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

[Maxperson]

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.

Yes, but you miss my point. You said that the background let you be a 2014 human which is false. A background that isn't race specific can't represent any single race, so even if what the background gives you is the same as what being a 2014 human gives you, it still doesn't represent humans.

Only that combination of traits which is human specific can represent humans. That's the issue. It's not that we can't copy the abilities with the background. It's that we want that particular combination of traits to be human only, since that's how it's been for a very long time. The new traits don't cut it. Having a background that anyone can take doesn't cut it.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

You are welcome to state your preferences, but I object to the term "outgrown", as it indicates that believing differently than you on this issue is a sign of immaturity, which is directly insulting.

I've outgrown my own earlier perception of them, because I used to enjoy them more. Now I just see thin parallels.

For instance, I loved both the Forgotten Realms and The Known World of Mystara growing up. But after a while I realized that the thin veneer of them mirroring real-world civilizations and cultures was just riffing off of offensive stereotypes. Maztica? Really?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've outgrown my own earlier perception of them, because I used to enjoy them more. Now I just see thin parallels.

For instance, I loved both the Forgotten Realms and The Known World of Mystara growing up. But after a while I realized that the thin veneer of them mirroring real-world civilizations and cultures was just riffing off of offensive stereotypes. Maztica? Really?

Nobody says Maztica was well written, but again, you are heavily implying that your reasons for disliking these things make you somehow more moral than those who disagree. It just reads as holier-than-thou.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Nobody says Maztica was well written, but again, you are heavily implying that your reasons for disliking these things make you somehow more moral than those who disagree. It just reads as holier-than-thou.

I don't think I'm holier than thou. I very well could be wrong. Who knows? All I can say is that older stories that rely on racist tropes make me feel dirty for liking them when I was younger. I can only speak to my own growth, and how I feel I've evolved my personal perspective, and how I hope the storytelling evolves going forward.

Of course, there needs to be a source of evil/conflict for heroes to fight against, after all. There are certainly "-isms" and evil in my home games, but it is not universally pervasive based on author-designed racial cultures or race/species hatred of one another. Every evil in a D&D world was designed by an author. It's a reflection of the values they want to normalize in that game world. They decide the demarcation of what counts as evil and what is acceptable for said society. Some settings want evil to be normalized and call it grey. Game of Thrones is like that. It doesn't make the gamer evil, or less than good, for wanting to navigate a dangerous world like that. It's just that I very specifically don't like it when the hate is based specifically around race, or is a very clear negative mirror of real world cultures. Fantasy nations and non-humanoid monsters are fine for that grey area for me. YMMV. You do you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think I'm holier than thou. I very well could be wrong. Who knows? All I can say is that older stories that rely on racist tropes make me feel dirty for liking them when I was younger. I can only speak to my own growth, and how I feel I've evolved my personal perspective, and how I hope the storytelling evolves going forward.

Of course, there needs to be a source of evil/conflict for heroes to fight against, after all. There are certainly "-isms" and evil in my home games, but it is not universally pervasive based on author-designed racial cultures or race/species hatred of one another. Every evil in a D&D world was designed by an author. It's a reflection of the values they want to normalize in that game world. They decide the demarcation of counts as evil and what is acceptable for said society. Some settings want evil to be normalized and call it grey. Game of Thrones is like that. It doesn't make the gamer evil, or less than good, for wanting to navigate a dangerous world like that. It's just that I very specifically don't like it when the hate is based specifically around race, or is a very clear negative mirror of real world cultures. Fantasy nations and non-humanoid monsters are fine for that grey area for me. YMMV. You do you.

I will note that I see a difference between, "I don't like this" and, "I don't like this, and I sure hope the game other people enjoy changes to push my preferences over theirs, because what I want to be different is more important".

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I will note that I see a difference between, "I don't like this" and, "I don't like this, and I sure hope the game other people enjoy changes to push my preferences over theirs, because what I want to be different is more important".

That's fair. I can totally see your perspective on my commentary. The world is a wild place right now and I've been feeling very sensitive to the racial stuff. It may help if I just bow out of this thread for a while.

Be good, everyone. I love you all.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, but you miss my point. You said that the background let you be a 2014 human which is false. A background that isn't race specific can't represent any single race, so even if what the background gives you is the same as what being a 2014 human gives you, it still doesn't represent humans.

Only that combination of traits which is human specific can represent humans. That's the issue. It's not that we can't copy the abilities with the background. It's that we want that particular combination of traits to be human only, since that's how it's been for a very long time. The new traits don't cut it. Having a background that anyone can take doesn't cut it.

