D&D (2024) Half Race Appreciation Society: Half Elf most popular race choice in BG3

[Remathilis]

I've mentioned before in another thread that my style as a player may be a bit odd. I pretty much play "myself". Not due to a lack of roleplaying skill (I don't think), but simply because I like to simulate "me". I consider my character an avatar of me.

But at least a part of the rationale is that I don't know if I would do justice to roleplaying something I am not. Would it be a caricature of what I thought and assumed it would be like? Some games of course, require you to put yourself into another culture's shoes or perhaps even species. For example, any historical game set in Feudal Japan, or maybe an anthropomorphic game like Albedo. Even playing different time periods may require, depending on your table's ability to grapple with ugly parts history, a shift away from "presentism", and all the warnings about how unprogressive society was (not that) long ago.

This is not to suggest that others shouldn't try it, I just don't feel like I would do it justice, nor do I feel the need to roleplay out something I am not. In fact, one of the great strengths of roleplaying, not just as a game but in therapeutical terms, is to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes.

This is not an aspersion, but I find this fascinating. I try to do the opposite; I aim to play characters very different than me. I play myself every day, so I use roleplaying to try different perspectives. I may play greedy rogues, pious priests, or pacifist druids. I may play a different gender, orientation or identity. I will try to be different species and focus on that outlook.

The thing that frustrates me is how much of me still ends up in those characters. It's not like acting where you interpret someone else's work and know the trajectory of the character. You still react to unknown things in real time and you really need to get the right headspace to overcome that.

I just foud it interesting to see the perspective from the other side.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

This is not an aspersion, but I find this fascinating. I try to do the opposite; I aim to play characters very different than me. I play myself every day, so I use roleplaying to try different perspectives. I may play greedy rogues, pious priests, or pacifist druids. I may play a different gender, orientation or identity. I will try to be different species and focus on that outlook.

The thing that frustrates me is how much of me still ends up in those characters. It's not like acting where you interpret someone else's work and know the trajectory of the character. You still react to unknown things in real time and you really need to get the right headspace to overcome that.

I just foud it interesting to see the perspective from the other side.

Yeah I have this problem too. I try to make characters which I really different to myself, but I just can't prevent them acting and talking like me. It's got really frustrating over time as the result is all of my characters feeling like the same person outside combat.

 

[firstkyne]

okay, I don't follow Wizards and D&D much, but I gather that half races (or ancestries or whatever they are calling it now) is going away?

ummm, why?

I'm half asian, half white. I don't see any issue.

Neither defending or attacking the decision, but -as I understand it- the logic for binning half-orcs is: according to long-standing dnd lore, half-orcs are the progeny of rape during interracial war.
In early drafts, Orcs were mindless, homicidal and chaotic evil monsters, intended for use in games where monsters were simply monsters. Players could vicariously act out defeating and/or killing those monsters, and overcoming evil, without being burdened with the complicated feelings that come with a more nuanced gameworld premise, where there are no simple 'monsters'.
What's changed? Well, the idea of creatures being innately evil derives mainly from fairy-stories and religious texts. As western society has become less religious, this conception of evil has been revealed as divisive, out-dated and dangerous.
Characterising the opposition as monstrous is a common mainstream media propaganda technique when the military industrial complex requires a war. The simplistic conception of monsters has echoes in the language of colonialism, which is widely held to be a bad thing (it's benefits having been largely expunged from public discourse and text books).
More recent fantasy yarns and gameworlds have tried to go against the grain and describe stories of love between orcs and humans resulting in biracial children (Warcraft, for example). This has necessitated a change in the conception of Orcs: they have become a race understandably hardened by their environment, with values that can be admired, such as bravery, a code of honour etc.
This conception of orcs has permeated DnD in more recent drafts, so that orcs are no longer portrayed as viking-style rapists and pillagers, and so it is incongruous to have half-orcs (unless they are the result of loving parents).
Presumably, WotC will change the lore such that orcs and humans are no longer able to cross breed.
Ironically, this may enable some players to revert to portraying orcs as the monsters of fantasy past, should they wish.
In the case of half-elves, I think the concept is being expunged from dnd because half-orcs are going! happy to be corrected on that!
So, don't take it personally, I guess?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Neither defending or attacking the decision, but -as I understand it- the logic for binning half-orcs is: according to long-standing dnd lore, half-orcs are the progeny of rape during interracial war.
In early drafts, Orcs were mindless, homicidal and chaotic evil monsters, intended for use in games where monsters were simply monsters. Players could vicariously act out defeating and/or killing those monsters, and overcoming evil, without being burdened with the complicated feelings that come with a more nuanced gameworld premise, where there are no simple 'monsters'.
What's changed? Well, the idea of creatures being innately evil derives mainly from fairy-stories and religious texts. As western society has become less religious, this conception of evil has been revealed as divisive, out-dated and dangerous.
Characterising the opposition as monstrous is a common mainstream media propaganda technique when the military industrial complex requires a war. The simplistic conception of monsters has echoes in the language of colonialism, which is widely held to be a bad thing (it's benefits having been largely expunged from public discourse and text books).
More recent fantasy yarns and gameworlds have tried to go against the grain and describe stories of love between orcs and humans resulting in biracial children (Warcraft, for example). This has necessitated a change in the conception of Orcs: they have become a race understandably hardened by their environment, with values that can be admired, such as bravery, a code of honour etc.
This conception of orcs has permeated DnD in more recent drafts, so that orcs are no longer portrayed as viking-style rapists and pillagers, and so it is incongruous to have half-orcs (unless they are the result of loving parents).
Presumably, WotC will change the lore such that orcs and humans are no longer able to cross breed.
Ironically, this may enable some players to revert to portraying orcs as the monsters of fantasy past, should they wish.
In the case of half-elves, I think the concept is being expunged from dnd because half-orcs are going! happy to be corrected on that!
So, don't take it personally, I guess?

