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

[Micah Sweet]

Perhaps not, but you probably shouldn't have species where the light-coloured people from that species are good and the dark-coloured people are bad, no?

No, but that doesn't mean that every story should retroactively add good dark-skinned elves if it already had evil ones. If you want to make a point out of the evil ones being from the Cult of Lloth, that certainly makes sense.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No, but that doesn't mean that every story should retroactively add good dark-skinned elves if it already had evil ones. If you want to make a point out of the evil ones being from the Cult of Lloth, that certainly makes sense.

How do those two things differ? It seems like to do the latter convincingly you'd necessarily have to do the former. Otherwise it would be mere lip-service and nothing else.

 

[TwoSix]

No, but that doesn't mean that every story should retroactively add good dark-skinned elves if it already had evil ones. If you want to make a point out of the evil ones being from the Cult of Lloth, that certainly makes sense.

I mean, they pretty much seem to be moving away from any representation of a humanoid race being entirely evil. If there's a humanoid race in the module, they'll almost certainly show an evil group as well as a bunch of good/neutral ones you can talk to.

I mean, BG3 has friendly drow, githyanki, hobgoblins, and even mind flayers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How do those two things differ? It seems like to do the latter convincingly you'd necessarily have to do the former. Otherwise it would be mere lip-service and nothing else.

Again, retroactive is the problem, not the principle. And talking about something has value in and of itself. Otherwise, a lot of people on the internet, no matter their views, are very much wasting their time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, they pretty much seem to be moving away from any representation of a humanoid race being entirely evil. If there's a humanoid race in the module, they'll almost certainly show an evil group as well as a bunch of good/neutral ones you can talk to.

I mean, BG3 has friendly drow, githyanki, hobgoblins, and even mind flayers.

BG3 is a new story, designed to reflect modern values. That's great, and I can't imagine anyone having a problem with that.

 

[Yaarel]

Look at how many people claim Alignment was a straight jacket on Monsters, despite it specifically being called out as NOT one, and you may have your answer.

It does seem to be the case: unless the official books spell something out explicitly, it is as if it doesnt exist.

Part of it is, we all know that Rule Zero exists. We distinguish between what the official description says, versus what an individual DM does.

But it even seems it isnt enough to mention the possibility of an alternative. The alternative must be explicitly official.


For example, in the 2014 Monster Manual the intro section officially describes what the Alignment in the monster stat block means. It actually says, the listed alignment is just the "default", and the DM can reassign any alignment to any creature.

"
The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign. If you want a good-aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there's nothing stopping you.

"

The mistake here is, this permission sounds too much like Rule Zero − youre the DM so do what you want. That in turn implies, to deviate from the statblock alignment is as if "unofficial". Suddenly, there is a problem with those DMs who play "by the book", and with how WotC officially presents D&D.

The feeling is, as if, the possibility of an alternate alignment doesnt exist.

Now statblocks clearly − officially − add the word "typically" to many statblock alignments. So, the fact that there exists in the core setting assumption individuals of other alignments, is official.


This need to spell things out officially, is why I sympathize with the fans who want the Human-Elf to be in the 2024 Players Handbook − explicitly and officially. I agree, if there is only the mention of a possibility of a Human-Elf without supplying a clear example of it, the Human-Elf really can disappear from the D&D lore.

I dont think the Human-Elf should count as a separate species. I do think the Human-Elf should be a prominent example of a multispecies in the 2024 Players Handbook. Maybe the 2024 Players Handbook should have two examples of multispecies characters: the Human-Elf because it is extremely popular and a convenient pregen using multispecies rules, and something because it is obscure, such as a Dragonborn-Halfling, to showcase the creative possibilities.

If something is an important part of the D&D tradition, then officialdom needs to spell it out in full.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It does seem to be the case: unless the official books spell something out explicitly, it is as if it doesnt exist.

Part of it is, we all know that Rule Zero exists. We distinguish between what the official description says, versus what an individual DM does.

But it even seems it isnt enough to mention the possibility of an alternative. The alternative must be explicitly official.


For example, in the 2014 Monster Manual the intro section officially describes what the Alignment in the monster stat block means. It actually says, the listed alignment is just the "default", and the DM can reassign any alignment to any creature.

"
The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign. If you want a good-aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there's nothing stopping you.

"

The mistake here is, this permission sounds too much like Rule Zero − youre the DM so do what you want. That in turn implies, to deviate from the statblock alignment is as if "unofficial". Suddenly, there is a problem with those DMs who play "by the book", and with how WotC officially presents D&D.

The feeling is, as if, the possibility of an alternate alignment doesnt exist.

Now statblocks clearly − officially − add the word "typically" to many statblock alignments. So, the fact that there exists in the core setting assumption individuals of other alignments, is official.


This need to spell things out officially, is why I sympathize with the fans who want the Human-Elf to be in the 2024 Players Handbook − explicitly and officially. I agree, if there is only the mention of a possibility of a Human-Elf without supplying a clear example of it, the Human-Elf really can disappear from the D&D lore.

I dont think the Human-Elf should count as a separate species. I do think the Human-Elf should be a prominent example of a multispecies in the 2024 Players Handbook. Maybe the 2024 Players Handbook should have two examples of multispecies characters: the Human-Elf because it is extremely popular and a convenient pregen using multispecies rules, and something because it is obscure, such as a Dragonborn-Halfling, to showcase the creative possibilities.

If something is an important part of the D&D tradition, then officialdom needs to spell it out in full.

Sadly, I see no flaw in your logic.

 

[Scribe]

The feeling is, as if, the possibility of an alternate alignment doesnt exist.

Which is factually nonsense.

I get it, people can feel however they feel, but it's fact, just ironclad fact, that if you want to play, or build a culture of good Orcs, you can do so.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Again, retroactive is the problem, not the principle. And talking about something has value in and of itself. Otherwise, a lot of people on the internet, no matter their views, are very much wasting their time.

Discussing something individually is very different from "corporate making a statement" or equally a book saying "Well they're not all bad!" but not expanding on that, so that's not a great equivalence to draw. People say lip-service because they're talking about public-facing statements, not genuine discussions.

And just saying "Well, it's the Lolth ones who are bad" genuinely isn't enough when you don't really show anything but the Lolth ones, and especially when you don't have, for example, any significant faction of "bad" light-skinned elves.

The reality is, D&D screwed up on this. It was a bad idea when they came up with it, and it's only become a worse idea since. No-one should be fighting changes to this, even some retcons, to the default lore.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Which is factually nonsense.

I get it, people can feel however they feel, but it's fact, just ironclad fact, that if you want to play, or build a culture of good Orcs, you can do so.

If you read the racial description of orcs from Volo's it's very hard to see how you could. The way he describes them is... vile.

So again this is lip-service at best. If you say something could be the case, but then write about that thing in a way that doesn't really allow for that (which was very much the case with Volo's), you are indeed guilty of paying lip-service to an idea but in practice undermining that idea.