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

[Vaalingrade]

The mammal on earth which murders its own kind the most is.... the meerkat. So if you introduced a sapient meerkat playable species, would it be racist to have them as more violent than humans?

Casual Geographic viewer?

But if the meerkat was sapient, most of the factors that make the meerkat the number one Hamlet fan wouldn't be the case anymore.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Casual Geographic viewer?

But if the meerkat was sapient, most of the factors that make the meerkat the number one Hamlet fan wouldn't be the case anymore.

I'd actually heard it before that but forgotten until casual geographic reminded me again.

You could actually argue that they'd be even worse if they were sapient, as they'd have the tools to do far worse than before. Or they might be better as they'd have the logical understanding that killing is bad.

But humans aren't some naturally violent monsters which outdo the entire animal kingdom for how much we kill each other per person. We're not instinctually evil. If you dumped 100 or so humans on a remote island, there would probably be a lot less killing than doing the same with chimps.

 

[Valetudo]

Dude chimps throw down..

 

[Maxperson]

Not sure why you feel a need to resort to an ad-hominem insult? I suppose this is a touchy subject for you?


Anyway, here is the 2014 Human.

HUMAN (2014)
Type: Humanoid
Size: Medium
Speed: 30 feet
Lifespan: "less than a century"
Species Feats:
Abilitities: +1 to six scores
Languages: Common and any other
Background:
Proficiencies: any two and possibly any two from tools and languages


Here is the playtest Human with only the Background and without the Human Species feats.

HUMAN
Type: Humanoid
Size: Medium
Speed: 30 feet
Lifespan: "less than a century"
Species Feats:
...
Background:
Abilities: +1 to three scores
Skill Proficiencies: any two
Languages: Common and any two
Feat: choice of any feat


It is a fact that the playtest Background represents well the 2014 Human mechanics.



In addition, the playtest Human has actual species feats relating to Inspiration and so on.

So you're saying that the background is one that only humans can take, right? Because if any other race can take that background, then it doesn't represent humans in any ways, shape or form.

 

[Yaarel]

So you're saying that the background is one that only humans can take, right? Because if any other race can take that background, then it doesn't represent humans in any ways, shape or form.

I assume you read the original Playtest UA2022-CharacterOrigins?

The Playtest background grants the items that I listed.

"
Background:
Abilities: +1 to three scores [or +2 to one score and +1 to an other]
Skill Proficiencies: any two
Languages: Common and any two [from background and species]
Feat: choice of any feat

"


Every character of any species gains this background and its items during the character creation process.

In addition to the background feat, the Human species gains a feat that it qualifies for.



There are no Human-only feats in the Playtest. If there would be, it might be better to think of them as the local feats of a specific Human-majority city and its region: such as Neverwinter, Water Deep, and Baldurs Gate, or a less urban region, such as Icewind Dales. Obviously local feats can stereotype a local culture, so sensitivity is necessary, with all abilities prominent, especially Intelligence, and each region having a reasonable share of criminality. Sensitivity is especially necessary if drawing "inspiration" from reallife stereotypes.

Thus a person of any Humanoid species who grows up in a Human-majority city, can take any feats of that city.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

There are no Human-only feats in the Playtest. If there would be, it might be better to think of them as the local feats of a specific Human-majority city and its region: such as Neverwinter, Water Deep, and Baldurs Gate, or a less urban region, such as Icewind Dales. Obviously local feats can stereotype a local culture, so sensitivity is necessary, with all abilities prominent, especially Intelligence, and each region having a reasonable share of criminality. Sensitivity is especially necessary if drawing "inspiration" from reallife stereotypes.

Thus a person of any Humanoid species who grows up in a Human-majority city, can take any feats of that city.

I don't want cultures separated by species. I want cultures to be culture-specific. For instance, Agrarian communities who value hard labor and simple life and deep connections with their community are not only going to be halflings and humans. Every person who feels connected to that kind of life, will be welcome based on their individual temperament and fit for the community.

Most of the civilized realms in my games are not "human-majority" or even "racial-majority" cities. Humanoids of all kinds gather based on economic or social preference, or are stuck there based on circumstance. Species groupings are more likely to be seen in neighborhoods and smaller, familial communities within larger communities. Humans are not the overwhelmingly most populous species in the world. It's pretty much a diaspora of many species (the new world was settled 250 years prior by a diaspora of refugees from a dying world.)

