If you think that is the case, you aren’t actually reading either of our posts.
No social trait is unique to any D&D race.
I am reading your post. Here are the traits that I am being told I am against because I don't like how halflings are presented. From you and Steeldragon
Innocence
Friendliness
Being a Tranquil person in harmony with ones self and surroundings
Being Authentic
Loyalty
Curiosity
Adventurousness
These are all personality traits. Supposedly you play halflings because they are the only way to expeirence these traits. My response to Steeldragon was... no. Any race can have these traits, saying that being against halflings is being against these traits is wrong, because these traits extend beyond halflings.
You then laughed at me, rolled your eyes at me, and procceeded to tell me I am wrong, because I'm not reading the posts?
I mean, not to quote your exact words or anything but: "They are also curious, adventurous, and fiercely loyal without most of the tribalism that makes fierce loyalty so dangerous in humans. There is value in a people who only fight to defend, who enjoy comfort and home and community and are always ready to defend those things,"
Seems to very much be doubling down on this concept that being against halflings means being against characters who are curious and adventurous. Who fight only to defend themselves and enjoy comfort and home and community. I'm saying that is a false dichotomy. If you agree that that is a false dichotomy... then why does your post seem to state that being against halflings is being against those character traits?
You are the one setting up point, I'm just responding that is seems like an incredibly poor point
I did elaborate, unless you mean the strawman part, in which case…bro. Seriously, go reread the other posters words that you replied to. They didn’t say what you claim they said.
Okay, I went and reread it. They said exactly what I responded to the first time. So again, other than saying "they never said anything you think they said" can you give me something to respond to? Counter-examples, elaboration, anything other than just this vague "you are wrong and should go reread what they wrote because you are wrong?"
No, it isn’t obvious at all. In fact it isn’t apperently at all. You consistently make the same claim with no indication whatsoever of hyperbole until now.
Most absolutes are minor hyperboles. That is the nature of absolutism.
If I said all oxygen is flammable, and then some chemistry expert comes to me with an oxygen compound that isn't flammable, I wouldn't exactly take that as a huge refutation of my point in general. Yes, absolutes are usually not 100% correct, because nothing is really absolute. But I'm also not going to go out of my way to phrase things with a "in the vast majority of all cases I have experienced, which is limited both by my time and memory" on every point I make.
Two things are happening here. I’ll start with the one that pisses me off.
Stop changing what I said and replying to that instead. It’s a BS tactic and you know it.
“Being loyal to your friends” is explicitly not what I said. I talked about being loyal in a way that is fairly rare amongst humans and most D&D races, where halflings are quick to include people from outside thier community in thier loyalty, and making a new person family without reservation. Humanity has a whole sordid history of aggressively refusing to do that. When you reply to this idea with “everyone is loyal to thier friends” you completely misrepresent the point you’re replying to in order to reply to the weakest possible version of an argument.
The fact that you are getting pissed off might be making it hard for you to see that no malice was intended.
You are talking about something that I have never seen, and I'm not sure "loyalty" describes it. You are talking about taking a stranger, thinking of them as family, and being "loyal" to them, basically from when they meet them. But... what do you mean by loyalty?
If a stranger walks into a halfling village, being chased by the law, and the halflings hide them from the law officers... are they being loyal to the stranger? What about to the law man? They aren't being loyal to him by hiding the criminal from him. Are you talking about being friendly and generous? Willing to help someone, give them medical aid and food if they are starving? That doesn't feel like loyalty to me. That feels like kindness and generosity.
I'm not trying to twist your words and piss you off, I'm utterly baffled by what you mean by loyalty, because you don't seem to be describing loyalty.
The second thing happening here is that you have it in your head that anyone is claiming that the traits that define halflings are unique to them. This is a wild assumption with no basis in what is actually being said. Gruff insularity isn’t unique to dwarves. Every trait we imagine for other creatures is an exaggeration of a human trait or an extrapolation of an animal trait, and none of it is unique to one race.
But you have to put this in the context of the post I was responding to. Steeldragon made the claim that being against halflings meant that we hated the idea of humble heroes. That we thought being kind to strangers was stupid and only edgy characters or anime super-men were worth playing.
They were making the claim that halflings must have these traits, and that in rejecting halflings we were rejecting these traits. Because if that wasn't what they were saying, then their entire post was just nonsense.
