D&D General elf definition semantic shenanigans

[Micah Sweet]

Or they could be like the metahumans in Shadowrun. Phenotypically they all appear different to one another, but genetically they are all the same.

Skin-deep differences do seem to be the way we're supposed to think of races/ancestries/heritages nowadays in some circles.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Skin-deep differences do seem to be the way we're supposed to think of races/ancestries/heritages nowadays in some circles.

You've misread his statement. The differences in SR races are far more than skin deep. They just aren't separate species; they're separate expressions of one, but there are intense differences in what that means.

 

[Clint_L]

nuDnD post Tasha and that terrible Monsters of the Multiverse flattened and arguably neutered all meaningful species/lineage/racial differences in this system. It’s nearly all style now, meaningful mechanics coupled with lore have gone by the wayside. I think that it makes for a rather boring approach (I’m currently reading a ton of Tolkien, and I love how different the different regions feel), but I respect if someone views it different. It just isn’t for me and the tables I run.

Lore hasn’t gone by the wayside - it’s what mostly defines species now.

 

[Hussar]

Lore hasn’t gone by the wayside - it’s what mostly defines species now.

I think you misunderstood. It's lore coupled with mechanics. So, that +2 Dexterity is a defining trait of an elf. That it's mostly meaningless doesn'T matter. It means that because elves are described as graceful and whatnot, a +1 to acrobatics makes all the difference.

Of course, the fact that now you can actually have mechanics that aren't tied to stats bonuses and create actual unique mechanics for races, doesn't matter. And, of course, one must always bear in mind that we must all be forced to play the same way. A strong elf is just wrong, regardless of whose table it appears at.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, here's my personal take, which is rather more informed by 4e than any other edition (no one should be surprised by this).

• Humans: Diverse, incorrigible, full of wanderlust. Ask ten humans a question, and like as not you'll get twelve answers. Their divine patron has either died or disappeared--but many other deities are quick to claim them, particularly given their penchant for community-building.
• Elves: Quiet, intense, perceptive. Elves are cousins to eladrin, who have naturalized to the magics and environment of this world, where the primal spirits reign. Dear to Sehanine, their divine patron by way of their eladrin ancestors, but perhaps dearer still to Melora.
• Eladrin: Beguiling, crafty, wistful. Natives of the Feywild, where their eldritch courts rule by ancient law never shared, many but a remnant of the power they once had, long ago. Children of Corellon and Sehanine in the bright days of the early world, though they take most after the former.
• Half-elves: Cosmopolitan, flexible, diplomatic. Half-elves navigate the complexities of the social jungle as their elven forebears do those of the primal jungle, or their eladrin cousins navigate the labyrinth of magic. Perhaps the dearest adopted children of Sehanine, though Avandra also smiles on them.
• Dwarves: Wise, stubborn, orthodox. The dwarves have much in common with their mountain homes: enduring, austere, and incredibly dangerous if underestimated. Though often hidebound, the ways of their forebears do so often succeed. Children of Moradin, naturally.
• Halflings: Curious, courageous, convivial. While some love the open road and others love a homely house, halflings as a rule all love good cheer, good food and drink, and good company--and can be ferocious in defense of these things. Watched over by Avandra.
• Dragonborn: Dutiful, ambitious, winsome. The proud children of Dead Io's blood, dragonborn never forget what they have been--and ever aspire to heights greater still. Both Bahamut and Tiamat claim them as theirs by right--and their struggle mirrors that within the dragonborn soul.
• Tieflings: Sly, cunning, tenacious. Bearers of infernal blood, all too often condemned for something they had no choice in, but they strive, even thrive, despite a deck stacked against them. Naturally, Asmodeus considers them his; whether they welcome such attention is another matter.

Drow, orcs and half-orcs, gnomes, goliaths, and genasi would probably round out the typical list, with minotaur, lizardfolk, and tabaxi being close behind. But I don't have quite as many thoughts about most of these, other than orc/half-orc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think you misunderstood. It's lore coupled with mechanics. So, that +2 Dexterity is a defining trait of an elf. That it's mostly meaningless doesn'T matter. It means that because elves are described as graceful and whatnot, a +1 to acrobatics makes all the difference.

Of course, the fact that now you can actually have mechanics that aren't tied to stats bonuses and create actual unique mechanics for races, doesn't matter. And, of course, one must always bear in mind that we must all be forced to play the same way. A strong elf is just wrong, regardless of whose table it appears at.

This is why (as I have said many times) I favor the 13th Age way of doing things. Every "High Elf" is always either intelligent or charismatic, but some may be only one or the other, not both. Every dwarf is wise or tough, but some may be only one of the two. Etc.

This lets us recognize that (a) real variation within a species can actually be pretty significant, (b) a person's inclinations or interests can have a huge effect on how they train and what they train, and (c) education and practice are a major part of what we often consider to be "innate" abilities.

We do in fact get to have our cake and eat it too. High elves are known for their intelligence and grace, and yet we can still have high elf Fighters who are no slouch at fighting.

 

[Divine2021]

Lore hasn’t gone by the wayside - it’s what mostly defines species now.

I see how that might work out for some, but it doesn’t work for me. I don’t like it. I like lore tied to mechanics and vice versa, and I like my species to feel mostly alien to each other. As I said above, I’ve been doing a deep dive into Tolkien lately, and I appreciate how he gives each of his regions/peoples a distinct taste and approach to life as reflected in their strengths/weaknesses. I totally see how that might not work for everyone, but it’s how I like it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I see how that might work out for some, but it doesn’t work for me. I don’t like it. I like lore tied to mechanics and vice versa, and I like my species to feel mostly alien to each other. As I said above, I’ve been doing a deep dive into Tolkien lately, and I appreciate how he gives each of his regions/peoples a distinct taste and approach to life as reflected in their strengths/weaknesses. I totally see how that might not work for everyone, but it’s how I like it.

Is it not possible to define such things through culture?

The Rohirrim are quite clearly different from the "Men of Gondor", despite the fact that both of them are human and, thus, should have identical stats.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is it not possible to define such things through culture?

The Rohirrim are quite clearly different from the "Men of Gondor", despite the fact that both of them are human and, thus, should have identical stats.

Absolutely. This is why I favor a culture metric to character creation.

 

[Yaarel]

So, this is already other threads. But. I honestly dont understand why a Halfling isnt a Human.

What is the "essence" of a Halfling species? What makes it not a Human?