D&D (2024) Should 2014 Half Elves and Half Orcs be added to the 2025 SRD?

Just a thought, but given they are still legal & from a PHB, but not in the 2024 PHB, should they s

  • Yes

    Votes: 102 48.6%
  • No

    Votes: 81 38.6%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 14 6.7%
  • Other explained in comments

    Votes: 13 6.2%

Human beings know how to be human beings. That's all the know. That's all they can know. Therefore anything they play will always be "Humans in rubber masks". A human being trying to play a dog will be a human being playing a dog because we honestly have no idea what being a dog is. By the same token, a human being trying to play an elf will be a human being playing an elf because we also have no idea of what an elf is.

Therefore "playing an elf" means two different things-- one is using whatever game mechanics the game proscribes as the "elf" mechanics in the board game to denote that game token as being an "elf"... and two, the human being trying to portray "elf-like" qualities as best they can in the narrative story being told by the group through their choices and actions. And whether you need either or both depends entirely on what the focus of the game is for the players and DM.

For some tables... ones who are concerned mostly with playing the game mechanics... having statistics and numbers for each species is paramount because that is how each "thing" within the game is distinguished. So a table like this needs or wants half-elf and half-orc statistics and mechanics because that is how you distinguish the half-elf and half-orc "token" in the game from any other species. How you "play" the species doesn't matter, if the mechanics are not there to have an influence on the game rules and play of the game. And the more statistics and mechanics you give each species, the more distinguished each species becomes from one another because the more those statistics and mechanics will affect the mechanical rules of game play.

For other tables... ones who are concerned mostly with playing the narrative story... what is paramount is how the human being tries to think, and act, and make choices as the character through the lens of their species. For those players, statistics and mechanics are not necessary or required, because how they think, act, and make choices are what distinguish one species from another (as best they can.) Mechanics are just numbers. Numbers that can be assigned to anything and everything, so there's no specificity to them. Thus the game doesn't need half-elf or half-orc statistics because they are just random mechanics that have been "assigned" the designation of "half-elf" or "half-orc". So instead of those wishy-washy mechanics, the player can instead portray a mixed-species character (half-elf, half-orc or indeed any other) just through their thoughts, actions, and choices of that mixed-species character within the narrative and story.

Now of course... most players (and indeed the game designers themselves) will end up using a mixture of the two, based on what they themselves want and what they think other players want. Mechanics will be given out for gameplay purposes, and every gameplay mechanic will have fantasy "description" and "narrative" layered on top of them to get players to think of this roleplaying game as a "story" they are participating in, and not just a board game to play. And which mechanics get added or not added and which descriptions and narratives get used or not used will be rather arbitrary and chosen by the people in charge of setting things up. And if other people want to use ones that aren't made available or remove ones they don't like that were... that's up to each of them to decide for themselves.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


When coupled with the above, that TTRPG species really aren't that alien even when you intentionally (but not egregiously) play up the differences, you get the simple fact that it isn't necessary to have a human in the party in order for the PCs to still feel relatable and grounded.
Tables and individual gamers have preferences, and those preferences are mostly informed by fantasy novels and published settings. When you have a setting that is predominantly human-centric it is hard for some of us to imagine a full kaleidoscope of races within the party (and no human), unless we're thinking about the weird and wonderful Spelljammer or a Homebrew non-human centric setting.
 

I understand what you're saying, but being comfortable with the Mos Eisley Cantina theory of party composition is not a universally held opinion, and acting like it is isn't helpful.
And even referring to something as "the Mos Eisley Cantina theory" is, itself, not helpful. Because, as you well know, that is an openly and intentionally pejorative description.
 

Tables and individual gamers have preferences, and those preferences are mostly informed by the novels and published settings. When you have a setting that is predominantly human-centric it is hard for some of us to imagine a full kaleidoscope of races, unless we're thinking about the weird and wonderful Spelljammer or a Homebrew non-human centric setting.
That would seem to be the fault of pushing humanocentrism so hard, rather than the fault of, y'know, anything else.

You are basically saying, "Because old settings were humanocentric, all settings going forward should be humanocentric forever." That's...pretty patently ridiculous, and basically is just enshrining one very idiosyncratic perspective of Gygax as an eternal and unchangeable thing. Non-humanocentrism can't happen because it's not traditional yet, and non-humanocentrism cannot become traditional because it hasn't happened.
 

And even referring to something as "the Mos Eisley Cantina theory" is, itself, not helpful. Because, as you well know, that is an openly and intentionally pejorative description.
Fair enough, I apologize. It's still a thing though, even if describing it as a cosmopolitan melange of different species living together is a more kind way of saying it, and not everyone or every viable setting is down with it.
 

That would seem to be the fault of pushing humanocentrism so hard, rather than the fault of, y'know, anything else.

You are basically saying, "Because old settings were humanocentric, all settings going forward should be humanocentric forever." That's...pretty patently ridiculous, and basically is just enshrining one very idiosyncratic perspective of Gygax as an eternal and unchangeable thing. Non-humanocentrism can't happen because it's not traditional yet, and non-humanocentrism cannot become traditional because it hasn't happened.
Tell me what is ridiculous in Tyranny of Dragons where the Council is made up of Humans, Elves and Dwarves yet you find it not patently ridiculous to have their champions made up of Kobolds, a Rakshasa and a pair or Tortles?
 

That would seem to be the fault of pushing humanocentrism so hard, rather than the fault of, y'know, anything else.

You are basically saying, "Because old settings were humanocentric, all settings going forward should be humanocentric forever." That's...pretty patently ridiculous, and basically is just enshrining one very idiosyncratic perspective of Gygax as an eternal and unchangeable thing. Non-humanocentrism can't happen because it's not traditional yet, and non-humanocentrism cannot become traditional because it hasn't happened.
How about you go with what people actually say, and not what you assume it implies? Both humanocentric settings and more cosmopolitan "modern" ones can exist.
 

Tell me what is ridiculous in Tyranny of Dragons where the Council is made up of Humans, Elves and Dwarves yet you find it not patently ridiculous to have their champions made up of Kobolds, a Rakshasa and a pair or Tortles?
It does feel a little weird in that context, but that can be solved by adjusting either the setting or the available PC species options. Seriously, either way is fine, and it's your game.
 

That would seem to be the fault of pushing humanocentrism so hard, rather than the fault of, y'know, anything else.

You are basically saying, "Because old settings were humanocentric, all settings going forward should be humanocentric forever." That's...pretty patently ridiculous, and basically is just enshrining one very idiosyncratic perspective of Gygax as an eternal and unchangeable thing. Non-humanocentrism can't happen because it's not traditional yet, and non-humanocentrism cannot become traditional because it hasn't happened.
And to be clear I said published settings and novels inform and influence our preferences.
You want those preference to change - a PHB with wonderful creatures isn't going to do much on its own. Perhaps a different setting or novel might help influencing.
Please do not mischaracterise what I said to make some point.
 

Remove ads

Top