D&D General No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures

[Scott Christian]

I mean that many "world designers" add many races to their world with few unique features culturally or biologically from humans with few tangible links to the setting.

Therefore critics of shallow races have more wobbly stills if they themselves use shallow races themselves.

Ah, I get it. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, there's your problem: evolution isn't really a thing in D&D-land. Everything was made by the gods, or at least by beings of godlike power. I mean, it's a setting where not only humanoids and dragons can interbreed, despite being part of radically different classes of animal, but where humanoids can interbreed with intelligent rocks and water to produce viable young.

Nature washed her hands of it all and went off to get very, very drunk ages ago.

Sure, you can say 'gods did it,' but I don't feel this Thermian argument is any more satisfying here than it is in the case of evil races.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If our ancestors werne't so murder and sex happy, there really would be multiple human species in the world, so you don't have to say 'gods did it' to justify multiple sapient races. one of those races just can't be us.

And reading the human entry... it's not.

 

[Azuresun]

At this point, having the paladins be the bad guys is no more clever than the other way around. Upended tropes eventually just become more tropes.

Ironically, most people who create a setting and go down that road often end up with humans being the two-dimensional always-evil naughty words for persecuting those beautiful elves and noble-savage orcs.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ironically, most people who create a setting and go down that road often end up with humans being the two-dimensional always-evil naughty words for persecuting those beautiful elves and noble-savage orcs.

Whoa whoa whoa. No matter how humans are, elves are always the naughty words.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If our ancestors werne't so murder and sex happy, there really would be multiple human species in the world, so you don't have to say 'gods did it' to justify multiple sapient races. one of those races just can't be us.

And reading the human entry... it's not.

Sure. And those species would have different ‘ability ranges’. Floresiensis wouldn’t be nearly as strong as Neanderthals. ‘Gods did it’ was an attempt to justify why everyone is equally good at everything despite radically different size and build.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sure. And those species would have different ‘ability ranges’. Floresiensis wouldn’t be nearly as strong as Neanderthals. ‘Gods did it’ was an attempt to justify why everyone is equally good at everything despite radically different size and build.

Ability parity is rarely 'gods did it' and more a combination of 'Those numbers are for PCs who are exceptional', 'This is a game and screwing up character options for aesthetic reasons isn't worth it', and 'simulationism is not the goal'.

 

[Faolyn]

They are the 'we are diverse' faction. Thats human's niche, and has been in any number of systems/settings/formats.

In a gaming context, though, that's kind of boring. At least IMO.

Fine, and I'm doing that right now for my own setting, no problem.

And if you're using a core setting, you're remembering to rewrite the entire history of that setting to allow for these changes, right? Because I hope you can see how difficult it can be for some people, especially when it's something really major.

I know, I'm not saying its a non-factor, but the only one? Thats my only issue...but again, your just making my argument that alignment should be set, by biology.

No, nurture is also important.

But the reason why alignment should not be racial is this: it's not OK to kill a group of people just for being that part of that group of people, especially if that group is based around an inborn trait. And there aren't any groups of people in the real world whose inborn traits make them evil.

Like I said before, you can have orcs be natural fighters. Say that Gruumsh made them that way, say that they evolved that way. That's how biology would work. But that's a lot different than saying that they are automatically evil and therefore can be killed for XP. Because "natural fighters" can fight for fun, for sport, for money, for personal reasons, for good reasons, for evil reasons--or can choose not to fight at all.

Why? Because I again, want something defined. One way or another. I dont care, just pick something.

What's stopping you from picking one way or another? Or even assigning each option a number and rolling a die?

That's exactly what has been brought up many times, and it sure seems to be more than 'annoyance'.

That could be because we're annoyed with having to use the same arguments over and over again. You think I'm the first person I've had this discussion with? It's gets tiresome after a while. I suppose I could write my argument down and then just copypaste it into every discussion, but having to find the file each time I needed it would be a pain in the butt.