Perhaps I was less clear than I could be.


It is the player who decides − narratively − that the character descends from more than one species.

Then the challenge is, how to mechanically actualize this narrative.

Ideally, all species will organize traits into feats. Each feat lumps thematically related traits together. Then the player can choose species traits from whichever species the character descends from. In this way, the character can mechanically express the narrative of descending from more than one species. But, multispecies rules to mix the traits of any Humanoid species doesnt exist yet.

Despite the lack of mechanical rules for a multispecies character, both the Human species and the Elf species can mechanically represent a Human/Elf multispecies character reasonably well. If the player uses the Human mechanics, the free feat can gain traits that are relevant to the Elf, such as Elven Accuracy, Fey Touched, or so on. If the player uses the Elf mechanics, it can virtually match the 2014 Half-Elf mechanics, while the background feat resembles a Human free feat in a way that can help convey a Human flavor, especially if the feat is a local feat from a Human majority population. Either way is a reasonable way to mechanically actualize the narrative of descending from both the Human and the Elf species.


I understand your objection. Unlike earlier versions of D&D Human, the Playtest Human includes a distinctive Human trait, Resourceful. While it isnt the only Human trait, it is the one that is Human-only. If this Human trait is available as a background feat, it can be a helpful way for a character of any Humanoid species to express Human descent.

 

[TwoSix]

Despite the lack of mechanical rules for a multispecies character, both the Human species and the Elf species can mechanically represent a Human/Elf multispecies character reasonably well. If the player uses the Human mechanics, the free feat can gain traits that are relevant to the Elf, such as Elven Accuracy, Fey Touched, or so on. If the player uses the Elf mechanics, it can virtually match the 2014 Half-Elf mechanics, while the background feat resembles a Human free feat in a way that can help convey a Human flavor, especially if the feat is a local feat from a Human majority population. Either way is a reasonable way to mechanically actualize the narrative of descending from both the Human and the Elf species.

My only caveat here is that this sort of rule only supports the narrative that a multispecies character will be some sort of midpoint between the traits of their ancestors. What about the narrative that being multispecies creates an individual that is more or distinct from the sum of their parts? What is being part-human and part-elven, for example, gives a distinct ability that neither of their parents had?

 

[Yaarel]

I've outgrown my own earlier perception of them, because I used to enjoy them more. Now I just see thin parallels.

For instance, I loved both the Forgotten Realms and The Known World of Mystara growing up. But after a while I realized that the thin veneer of them mirroring real-world civilizations and cultures was just riffing off of offensive stereotypes. Maztica? Really?

I feel similar disappointment ... in hindsight.

My groups never used official campaign settings. I learned to play D&D from old school diehards, who considered creating ones own setting to be the entire point of the D&D game.

So our cultures didnt resemble the official cultures. There was never overt racism in our homebrew settings − racism was something that never crossed our minds. We wouldnt think it was fun had it.

Today, I have read official settings from across the editions, such as to research the many D&D Elf traditions, and similarly get a sense of where things in 5e are coming from. There is much in the formerly official settings that is racist and sexist, and stomach churning or eyerolling. It is frustrating to come across it, and frustrating to repeatedly come across it in different contexts.

Our homebrew settings did borrow freely from official content, and even cherrypick from official settings like Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, and Eberron, without paying too much attention to what else was in those settings.

We did embrace things that seemed "fun" but in hindsight, now feels icky. Such as racially determined ability score improvements, that pitted "high Intelligence elven cultures" versus "low Intelligence elven cultures", and so on.

 

[Yaarel]

My only caveat here is that this sort of rule only supports the narrative that a multispecies character will be some sort of midpoint between the traits of their ancestors. What about the narrative that being multispecies creates an individual that is more or distinct from the sum of their parts? What is being part-human and part-elven, for example, gives a distinct ability that neither of their parents had?

Honestly, I feel that a multispecies character that has traits that disresemble either species is bad gaming design.

With regard to the Half Elf, thank goodness, 5e now lets any species improve any ability score, including Human, Elf, and Human/Elf. So a formerly high Charisma Half-Elf is now moot, and most of the Elf flavor was high Charisma anyway. When it comes to mechanics like instinctive effectiveness with learning skill proficiencies − this is actually a Human instinct anyway.

A 5e player now has many ways to make a character personal, individual, and unique, including background, advancement feats, and other mechanics.