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

[doctorbadwolf]

If those chars are truly RP'ed, one of those chars either is killed by the other char, or leaves the party in some manner.

What? Lol

No. Obviously not. They’re all sapient people from very social species with advanced cultures, and thus are all people who can sublimate their instincts in order to cooperate in a group.

A character from a culture where thieves are mutilated, who, while traveling with a group who rely on eachother for survival in lands where the law doesn’t require mutilating thieves, tries to kill a person whose folk have no sense of personal property, is either a hackneyed caricature, or a psychopath.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You're a bit behind, so I'll point you to this post.

You…know you’re not a mod, right?

The “understood” at the end of that post especially is a bit much. I’ve deleted some text here bc I replied more in irritation at your tone than in reply to what you were trying to communicate.

Barring a mod statement that a topic is done being discussed in this thread, people have a right to reply to statements on that topic.

Anyway, people reply to stuff in threads.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Anyway, gnomes being smarter on average is interesting and flavorful, and should be reflected in their cultures, but only if the writers are careful to avoid racial monoliths.

The new take from the designers that the playable stats don’t represent the race in general somehow is…just bad, IMO, because it means you cannot both follow the new direction and do what the OP is suggesting. Are halflings lucky and brave? Are gnomes inventive and curious and on average rather quick cognitively? Ask your DM?

So I think we pretty much have to ignore that aspect of the new direction (which I overall approve of to be clear) and instead assume that the traits in a race’s writeup are at least common in that race.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You…know you’re not a mod, right?

The snark here is hostile and not necessary.

The “understood” at the end of that post especially is a bit much. I’ve deleted some text here bc I replied more in irritation at your tone than in reply to what you were trying to communicate.

I was literally just asking that the thread remains on topic. You want to challenge that? Fine. Take it up with @Umbran if you like. However, I am within my rights to ask that the thread doesn't drift back into that non-constructive tangent.

Barring a mod statement that a topic is done being discussed in this thread, people have a right to reply to statements on that topic.

There was a mod statement.

Anyway, people reply to stuff in threads.

I'm not saying you can't post in this thread or reply to other people's posts, I just don't want that tangent to be revived, due to its divisive nature.

Edit: I just want to point out that I actually agreed with your post. However, based on the trends of threads that drift into the Racial ASI debate becoming less and less constructive and more and more hostile, as well as the fact that this thread was not intended to house that debate . . . that's why I've requested, multiple times now, that the thread stays on topic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You…know you’re not a mod, right?

The “understood” at the end of that post especially is a bit much. I’ve deleted some text here bc I replied more in irritation at your tone than in reply to what you were trying to communicate.

Barring a mod statement that a topic is done being discussed in this thread, people have a right to reply to statements on that topic.

Anyway, people reply to stuff in threads.

Mod Note:

Most of this post is fine…except that first line is problematic. It’s a bit of poking the bear, you know? Do better going forward.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Mod Note:

Most of this post is fine…except that first line is problematic. It’s a bit of poking the bear, you know? Do better going forward.

Fair enough.

Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

What? Lol

No. Obviously not. They’re all sapient people from very social species with advanced cultures, and thus are all people who can sublimate their instincts in order to cooperate in a group.

A character from a culture where thieves are mutilated, who, while traveling with a group who rely on eachother for survival in lands where the law doesn’t require mutilating thieves, tries to kill a person whose folk have no sense of personal property, is either a hackneyed caricature, or a psychopath.

And once those "cultural driven actions" that are sublimated, for the better of the group, then we are back to Humans Wearing Funny Hats.

Humans playing ANY game, or involved in any endeavour, can ONLY participate from the perspective and value system of a human being. None of us any have psychological point of reference for any other creature, because first off, they don't exist, and secondly, even if they did, we can't crawl into their skins and grow up in that creature's "culture", then join some disparate group.

And as for calling anyone who follows a strict code a psychopath.....yeah, there are a number of people who follow the Qur'an, the Old Testament, or any number of other religious books, that might take issue with you. Further, how do you know the Kender in the group is NOT traveling in a land where those laws apply?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And once those "cultural driven actions" that are sublimated, for the better of the group, then we are back to Humans Wearing Funny Hats.

Hardly. People are defined both by what they do and what they refuse to do. A person who is forcing themselves to not do a thing in order to cooperate in a group is different from a person who has no impulse or instinct to do that thing.

Further, how do you know the Kender in the group is NOT traveling in a land where those laws apply

Because if they are, it’s a different issue and discussion.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Hardly. People are defined both by what they do and what they refuse to do. A person who is forcing themselves to not do a thing in order to cooperate in a group is different from a person who has no impulse or instinct to do that thing.

Because if they are, it’s a different issue and discussion.

Hey word..."people". You are conflating human perception and values with those of some fictitious creature, where you, as a human, want to "explore the culture" of said fictitious creature, while, as a human, you have no clue, because said culture does not exist. You can only char as a human with a funny hat.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hey word..."people". You are conflating human perception and values with those of some fictitious creature, where you, as a human, want to "explore the culture" of said fictitious creature, while, as a human, you have no clue, because said culture does not exist. You can only char as a human with a funny hat.

“People” and “person” just mean sapient being. The rest is irrelevant pedantry.