You don’t seem to grok what is actually in contention, here.
Maybe we're talking past each other.
I have never advocated for non-humans generally being like humans in mindset. I have, instead, said that it is not true that every single non-human should have an alien mindset.
I know that. I've read that. I disagree, and haven't been capable of replying to it due to this thread being bogged down by asinine semantic debates and the like.
You, on the other hand, have stated quite clearly that you believe that every single race, without exception, needs to match your preference. That is a statement that your preference is superior.
No, it's not. It really, truly isn't.
I prefer my preference (literally in the definition), and support it. I prefer that all races have some amount of non-alien psychology to them. I think that it is good to have those, just like I don't think that it would be good to make two different races that were exactly identical in mechanics, except for a language or skill change, or something minor like that. I'm perfectly fine with most races having mostly human psychologies, but
mostly human doesn't mean
completely human.
Halflings should have mostly human psychologies and cultures, as I stated way back earlier in this thread. However, I did give some examples of how to make them not completely human, in order to differentiate them, make them more interesting (in my opinion, of course), and encourage creative thinking in both players and DMs when roleplaying them and thinking about their part of the D&D world/campaign. The same applies to the planetouched races, too. Tieflings, Genasi, Aasimar, and Hexbloods should be mostly human in psychology. However, there are aspects of their races (both mechanically and thematically) that will impact how individuals and cultures that are members of those races will act differently from humans. Tieflings might live in warmer climates with less lighting around their settlements (due to resistance to fire damage and darkvision, which also applies to Fire Genasi), Water Genasi might live underwater (or at least on coastlines, probably as divers and fishers), Air Genasi might live at higher altitudes (due to needing less oxygen and the ability to better transverse cliffsides through their innate Levitate), and Earth Genasi might be more likely to not pave roads (due to ignoring earthen difficult terrain).
Those are still mostly human psychologies and cultures, but slightly differentiated in both mindset and culture by their heritages and racial features.
That's what I want. Yes, it is a universal statement, because it applies to literally every race that isn't a human (and even human sub-types, like Dragonmarked races), because all races that aren't human have different mechanics, history, and features that can and (IMO) should influence how they act.
I don't think that's a contentious topic. I believe that most people will agree that having the ability to levitate once a day and hold your breath indefinitely will probably impact how a group of people act as individuals and a culture. I believe most people would agree that if you are less sensitive to hot temperatures, you'd be more likely to live in typically inhospitable climates, and thus have quite different cultures from people who live in other parts of the world. That's not contentious. That's just common sense and, IMO, is a good thing for the game. It gives players more to think about when roleplaying a character of that race (a Fire Genasi or Tiefling would probably hate Icewind Dale, for example, because it's so cold and they're better acclimated for warmer temperatures, while Goliaths would love it there).
Again, yes, it's universal, but I've actually given reasoning and examples for why it makes sense, why it wouldn't be hard to implement for most races, and why I think it's a good thing for the game.
Does this help? I didn't mean to put anyone off by explaining it like this. I honestly thought that it was self-explanatory. Maybe just ask next time. I'll probably be more likely to respond in a not aggressive manner.
Let my try a different way.
I am saying, “both preferences should be supported by the game.” You’ve responded by saying that only your preference (ie, all races that aren’t humans need to be alien) should be how the game works, without exception.
That's not how I read your post. You may have intended that, but it's not how I read it. (Which is why I generally make long and thorough posts, to try to make sure no one misunderstands me or takes it in the wrong way.)
Like I've said earlier in this thread, I absolutely support both styles of play. I just would prefer if the base was more thought-out and worked more to seem interesting (to me, at least), while the secondary/variant option would be more human-like races. IMO, it's a good thing for players to see how different races are different from one another. In my experience, it gets them thinking and encourages more interesting and better character ideas.
My position allows for all general preferences to find a place in the game materials. Yours does not. Your also requires changing several races in ways that will make them less appealing to the people who already like them.
Not really. It wouldn't involve changing the races that don't have much in-depth lore and culture in the official game (which is most of them, especially the newer ones that aren't tied to specific campaign settings). It would "support" both styles of play, by the people who don't want more in-depth, racial lore for them just ignoring it if they don't like it. It's not that hard. It is, however, harder to have the base be non-in-depth, non-racially specific lore/cultures, and then having to craft that off of nothing. Ignoring is easier than creating.
Does this explain my position in a better, non-hostile manner? Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. We don't have to agree with each other, but at the least we should be respectful of each other's opinions and selves.