Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6526435" data-attributes="member: 22779">Both would be fantastic IMO.&nbsp; The elf is either aloof or genocidal.&nbsp; Great.&nbsp; At least it's different.&nbsp; And how does the player reconcile either of these approaches?&nbsp; Makes for great RP at the table.But, if a player thinks that outliving your enemies is boring, then perhaps that player shouldn't play a race that lives for a thousand years?&nbsp; Which has been my point all the way along.&nbsp; If the player plays his elf the same as if he was human, then what was the point of taking an elf?&nbsp; And, if we're going to play the &quot;well, they can breed together, therefore they're just all human anyway&quot; card, how does that explain halflings and gnomes who cannot breed with anything else?&nbsp; You've brought up tails, but, then again, Tieflings are far, far closer to humans than any other standard race (other than half elves I suppose).&nbsp; Should teiflings be only distinguished by culture?&nbsp; Kinda defeats the purpose of the race in the game I think since the whole angsty schtick for having demonic lineage is kinda their thing.&nbsp; You even mentioned having different senses.&nbsp; Well, every non-human has either dark vision or low light vision.&nbsp; Is that enough to make distinctions?&nbsp; Going back to elves for a second. Think about what it would mean for a race that doesn't sleep and can see in the dark.&nbsp; Why would they even be remotely diurnal?&nbsp; Elven cities would literally never sleep.&nbsp; No need for lighting particularly.&nbsp; All sorts of differences arise from basic differences in biology.&nbsp; As Celebrim rightly points out, an overt lack of sexuality would make dwarves really strange.&nbsp; At some points in the game, gnomes could actually talk to animals.&nbsp; On and on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6526435, member: 22779"] Both would be fantastic IMO. The elf is either aloof or genocidal. Great. At least it's [i]different[/i]. And how does the player reconcile either of these approaches? Makes for great RP at the table. But, if a player thinks that outliving your enemies is boring, then perhaps that player shouldn't play a race that lives for a thousand years? Which has been my point all the way along. If the player plays his elf the same as if he was human, then what was the point of taking an elf? And, if we're going to play the "well, they can breed together, therefore they're just all human anyway" card, how does that explain halflings and gnomes who cannot breed with anything else? You've brought up tails, but, then again, Tieflings are far, far closer to humans than any other standard race (other than half elves I suppose). Should teiflings be only distinguished by culture? Kinda defeats the purpose of the race in the game I think since the whole angsty schtick for having demonic lineage is kinda their thing. You even mentioned having different senses. Well, every non-human has either dark vision or low light vision. Is that enough to make distinctions? Going back to elves for a second. Think about what it would mean for a race that doesn't sleep and can see in the dark. Why would they even be remotely diurnal? Elven cities would literally never sleep. No need for lighting particularly. All sorts of differences arise from basic differences in biology. As Celebrim rightly points out, an overt lack of sexuality would make dwarves really strange. At some points in the game, gnomes could actually talk to animals. On and on. [/QUOTE]

Verification