Also, because sometimes it does turn into real-world racism, and that's always bothersome. I had this discussion on reddit a while ago. The Vistani got brought up, and the person I was speaking to began bringing up how Romani deserve all the negative stereotypes (heck, I had a discussion with someone here who basically said the same thing). A friend of mine said he had to kick someone out of his other group because the guy's defense of evil orcs turned into comparing them to "criminal" PoC.

Fine, if we want to say Halfings get a +2 to Str over Humans, no skin off my back (I wouldnt do it, but hey...)

Why would they need to have that? Why not just say there's nothing wrong with a halfling putting their floating bonus into Strength?

That's the thing you don't seem to get: it's not halflings who are strong. It's that one halfling PC. It doesn't hurt anything to let that one PC have a special character. Saying they can't do that is basically saying that a PC can't make the character they want--when that character isn't breaking rules or trying to "win" with the most powerful character--because you don't like the idea.

 

[Scribe]

In a gaming context, though, that's kind of boring. At least IMO.

Fair enough. I've always found that a great niche. Variant Human in 5e makes perfect sense to me, as the 'adaptive' race.

And if you're using a core setting, you're remembering to rewrite the entire history of that setting to allow for these changes, right? Because I hope you can see how difficult it can be for some people, especially when it's something really major.

Sure.

But that's a lot different than saying that they are automatically evil and therefore can be killed for XP.

And I'm again, not saying that.

What's stopping you from picking one way or another? Or even assigning each option a number and rolling a die?

Nothing. Just as nothing stops me from changing things I dont want, or using a product as provided. This misses the point.

I want something defined.

It's gets tiresome after a while. I suppose I could write my argument down and then just copypaste it into every discussion, but having to find the file each time I needed it would be a pain in the butt.

Certainly could. I know I've had to repeat myself on these topics any number of times over the many threads. Like well....coming up.

Why would they need to have that? Why not just say there's nothing wrong with a halfling putting their floating bonus into Strength?

That's the thing you don't seem to get: it's not halflings who are strong. It's that one halfling PC. It doesn't hurt anything to let that one PC have a special character. Saying they can't do that is basically saying that a PC can't make the character they want--when that character isn't breaking rules or trying to "win" with the most powerful character--because you don't like the idea.

Because a PC is a member of a species. Floating simply makes no sense to me, unless as per Humans (and Half Elf in 5e) you are hanging your hat on being the 'adaptive' race option. Outside of floating, I want my settings to be able to apply at least some kind of logical sense, and unless Halflings are chimps (questionable as the Chimp argument is anyway) then they would have that bonus on a racial level.

Again, do whatever you want, the game has shifted in the direction you wish, non-committal, undefined, 'do as you want'. You already got what you want, and (referring to copy and pasting the same things over and over) I've already said ad nauseum, I dont care for it, I dont agree that it is needed, or that it improves anything, and no argument yet has come close convincing me otherwise.

Its not for balance.
Its not because DM's couldnt do it before.
Its not because there was no option (Tasha's).
Its not for any mechanical reason.

I remain unconvinced, to say the least.

 

[Faolyn]

Sure, you can say 'gods did it,' but I don't feel this Thermian argument is any more satisfying here than it is in the case of evil races.

I honestly don't think you can have realistic evolution in a D&D world. I'm not even sure you could have Lamarkian evolution in a game world. There's too much physics-breaking. Because it's not just the PC races, but all the monsters as well.

It'd be a fun experiment, to see how close you could get to the game without breaking reality. Breath weapons would have to be things like venom or acids, or maybe bombardier beetle-style boiling liquid, but no cold or fire or lightning. Dragons couldn't fly. Charm and fear effects would have to be biological in nature, like through pheromones or toxins. If you didn't mind going weird, you could include silicon and plasma-based life forms and just handwave them being able to evolve or even survive on the same world as carbon-based life forms.