When it comes to supremacists in my world, it's mostly national, rather than racial. I do have a barbaric "mostly chromatic dragonborn" realm dedicated to the evil, tyrannical Dragon Queen, but it also includes kobolds and a diverse population of servs (slaves). Those aren't the only chromatic dragonborn or kobolds in the world, though. The multicultural realms don't hate all chromatic dragonborn, but they do pay attention to see if such a person acts with affinity to the Dragon Queen's cultural expectations of her followers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't want cultures separated by species. I want cultures to be culture-specific. For instance, Agrarian communities who value hard labor and simple life and deep connections with their community are not only going to be halflings and humans. Every person who feels connected to that kind of life, will be welcome based on their individual temperament and fit for the community.

Most of the civilized realms in my games are not "human-majority" or even "racial-majority" cities. Humanoids of all kinds gather based on economic or social preference, or are stuck there based on circumstance. Species groupings are more likely to be seen in neighborhoods and smaller, familial communities within larger communities. Humans are not the overwhelmingly most populous species in the world. It's pretty much a diaspora of many species (the new world was settled 250 years prior by a diaspora of refugees from a dying world.)

When it comes to supremacists in my world, it's mostly national, rather than racial. I do have a barbaric "mostly chromatic dragonborn" realm dedicated to the evil, tyrannical Dragon Queen, but it also includes kobolds and a diverse population of servs (slaves). Those aren't the only chromatic dragonborn or kobolds in the world, though. The multicultural realms don't hate all chromatic dragonborn, but they do pay attention to see if such a person acts with affinity to the Dragon Queen's cultural expectations of her followers.

See, I'm not really interested in every community being cosmopolitan. Majorities are a real thing, and they define a large part of a culture.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

See, I'm not really interested in every community being cosmopolitan. Majorities are a real thing, and they define a large part of a culture.

In your worlds, maybe. In older, race-focused worlds, sure. I am not limited to such assumptions. I have little interest in separating places via race/species-based tropes. I've dealt with that fantasy baggage for 30+ years. I've outgrown it.

Dwarves are the best smiths. Everyone else is worse. Bleh.
Halflings are all pastoral foodies. Boring.
Elves are the best at... whatever Elves are the best at. Whatever.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't want cultures separated by species. I want cultures to be culture-specific. For instance, Agrarian communities who value hard labor and simple life and deep connections with their community are not only going to be halflings and humans. Every person who feels connected to that kind of life, will be welcome based on their individual temperament and fit for the community.

Most of the civilized realms in my games are not "human-majority" or even "racial-majority" cities. Humanoids of all kinds gather based on economic or social preference, or are stuck there based on circumstance. Species groupings are more likely to be seen in neighborhoods and smaller, familial communities within larger communities. Humans are not the overwhelmingly most populous species in the world. It's pretty much a diaspora of many species (the new world was settled 250 years prior by a diaspora of refugees from a dying world.)

I agree the culture is the organizing principle. The languages that one speaks are one of the most powerful shapers of identity.

I assume many ancient communities were founded by a particular species. But over time, especially the large cities tend to become metropolises, multicultural and multispecies. Traditional communities can survive, whose founding species remains the majority. For example, the Halfling river nomad culture seems Halfling-majority even while other species are present as citizens and family members. I view the remote Grugach communities as founded by Elf and Orc working together to succeed in the harsh environment. There can be a magocratic culture that comprises mainly Human, Elf, Gnome, and Giant, in about equal numbers, whence also multispecies mixing them.

I tend to use the term "-majority" to emphasize, even a community known for a particular species will also include members of other species.

Factions seem a useful mechanic to describe social movements within a culture, including prestigious ones or criminal ones. Depending on the formal ideology of a faction, its members can be "typically" its alignment. For a combat game like D&D, factions are the place to find the "good guys" and the "bad guys", or similar combat motives.

Descriptions of a wider culture benefit from ethnographic neutrality. Possibly, the format and mechanics can also help ensure a culturally sensitive description. Rather than stereotype the behavior of an entire culture, I find it more helpful to list which backgrounds are prominent, while making sure to diversify this list.


There are conflictive sensitivities. There can be a distinctive cultural identity whose members strive to transmit to future generations, such as that of an Indigenous culture. Oppositely, there can be metropolitan culture that freely intermingles cultures around the planet. As long as each community has a reasonable process to "adopt" a stranger who wants to be part of it, it seems ethical enough to me.

 

[Scribe]

In your worlds, maybe. In older, race-focused worlds, sure. I am not limited to such assumptions. I have little interest in separating places via race/species-based tropes. I've dealt with that fantasy baggage for 30+ years. I've outgrown it.

Dwarves are the best smiths. Everyone else is worse. Bleh.
Halflings are all pastoral foodies. Boring.
Elves are the best at... whatever Elves are the best at. Whatever.

A perfectly valid approach, popularized imo with Eberron like settings.