And this is a consistent problem. Everyone (and this is hyperbole, because obviously it isn't everyone, the majority of humanity isn't even in this discussion, and the majority of people in this discussion haven't posted this) seems to think that if you want to play an underdog who is out-matched but still full of bright, cheerful adventurousness, that halflings are the race for you. I reject that. I can play those archetypes with anything. But the humble hero keeps being thrown up as the entire point of halflings. But... it fits everywhere else. It is an archetype, and halflings aren't unique in that archetype. So, if that is the only thing that makes people want to keep halflings as they are... why are we keeping them like this?
One word responses don't help clarify anything. If you have a point that requires more of my post to elaborate on, maybe just quote the larger part, so you can do something more than just say "no" and leave it, like that is going to do anything to further the discussion.
See above. This is another example of both things. No one said elves can’t have a culture that fights only to defend, and I didn’t say only halflings enter the Tomb, I said halflings might do it out of curiosity. Might a human do the same? Sure! But they’d be an odd person, while the halfling would just be doing a thing that halflings do.
Above you just said no. That doesn't tell me anything.
And... isn't a halfling who goes seeking adventure odd? They are giving up the things that halflings love. Comfort, warm food, community. All these traits that people list are things you give up to walking into the Tomb of Horrors and potentially die a painful death.
And, while you didn't say that elves can't have that culture... then what is the point of saying that halflings do? It would be like when Neonchameleon went on their hyperbolic strand of saying that everyone breathes. That isn't a point for or against halflings, so why bring it up? The implied point is that halflings do this, this is what defines them, but my counter point is that this isn't a uniquely defining trait. Lots of races and communities have these traits.
And, I'll point this out too. You know who else might just enter the tomb out of curiosity and not be considered an oddball for it? A Gnome. Gnomes are incredibly curious, and if I said a gnome went into the tomb to investigate it, no one would really think that is a weird gnome. That's just a thing gnomes do. This is the overlap we are talking about. Between humans and gnomes, halflings don't feel like they have any ground left to them. And I feel like gnomes have the stronger identity to build off of for the future.
If it really feels that way, it’s because you’re adding things to my arguments that I didn’t say while ignoring what I did say.
That could be because you so vehemently responded to my critique of Steel Dragons point, and so I assume you are agreeing with them. If you are seeing something different in what they said, it would help if you told me what that was, because so far you just keep saying I should reread it. And after the fourth or fifth time reading it, I kind of think that maybe you should actually step up and explain what you think I missed, rather than just yelling at me to do it again and hope I'll somehow come away with a different reading on the sixth attempt.
That’s because you’re ignoring or dismissing anything that doesn’t fit your conclusion.
And how do you know that? You seem very secure in your knowledge that the problem is that I'm ignoring things, yet all you do is tell me to read it again. How many times should I reread the materials I have until you are satisfied that I'm actually reading them and not just dismissing them? Until I agree with you?
You…know there are like a hundred D&D races, right?
Yes. And how does that apply to what I was saying?
I’ve never read anything like that in the books.
It could have been from his blog. I was reading a lot of Eberron material all at once, trying to absorb the entire setting a few months ago.
Though, going back and rereading the section on Talenta from Rising from the Last War I do see a lot of mentions of the struggle between the Halflings and the Outsiders. Particularly with a big hook seeming to be Holy Uldra who wants to drive all outsiders from the plains. Any mention of Hospitality seems to be tied to House Ghallanda, which is more of a specific tribe of halflings.
They very much are giving off a vibe that there are the fierce dinosaur riding tribal people, and that they don't like outsiders very much and worry about their ancient ways and traditions being disrupted.
LOL come on, man. I begin to question whether you are arguing in good faith.
Jorasco and Ghallanda halflings come from Talenta.
Yes, they originated there, but are they the same people?
That's the disconnect. Genetically they are the same, but culturally they seem to be incredibly different. Read the descriptions of those subraces in the Rising from the Last War book, and you will find zero mention of tribes, dinosaurs, ancestral spirits, all of the things that define the Talenta tribal halflings are absent from those two house groups.
Heck, it even states in the halfling description in the book that the halflings that spread across Khorvaire ended up looking and acting like humans "but their cousins in the Talenta plains couldn't be more different".
I'm arguing in good faith, there is a massive disconnect between the two groups.
This doesn't help explain anything or give me any more insight into why you think I'm wrong. So again, it doesn't really help move the conversation forwards