D&D General Do you like LOTS of races/ancestries/whatever? If so, why?

[Micah Sweet]

The real world has been working towards true tolerance for less than a hundred years. Hopefully, it will take less than another hundred years for it to be achieved. (Unlikely, but a person can hope.)

There's no reason to say that a fantasy world worked towards true tolerance a thousand years ago. Especially since there could be gods actively sending visions or even manifesting and saying "no, we don't care one whit about your skin color/place of origin/gender/sexual orientation/ear pointiness/beardliness, so there's no need for you to care either."

That way, people could just kill each other over resources and percieved insults instead of stupid things.

Absolutely. A fantasy world definitely allows for that, and I understand many would rather play in a world where all that real world stuff just doesn't matter anymore, if it ever did. I'm fine playing in such worlds myself. But, its not the only school of thought, and there's nothing wrong with playing in a fantasy world where the kind of intolerance we see around the world throughout history up through today is part of life. The bulk of fantasy literature, including most of D&D, allows for or even assumes this in some cases. Because that sort of thing is so much a part of the real life history classic fantasy (and many other genres) often attempt to emulate in a fictional context, it can feel more like a real place, even with the unpleasantness. It is just as acceptable a way to build a world as the other.

 

[Minigiant]

The use of the "logic" argument implies objectivity and correctness, rather than preference. Using it as justification in an argument implies that the alternative is illogical. The logic of your personal setting, which is defined by your preferences, might dictate a specific outcome, but that logic is not universal to D&D fantasy worlds outside of those preferences.

As long as nobody is trying to assert their preference as somehow correct or more valid or accurate, it's all good.

I'm not invoking logic or coreectness.

I'm talking about DM/WB control. The World Builder is the only buiding.

If something happens or exists, that a choice.
If something doesn't happens or exists, that a choice.

The "60 races doesn't make any sense" or"multicultural cities wont exist" doesn't make sense. The Worldbuilder can make them work if they want. Ifyou don't like them, fine. But too often D&D worldbuilders came logic as an excuse to not doing something they have full control over and to validate criticism to their settings.

 

[Faolyn]

Absolutely. A fantasy world definitely allows for that, and I understand many would rather play in a world where all that real world stuff just doesn't matter anymore, if it ever did. I'm fine playing in such worlds myself. But, its not the only school of thought, and there's nothing wrong with playing in a fantasy world where the kind of intolerance we see around the world throughout history up through today is part of life. The bulk of fantasy literature, including most of D&D, allows for or even assumes this in some cases. Because that sort of thing is so much a part of the real life history classic fantasy (and many other genres) often attempt to emulate in a fictional context, it can feel more like a real place, even with the unpleasantness. It is just as acceptable a way to build a world as the other.

Agreed... if you don't also have to deal with that sort of bigotry in real life.

I have to deal with sexism just by existing. I don't want to have to deal with it in-game. I can tell you that having real-world sexism in-game makes the game un-fun.

 

[TwoSix]

Except there's historically been so much intolerance. Certainly it can and does go the other way, but complete tolerance can seem unrealistic, and that issue matters to some.

Yea, but I don’t think it violates verisimilitude, as opposed to “unrealistic”, because there’s no reason to suppose humans in a different multiverse will function in the same manner as Earth humans.

It’s only a problem based on implicit assumptions one could carry into worldbuilding, basically. It’s just as easy to simply start with a “on this world, tolerance is the norm” premise for worldbuilding. Choosing that races will naturally not get along is a specific choice, not a default one.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The real world has been working towards true tolerance for less than a hundred years. Hopefully, it will take less than another hundred years for it to be achieved. (Unlikely, but a person can hope.)

Individuals have, certainly, but "the world" has not even started IMO (more's the pity... ).

There's no reason to say that a fantasy world worked towards true tolerance a thousand years ago. Especially since there could be gods actively sending visions or even manifesting and saying "no, we don't care one whit about your skin color/place of origin/gender/sexual orientation/ear pointiness/beardliness, so there's no need for you to care either."

No, there isn't, and if that is what your group wants that is fine. But as a DM it isn't what I want. My gods are vying for power against each other, especially against other pantheons! "Yes, destroy the bearded ones!" their god commands to its priests, because that god is a rival with the dwarven gods, for example. Now, does their god care because of the beards? Of course not LOL! But that is how it identifies the race of its rival god.

When a "stranger" comes into a village, where no one has ever seen such a creature before, some might be curious and friendly, but others will be suspicious and fearful.

 

[Minigiant]

Yea, but I don’t think it violates verisimilitude, as opposed to “unrealistic”, because there’s no reason to suppose humans in a different multiverse will function in the same manner as Earth humans.

It’s only a problem based on implicit assumptions one could carry into worldbuilding, basically. It’s just as easy to simply start with a “on this world, tolerance is the norm” premise for worldbuilding. Choosing that races will naturally not get along is a specific choice, not a default one.

Isn't the default more likely to be torelance as Human God, Dwarf God, Elf God, and Gnome God call for a truce against EEEEEVVVVAAAAALLLLL!!! and old school D&D was Lawful Goods vs Chaotic Evils go in the dungeon and level up to kill them?

 

[Scribe]

Isn't the default more likely to be torelance as Human God, Dwarf God, Elf God, and Gnome God call for a truce against EEEEEVVVVAAAAALLLLL!!! and old school D&D was Lawful Goods vs Chaotic Evils go in the dungeon and level up to kill them?

I mean Elf vs Dwarf antagonism is an old trope.

 

[TwoSix]

I mean Elf vs Dwarf antagonism is an old trope.

Sure, and with 60+ races or whatever, I would expect plenty of rivalries or even flat-out hatred.

It just doesn’t mean generic peasant is going to be like “it’s one of those weird dog people they talk about in the stories, let me get the pitchfork!” You CAN do that if that’s the aesthetic you want to provide, I have no problem with that. It just isn’t “more realistic” just because Earth humans functioned that way.

 

[Minigiant]

Sure, and with 60+ races or whatever, I would expect plenty of rivalries or even flat-out hatred.

It just doesn’t mean generic peasant is going to be like “it’s one of those weird dog people they talk about in the stories, let me get the pitchfork!” You CAN do that if that’s the aesthetic you want to provide, I have no problem with that. It just isn’t “more realistic” just because Earth humans functioned that way.

Plus Earth humans are more likely to want to (black screen) other races. I mean D&D gives humans 2 half races.

Us Earth Humans are freaks. And SciFi and Fantasy tends to up that to thirteen and make humans more horny and kinky.

 

[Incenjucar]

Plus Earth humans are more likely to want to (black screen) other races. I mean D&D gives humans 2 half races.

Us Earth Humans are freaks. And SciFi and Fantasy tends to up that to thirteen and make humans more horny and kinky.

Edited for not reading carefully:
Not to mention various plane-touched, etc.