Fantasy Communities - Melting pots or racially pure (ish)?

[Cor Azer]

From a design point of view, I guess this would be more directed at DMs, but I'd suspect many players would have an opinion as well, particularly considering that it may affect a player's immersion into the game.

Generally speaking, do you prefer your in-game communities to be melting pots, with most, if not all, D&D races having representation, or do you prefer your dwarves one place, elves somewhere else, with only merchants, diplomats, and adventurers passing from one to another?

I know that I tend to create areas where one race is dominant, and the Player's Handbook somewhat encourages that with preferred regions for the standard races, but I think it's my modern sensibilities causing a stir in my brain. Maybe less so now with the emphasis on points of light, but generally speaking, most D&D campaign worlds I've seen have had races interacting with each other for centuries, if not longer. Granted, real life has little to do with a raid on a dragon's lair, but I have a hard time accepting nigh-perfectly racial communities when so much of a D&D game seems to rely on heavy interaction between these disparate regions - in real-life, such interaction led fairly quickly to culturally diverse lands, even if the original culture is still very much in the majority.

The more I think on it, I think it comes from my preference for smaller regions of campaign play. I like most of the standard races to be present in some fashion, but I tend to set my campaigns on small continents, or even smaller regions, like mountain-locked kingdoms or fjord-sided peninsulas... leaving very little room for each race to have its own kingdom. They may have their own neighborhood, but all answer to the same set of nobility, and generally face the same problems in their daily lives.

What are your thoughts and preferences?

 

[Fenes]

I prefer distinct regions for other races and species. Some communities might exist in other areas - like "Dwarf Quarters" - but generally, I don't like to have mini-Sigils everywhere.

 

[cougent]

In my own home brew CS world there are both, and what I consider a unique twist. My world started with 9 unique races on 9 separate continents. Everything progresses from there... and not one of those unique races was human. Humans are the "mutt" race of my world and while they have carved out there own dominant areas they have no former stronghold of racial purity to call the "homeland" because their never was one to start. One of the 9 continents is now the most cosmopolitan and diverse of all the others but even on that continent there is still the original racial stronghold for its original race, but there are also 3 other racial strongholds for races that have migrated across the seas. Although it is the largest continent, there is still a sort of forced cooperation / integration so that many diverse towns, cities, principalities, etc. have sprung up throughout the land.

 

[Kzach]

I'm not big on melting pots. In general I have very separate areas and clashes between races and religions are common-place.

The only exception to this is halflings who inhabit pretty much every city that will allow them entry, but never in large enough numbers to form communities of their own. And even then, as one orc general (I have an orcish nation sortof based on the Roman Empire in my setting) once commented, "We don't have a problem with rats in our cities. All the halflings ate them."

 

[DrunkonDuty]

A little from column A, a little from column B. It depends on what I have in mind for the game. Current campaign is based in a very homogenous dwarven community. But elsewhere in the game world there's plenty of melting pots. ANd most of my other games are usually set in some equivalent of Greyhawk City/Lankmar/Waterdeep etc.; the big melting pot city with folk from all over the world. Let's face it without big melting pots how else do you get all those Half- this and thats?

 

[knightofround]

I have to admit that I am more prone to making "racially pure" settings more than "melting pots". Just because I think they're more interesting to explore.

Ok this might sound kinda bad, but in D&D there needs to be some conflict. And really, what type of conflict is easier (and more complex) than ethnic conflict? I mean, look at all the racial tensions humanity has in the real world. Now imagine if, on a physical level, different nations took on differing physical traits, talents, and lifespans. There's tons of adventure hooks/twists you can get out of this.

I don't have anything against D&D "melting pot societies" persay, its just that they usually degenerate into vanilla, "china-town" type scenarios. Whereas its easier to take something like Halflings and go "ok...so lets make these guys fiesty cannibals!"

