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

[Scribe]

Having different species having different concepts, feelings, or ranges of emotion doesn't stop them having learning or free will. Saying 'orcs are more aggressive than humans' doesn't stop them having free will in exactly the same way those same humans being less aggressive than orcs prevents humans having free will.

If an alien species suddenly appears from space and they're all smarter than humans, that doesn't mean humans suddenly no longer possess free will because we're universally 'trait X' in comparison to another species. All humans don't suddenly become 'instinctive beasts' if another species which thinks differently appears.

See now there, is some nuance.

 

[Yaarel]

Having different species having different concepts, feelings, or ranges of emotion doesn't stop them having learning or free will. Saying 'orcs are more aggressive than humans' doesn't stop them having free will in exactly the same way those same humans being less aggressive than orcs prevents humans having free will.

If an alien species suddenly appears from space and they're all smarter than humans, that doesn't mean humans suddenly no longer possess free will because we're universally 'trait X' in comparison to another species.

To be clear, I am comfortable with "species" differing from each other.

(It is the "subspecies" that are problematic when they mechanically segregate ethnicities as if an "other", defacto racism.)

Meanwhile, the Humanoid "creature type" includes a diversity of species. Regardless of the origins of each species, what they share in common is being humanlike, with free will, the ability to learn, organizing socially into communities, and so on. A reallife player can relate to any Humanoid character concept, and play it as an avatar of oneself if they wish.

 

[Yaarel]

The difference between one Humanoid species and an other Humanoid species needs to be a nonhuman difference.

To be slightly different within human possibilities − slightly more intelligent or slightly more athletic − is full-on reallife racist propaganda. WotC must avoid this.

If the Orc is "slightly" more aggressive, that is a problem resembling racist accusations of lack of self-control.

However, if the Orc has a feature where its adrenaline rush grants it some powerful ability that is IMPOSSIBLE to reallife humans, that would make it clearly nonhuman in a nonracist way.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

To be clear, I am comfortable with "species" differing from each other.

(It is the "subspecies" that are problematic when they mechanically segregate ethnicities as if an "other", defacto racism.)

Meanwhile, the Humanoid "creature type" includes a diversity of species. Regardless of the origins of each species, what they share in common is being humanlike, with free will, the ability to learn, organizing socially into communities, and so on. A reallife player can relate to any Humanoid character concept, and play it as an avatar of oneself if they wish.

I do feel like all playable species should have a significant overlap with humans in their capabilities. Both with emotions and stats. Likewise I feel they should have the same capability for variation and range.

Just that range of thoughts and feelings might be 'different'. With one end of the scale overlapping the human range and the other end of the scale being completely different from it.

 

[bedir than]

See now there, is some nuance.

It's also the current state of the game.
Orcs are in fact more aggressive, it's right in their lore and mechanics.

They just aren't hardwired to be evil -- 5e added nuance. By the very statements with which you agree

 

[Yaarel]

Just that range of thoughts and feelings might be 'different'. With one end of the scale overlapping the human range and the other end of the scale being completely different from it.

I feel it is best to handle these kinds of roleplay considerations as the ideals and flaws of a particular "faction".

Plus, it is difficult to imagine a "thought" or a "feeling" that a reallife human is literally unable to think or feel.

For any faction that can exist among Humanoid Orcs, it or its analog can also exist as a faction among Humanoid Humans.

Pretty much, any Humanoid species comes with enjoyments and challenges that a reallife player can relate to.

 

[Scribe]

They just aren't hardwired to be evil -- 5e added nuance. By the very statements with which you agree

The issue isnt 5e. The issue is the post Tashas disney-fication of the lore and how the various options are presented. I doubt its going to be a productive discussion, but if you like we can continue.

 

[bedir than]

Regarding the two “half-species” under discussion in this thread, I’ve been wondering something. I’ve seen some reasonable arguments for the inclusion of half-elves (possibly renamed) as a core option in PHB 2024. I’m not seeing as much advocacy for half-orcs. Is this partly because the inclusion of orcs as a core option makes half-orcs somewhat redundant?

What I mean is this: we know from Monster Manual 2014 that the child of an orc and a “non-orc humanoid of similar size and stature… is either an orc or a half-orc.” If a 2024 sidebar tells us the child of an orc and a non-orc has orc traits, we’re still following one branch of the existing 2014 rules for characters of that ancestry.

In contrast, if a 2024 sidebar tells us the child of an elf and non-elf has elf traits, we’re not longer following any of the existing 2014 rules for characters of that ancestry (i.e. half-elves). The 2024 sidebar represents a hard break from the 2014 rules. No existing 2014 option for a child born to an elf and a non-elf is being reprinted in 2024.

Does that seem like a fair characterization of the difference between losing half-orc as a core species and losing half-elf as a core species?

Currently, both half-elf and half-orc will exist in 2024 5e. They both use unsatisfying rules that have blended lore, but the mechanics of only one parentage.
Half-elf likely gets the most attention because there are famous half-elves in literature and film. No half-orc is on that level.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

One thing which I really feel helped push the removal of species stats is how 5e has set up its bounded accuracy system. A+2 or -2 now is way more impactful than it used to be, which combined with an expectation of a 16 in your primary stat at level 1 made things very unfun.

Ideally I'd have preferred every species to get a single +1 and a single -1. And the starting stat expectation lowered to 14.

 

[bedir than]

The issue isnt 5e. The issue is the post Tashas disney-fication of the lore and how the various options are presented. I doubt its going to be a productive discussion, but if you like we can continue.

I know you don't like the rules changes. We'll always disagree about that and we know where each other stand. There's no real debate there. We're just on other sides.

What I fail to comprehend is how you've redefined the word nuance in such a way that black & white hard lines between good and evil are more nuanced than shades of grey with smaller variations possible within the same species. That's what I'm failing to understand.