own atrocities, I think they also can stop atrocities and stop oppression---especially if people take the whole 'every human is special and deserves protection' message seriously).

 

[Chaosmancer]

It wasn't. But the post you were replying to was in defense of not equating romans with orcs and having their description reduced to barbaric raiders.

If I misunderstood you I apologise.

You did misunderstand. So, in the effort of fairness, let's try this again.

The point that is often made is that barbarians (those who are barbaric) are uncivilized, and often raiders. The term barbarian, and this image of them, comes from the Romans.

Problem: The Romans called anyone who didn't speak Latin, but instead spoke one of the Germanic languages "barbarians". They said they were uncivilized raiders. But... that was a lie. A racist lie. For example, one famous Germanic leader was Maroboduus, the KING of Marcomannia, who built a conferdation of german tribes. These people had laws, kingdoms and nobles, agriculture, metal-working, textiles, trade ect ect. And we have strong evidence that the Roman art and literature talking about the Germanic people purposefully cast them as less sophisticated and more primitive than the reality they faced.


So, the very concept of "these people are barbarians with a primitive life-style and a lack of civilization" comes from lies and propoganda spread by the Romans about the people they were at war with. We can easily point out that the entire starting point for this concept... was a racist lie, directed from the Romans to the early germanic people. So, stating "this isn't racist, because those people are barbarian tribes"... doesn't actually help your case.

The examples I'd like to cite in defense of my argument so you could see the nonsense of the statement "science having settled it" would not be appreciated by the moderation staff so I'll need to stop.
Needless to say, the science on a great many things is not settled (amongst scientists) despite what the corporate aligned media would have you believe. So I struggle with the misinformation tag being applied too loosely and too easily.

That's all I can say on that.

Science is settled on the issue of "does gravity exist" it may have some questions of the precise mechanics at a quantum level for gravity, but that doesn't mean the very idea of gravity existing is in question.

The science is settled on the issue of "is evolution a real thing" many people bring up things NOT related to evolution, like the origin of life or the origin of the universe to dispute evolution, but those things are not actually related to evolution. We are still studying evolution, and we have not precisely learned every single thing there is to know about it, but there is no actual question by serious scientists using serious scientific arguments, on whether or not evolution is a real thing that really happens.

And, I want to say, when I point to people not understanding what they are talking about, this is one of those things. I have seen many many many many people argue that Evolution is false, because non-organic material can't create organic life. But that isn't evolution, that is Abiogensis. And that is a big red flag in a conversation, to realize the person doesn't even understand enough of the subject matter, to know when they aren't talking about the subject matter. I don't often blame the person, it is easy to get things like that wrong, but it would be like going before a judge and saying "I can't get a speeding ticket, because I wasn't stealing the car in question!" You may be talking about a car-related crime, but clearly you don't know enough to be arguing about your speeding ticket if you think that is a good defense.

 

[Guest 85555]

I am not wading into the Roman discussion but I just want to point one outcome of what you are saying would be the class Barbarian isn't tenable. Again, I wouldn't point so much to history, because this is all pretty removed from a 2000 year old conflict between Rome and Germanic tribes. But I think it's a powerful image that people gravitate towards and want to play (I love Barbarians as a class and love Conan the Barbarian as a character). I wouldn't look to Conan for an understanding of humans in our past that were labeled barbarians, but for a fun sword and sorcery world where we are guided more by imagination than logic, I think it works really well

 

[Maxperson]

So, you have definitively proven that no life exists in the universe, besides that found on Earth? Or that intelligent life is impossible to arise anywhere else?

Doesn't really matter now does it? Until you can show it to me there's no point in wasting brain cells on it. Humans are the only people. Once you can produce a real elf, bigfoot or life from another planet, we can fire up those brain cells and decide if they are people or not.

But, what you actually seem to be saying is that since they aren't on Earth and we've never seen them, they don't matter.

Who? Who is out there that matters? Show them to me.

And we can blissfully ignore the fact that, if humanity achieves the greatness we want it to achieve, we will inevitably run into the question of this life, and then must act all shocked pikachu face that these intelligent non-humans exist, while scrambling to understand what it means, when back in the Bronze Age, we had stories of non-human people and humans had kind of figured this out.

You don't know that any do exist. Every year I read scientific articles with some saying that life is certainly out there given these numbers over here AND others that life is most probably not out there given those numbers over there.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This does brush up on that, and human history has no shortage of hypocrisy, and even religions that claim humans are special and not to be harmed, have contradictions and conflicting interpretations, so I am not saying religion is a cure here. So I am not going to tell you not to feel or think how you do on this topic (I've personally gone from an early upbringing of intense religious belief, to agnosticism, atheism, a re-exploration of religions and ultimate faith again-----which I say just to note I can appreciate the arguments you are drawing on here and don't take them lightly). I am just pointing out a good chunk of the population thinks humanity is inherently special on religious grounds (personally I would argue such paradigms do matter and while they can lead to their own atrocities, I think they also can stop atrocities and stop oppression---especially if people take the whole 'every human is special and deserves protection' message seriously).

Right, but in your hurry to show both sides, you ultimately show that the sides are empty. One side can or cannot lead to atrocities and the other side can or cannot lead to atrocities, there is no practical difference. A large chunk of people believe in many things, some of them good, some of them bad. The entire point of critical thinking, science, and other such things is to look at the REASONS people believe things, and then judge if it is sound to continue believing in them.

The majority of humanity believes humans are special, but that doesn't mean they are right, or that their reasons for believing it are more sound than "because I want to believe it".