If anyone's got a good unique "melting pot society" I'd love to see it

 

[CruelSummerLord]

As DrunkonDuty said, a little bit of both. In the real world, we have the big "melting pot" type cities, where people from a wide variety of different backgrounds all live side by side, while at the same time we have more isolated/homogenous communities, such as in small towns, rural areas, and so forth. At the same time, some ethnocultural groups tend to predominate in most areas-in the U.S., for example, the Black community is much more prevalent owing to a variety of factors, and plays a major role in American cultural and political life. On the other hand, in Canada it seems much more blended in and smaller in number, save for some regional concentrations, while the French Canadian population is generally more numerous and influential in both the country's politics and culture.

Same thing in a fantasy world-the Greyhawk setting, for example, will have large cities such as Greyhawk, Rauxes, Niole Dra, and so forth where many different races and cultures are blended. On the other hand, they'll also have more isolated dwarf mining colonies and elf villages, which may have a couple of humans or halflings living among them but are otherwise far more homogenous.

National or provincial capitals will probably have more mixed populations, as they tend to attract a lot of attention and investment, as will places that otherwise boast strong economies, attracting new populations. Seaports are another natural choice, as in your typical D&D setting they're a natural stopping point for travellers and immigrants.

All this is a roundabout way of saying that I enjoy them both, depending on where exactly the setting is. That said, one group will likely predominate, if only by a small margin. Needless to say, that doesn't prevent other races developing their own enclaves and regularly interacting with one another. Some groups will form their own neighborhoods, others will blend and meld with one another.

It might be an interesting changeup to see how this affects cities where demihuman races predominate-a city that grows up around a prosperous dwarven settlement, and that remains predominantly dwarven in its demographics, may develop a "Tall Quarter" where many of the humans live, or otherwise have services that cater specifically to humans.

After all, we see many examples of demihumans setting up their own neighborhoods in human cities, or setting up businesses and other initiatives that respond to the needs of their own races-who says humans won't do the same when they're a minority?

 

[S'mon]

I definitely go with the racial purity, as with Tolkien and other high fantasy. Without distinct communities and cultures, elves are just humans with funny ears.

Conversely, in a swords & sorcery setting like Conan I'll again follow the literary tropes by having a high degree of cosmopolitanism at least in the major cities - Kush might be 99.9% Kushite with the occasional Stygian, but a crossroads city like Shadizar will be full of different races of humans from east, west, north and south, as well as native Zamorans.

 

[S'mon]

The more I think on it, I think it comes from my preference for smaller regions of campaign play. I like most of the standard races to be present in some fashion, but I tend to set my campaigns on small continents, or even smaller regions, like mountain-locked kingdoms or fjord-sided peninsulas... leaving very little room for each race to have its own kingdom. They may have their own neighborhood, but all answer to the same set of nobility, and generally face the same problems in their daily lives.

Well, my current 'point of light' D&D setting is a small mountain valley kingdom, with human areas, a halfling shire, an elven forest, and dwarven hills. Humans are dominant, and the races keep largely to themselves, but all serve the same human king who once united them to overthrow the tyrannical rule of an evil sorcerer.

 

[Phlebas]

I've approached it from a different view as my homebrew is set in the 'dark ages' after the collapse of the human empire. although the empire was multi-cultural its now reverting to distinct racial / tribal lands. the largest cities have small communities of most races, but the majority of elves, dwarves, gnomes and goblins live in their own lands. (Halflings are nomads IMC)

one of the background themes is the 'balkanisation' of the human races, in the time of the empire it was considered a mark of pride to be descended from both of the two original cultures that merged to form the empire (most nobles had to trace their heritage back to both archaic noble families). now a new influx of northerners (~viking) have set up a 'racially pure' fundamentalist kingdom and started enslaving non-humans and non-northmen. this kicks off a revival of the western (~indus valley / arab) culture with the imperials (~mediterranean) caught in between.

so in answer, some cities are still melting pots but the theme of slow decay means that outsiders are always viewed with suspicion and the amount of non-natives in each city will dwindle over time...