That was a very objective, even-handed explanation. Thank you.

 

[Mistwell]

Presumably, WotC will change the lore such that orcs and humans are no longer able to cross breed.

I think that's a bad assumption.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That's precisely what I don't want. I'd be very happy if race/heritage/whatever was purely fluff with no mechanics, provided we'd still have fluff for half-elves/khorovar/whatever-politically-correct-naming-alternative-is-given. I'd be perfectly happy with no specific stats and half-elves being mechanically no different from humans or forced to be cobbled together with custom lineage as long as they have lore and a full write-up associated. (Heck, in 3.x half-elves were as vanilla as they'd come and it was fine).

What I want is lore and visibility. Mix-and-match hybrid rules with no lore and no visibility (even lore without visibility -i.e. shoved into a sidebar as "an example"-) is the worst of the possible worlds for me. Hybrid rules being the only choice for a half-elf means we effectively have no half-elf, because they become invisible and drowned by the influx of the novelty brought by all combos under the sun, then after that the hybrid rules become a Charop tool, less likely to be allowed and I don't get to play any half-elf ever again. Let's not talk about ever seeing a half-elf NPC on any future adventure.

Having to waste a feat on the right to half-elfness is a very close runner up for worst possible outcome.

I understand and appreciate your feelings on this matter and why the Half-Elf is that important to you. And why you feel a full lore write up of this species is important in the PHB and not just having it be one of many different custom lineages.

But here is my particular issue with that idea. It gives me the impression of the Half-Elf being "First Among Equals". As though this specific mixed ancestry is the truly important one... and all others are not. And that, to me, isn't exactly great or representational either.

Now I understand why some people would be okay with that... after all, the Half-Elf is the most popular and most well-known mixed ancestry (going all the way back to Aragorn), so having that be the standard-bearer I'm sure makes sense to them and they are happy that it's that way. But I personally find that off-putting. To me, half-elves are not more important to the game than any other mixed ancestry. I don't find the Dwelf to be second-best to it, nor the Gnomeling to be second-tier in comparison.

But by highlighting the half-elf at the expense of all the others, we are singling that parental pairing out. To me it would be like using Black/Asian children as the example of mixed ancestry and only talking about them, but the Hispanic/White children, Middle Eastern/Black children, East Asian/Indigenous children, they aren't as important when it comes to talking about this subject. And that doesn't sit right with me either.

So I don't discount your feelings on the matter... I just don't know if it's the best option available.

 

[RareBreed]

This is not an aspersion, but I find this fascinating. I try to do the opposite; I aim to play characters very different than me. I play myself every day, so I use roleplaying to try different perspectives. I may play greedy rogues, pious priests, or pacifist druids. I may play a different gender, orientation or identity. I will try to be different species and focus on that outlook.

The thing that frustrates me is how much of me still ends up in those characters. It's not like acting where you interpret someone else's work and know the trajectory of the character. You still react to unknown things in real time and you really need to get the right headspace to overcome that.

I just foud it interesting to see the perspective from the other side.

I can see the appeal to playing something other than one's self. For me, I like to think "what would I do in those shoes?".

Of course, there's always going to be some differences, so I can't be exactly myself. But in terms of personality, likes and dislikes, quirks, etc, my characters are pretty much me

As a GM is when I get to wear different hats and be someone else. But I think as NPCs, unless you have a really long running campaign, NPC's are more temporary so you constantly get to wear new hats.

 

[RareBreed]

Neither defending or attacking the decision, but -as I understand it- the logic for binning half-orcs is: according to long-standing dnd lore, half-orcs are the progeny of rape during interracial war.
In early drafts, Orcs were mindless, homicidal and chaotic evil monsters, intended for use in games where monsters were simply monsters. Players could vicariously act out defeating and/or killing those monsters, and overcoming evil, without being burdened with the complicated feelings that come with a more nuanced gameworld premise, where there are no simple 'monsters'.
What's changed? Well, the idea of creatures being innately evil derives mainly from fairy-stories and religious texts. As western society has become less religious, this conception of evil has been revealed as divisive, out-dated and dangerous.
Characterising the opposition as monstrous is a common mainstream media propaganda technique when the military industrial complex requires a war. The simplistic conception of monsters has echoes in the language of colonialism, which is widely held to be a bad thing (it's benefits having been largely expunged from public discourse and text books).
More recent fantasy yarns and gameworlds have tried to go against the grain and describe stories of love between orcs and humans resulting in biracial children (Warcraft, for example). This has necessitated a change in the conception of Orcs: they have become a race understandably hardened by their environment, with values that can be admired, such as bravery, a code of honour etc.
This conception of orcs has permeated DnD in more recent drafts, so that orcs are no longer portrayed as viking-style rapists and pillagers, and so it is incongruous to have half-orcs (unless they are the result of loving parents).
Presumably, WotC will change the lore such that orcs and humans are no longer able to cross breed.
Ironically, this may enable some players to revert to portraying orcs as the monsters of fantasy past, should they wish.
In the case of half-elves, I think the concept is being expunged from dnd because half-orcs are going! happy to be corrected on that!
So, don't take it personally, I guess?

Don't worry, I don't take it personally I've written some posts here about giving the benefit of the doubt.

I can understand wanting to destigmatize ancestries, but it does kind of beg the question; what about evil Backgrounds/Cultures?

No one ever thinks they are the baddies [link to a Mitchell and Webb sketch] (which at the risk of bringing in the Alignment Flame Wars is why I find the whole alignment system in need of being rejected).

 

[Scribe]

which at the risk of bringing in the Alignment Flame Wars

 

[RareBreed]

Apologies in advance