D&D (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[Minigiant]

It's almost like D&D has a rather simplistic tradition of world building that works for adventuring purposes so long as you don't squint too hard and examine the details.

Well maybe the building blocks aren't good because they can't decide whether the game is silly or serious and expects the community to expand it.

It's not like any except for 2 settings expanded orcs or hobgoblins.

 

[Guest 85555]

Well maybe the building blocks aren't good because they can't decide whether the game is silly or serious and expects the community to expand it.

Another possibility is that this is a middle ground that has helped contribute to D&D’s popularity. I personally do prefer deeper world building but I find the defaults generally have been easy to work with and allowed for expansions.

I think they should expand it as well in individual settings but I also think part of the point of D&D is we all make our own worlds and put our own spin on it

 

[Minigiant]

Another possibility is that this is a middle ground that has helped contribute to D&D’s popularity. I personally do prefer deeper world building but I find the defaults generally have been easy to work with and allowed for expansions.

I think they should expand it as well in individual settings but I also think part of the point of D&D is we all make our own worlds and put our own spin on it

I'm not saying the examples need to get deeper.

It's just that they are outdated and bad if D&D is supposed to be marketed to a audience of diverse ages, ethnicities, genders, background, and playstyle.

 

[Incenjucar]

Ultimately "special" is just an arbitrary designation which we are entirely free to apply to any other beings. It is not writ in the stars - though it could be in your home campaign.

 

[Guest 85555]

Then there's no such thing as special.

And yes, the zebra is special. Is it the same as humans? No. Humans have more uniqueness than a zebra.

Then get the definition changed. Right now the deciding factor is human and doesn't change just because you feel like it should.

I definitely get the argument that we don't want to harm theoretical, but not yet known, forms of sapient life, that there would be something special about that two. My main issue with how personhood tends to get defined, when it doesn't include human as part of its definition, is it can exclude some humans if they are argued or believed not to fit the criteria. I also do think there is something inherent to humans that makes us special (which isn't to say other sapient life couldn't be as well).

 

[Incenjucar]

There's more use in making the decision that you are loyal to humans than in trying to assign an indemonstrable category to them and to then make the decision that you are loyal to that category.

 

[Guest 85555]

Ultimately "special" is just an arbitrary designation which we are entirely free to apply to any other beings

There's more use in making the decision that you are loyal to humans than to try to assign an indemonstrable category to them and to then make the decision that you are loyal to that category.

Just putting these quotes together as they are related.

I don't know that it is arbitrary. I mean I am disagreeing with Chaosmancer on the finer points of how we define personhood, but I don't get the impression that Chaosmancer and others view the designation of special or the designation of personhood as a subjective and arbitrary act (and I would say I don't either if this is how they feel), that they are extending these concepts to the hypothetical sapient beings our of a sense of there being an ought bigger than human whim. For some this will also be a religious belief. And though I do think that is outside the scope of this forum, as it would get us into real world politics very quickly, it is worth considering that a sizable number of people are religious and believe humanity has some special connection to the divine

I think you could reduce everything to human loyalty. But again the problem with that is the primary concern about personhood isn't as much how we treat as yet unknown sapient life (with say the possible exception of Dolphins and such: I think beings we have determined do deserve some sort of special designation) but how we treat other humans. If you are loyal to humanity in general over other beings, that is all fine, but it doesn't really set aside all human life as deserving of special protection and rights (especially if we take a concept like personhood and define it in a way that enables us to exclude some human beings-----even as it protects as yet unknown alien species)

 

[Incenjucar]

Elves, dwarves, and orcs in D&D have explicitly divine origins, with humans having uncertain origins.
"Divine" also includes Vecna.

 

[Guest 85555]

Elves, dwarves, and orcs in D&D have explicitly divine origins, with humans having uncertain origins.
"Divine" also includes Vecna.

That is a good point

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Elves, dwarves, and orcs in D&D have explicitly divine origins, with humans having uncertain origins.
"Divine" also includes Vecna.

It's interesting how everyone does the origins of the different species depending on their own setting.

I've gone for a more evolution based origin for them all.