I am not wading into the Roman discussion but I just want to point one outcome of what you are saying would be the class Barbarian isn't tenable. Again, I wouldn't point so much to history, because this is all pretty removed from a 2000 year old conflict between Rome and Germanic tribes. But I think it's a powerful image that people gravitate towards and want to play (I love Barbarians as a class and love Conan the Barbarian as a character). I wouldn't look to Conan for an understanding of humans in our past that were labeled barbarians, but for a fun sword and sorcery world where we are guided more by imagination than logic, I think it works really well

And there has been much discussion about whether or not the Barbarian class needs renamed, because the name isn't really tenable.

For example, people often point out that "Conan the Barbarian" was articulate, well-educated, nobility or royalty multiple times, and solved many of his challenges with a quick wit and sharp intellect. Does that sound like the stereotypical DnD barbarian who screams "ME SMASH SMALL!"? Doesn't sound like it to me.

So, again, we are faced with a DnD trope based on the most shallow, least accurate depiction of something possible, and then claiming that because it IS a depiction of that thing, that it is good and we should keep it. I also like the barbarian class, but we could really stand to expand it more, and show more of the truth of the people these myths and legends came from.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Doesn't really matter now does it? Until you can show it to me there's no point in wasting brain cells on it. Humans are the only people. Once you can produce a real elf, bigfoot or life from another planet, we can fire up those brain cells and decide if they are people or not.

Does it matter if we think about Artificial Intelligence capable of human thought patterns? It doesn't exist, so by your logic it is a waste of brain cells to even consider it, despite it being at the core of how many sci-fi novel plots? Guess all those people like Isaac Asimov wasted a lot of brain cells on things that don't matter.

Or is "does not currently exist on Earth" not really a good reason to dismiss something?

Who? Who is out there that matters? Show them to me.

Why do you need to see them? You can't see the person living in the slums of Bangladesh, you don't know their story, do they suddenly not matter because they are out of your sight? And you probably will argue "but I know humans exist, therefore this is different!" But it isn't actually that different, because a key part of the Fermi Paradox is the conception that over infinite space, and across massive spans of time, alien life must emerge. Yes, they are theoritical, just like Artificial Intelligences that can think like humans, or cures for the worst cancers, but being theoritical doesn't mean they can't be discussed or considered.

And again, my point is that if we just dead accept your claim "only humans are people" then we get "only human lives matter" which, if you happen to read a few science fiction stories, we can see how that line of thought quickly turns into horror shows once we encounter alien life. Which, if we survive as a species, we will absolutely encounter alien life. It is an inevitability.

You don't know that any do exist. Every year I read scientific articles with some saying that life is certainly out there given these numbers over here AND others that life is most probably not out there given those numbers over there.

Are you catching the nuance of the conversation? Are they saying life cannot possibly exist? No. And many of the articles talking about highly advanced space faring life. We can't possibly detect whether or not a species as advanced as ourselves exists on the other side of the core of the Milky Way. It is impossible for us.

So, life may or may not exist in any given place. But life MUST exist somewhere else. Just like any given place under a thunderstorm may or may not be hit with lightning.... but SOMEWHERE is getting hit by a lightning bolt during a thunderstorm. It is inevitable.

 

[Maxperson]

The point is that Early D&D/RPG designers copy and pasted real history or false retellings of real history to make the excuses who why intelligent people acted or look like they did.

Which RPGs? In D&D I've only ever seen the Vistani and the orcs from that one Gazatteer.

 

[Maxperson]

Does it matter if we think about Artificial Intelligence capable of human thought patterns? It doesn't exist, so by your logic it is a waste of brain cells to even consider it, despite it being at the core of how many sci-fi novel plots? Guess all those people like Isaac Asimov wasted a lot of brain cells on things that don't matter.

AI isn't truly the "I" yet. It's also a colossal mistake. One has already taken steps(and was rebuffed) to wipe out humanity.

Or is "does not currently exist on Earth" not really a good reason to dismiss something?

If it exists only in your imagination, yes. You don't know beyond your wild guess if anything is even out there.

Why do you need to see them? You can't see the person living in the slums of Bangladesh, you don't know their story, do they suddenly not matter because they are out of your sight? And you probably will argue "but I know humans exist, therefore this is different!" But it isn't actually that different, because a key part of the Fermi Paradox is the conception that over infinite space, and across massive spans of time, alien life must emerge. Yes, they are theoritical, just like Artificial Intelligences that can think like humans, or cures for the worst cancers, but being theoritical doesn't mean they can't be discussed or considered.

And again, my point is that if we just dead accept your claim "only humans are people" then we get "only human lives matter" which, if you happen to read a few science fiction stories, we can see how that line of thought quickly turns into horror shows once we encounter alien life. Which, if we survive as a species, we will absolutely encounter alien life. It is an inevitability.

So show me a real life space alien.

Are you catching the nuance of the conversation?

Yes.

Are they saying life cannot possibly exist?

No.

And many of the articles talking about highly advanced space faring life. We can't possibly detect whether or not a species as advanced as ourselves exists on the other side of the core of the Milky Way. It is impossible for us.

And may very well be impossible for them to reach us as well, if they even exist.

What's more, why are you trying to force them to be people. They will have alien thought processes and morals. You could be offending them greatly by forcing them into the people category. How about you let THEM decide if they want to be people..........................just as soon as you can produce one to ask.

 

[Minigiant]

Which RPGs? In D&D I've only ever seen the Vistani and the orcs from that one Gazatteer.

D&D: Hobgoblins, the barbarian class, the monk class

WH: Savage orcs, Pygmies, Tomb Kings, Warriors of Chaos, Lizardmen