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

[Not a Decepticon]

Similarity of culture, adjacent cultural touchstones, relatable past experiences, etc. You really don't know what I mean, or are you feigning ignorance because doing so supports your point better?

Cultural gorunding then sounds like a buzzword that can conveniently change meaning to suit the argument.

 

[Minigiant]

No, but my opinion hasn't changed. I don't see the point of adding anything to the new SRD that is in the old one. They're both the same edition, right?

They are the same edition

However ironically 2 of the only 5 things that are from the previous PHB that is not in the current PHB that do not convert properly are those two items.

So technically there is a point to updating them.
There might not be a point of putting them in the SRD for that reason. However there is a point to reprinting them. The only point to printing them in the SRD specifically is to spread the idea that mixed species are an accepted and non-rare thing to be found in D&D games.

 

[AnotherGuy]

So you challenged an argument by setting up two assumptions that, honestly, are assinine.

First of all, you draw arbitrary distinction between races you are nostalgic for - Dwarves, Elves, Haflings and Gnomes - and other races. Despite the fact that Goblins and Orcs are as old staple of Fantasy literature, you arbitrairly deny them inclusion based on your own preference. Which nicely proves the problem with Half-Orc this thread was partially about, as it did exist solely as an excuse TO arbitraily deny orcs inclusion among core playable races. You also draw an arbitrary line between these four races you like and all others. What exactly makes Elf less silly than a Kobold? What makes Dwarf "more relatable" than a Goliath? None of the criteria for whatever gets a pass have been established beyond "trust me bro".

With this arbitrary difference it is no wonder you got the Fellowship of the Ring. A party sent by council of Elves, Humans and Dwarves being composed of single Elf & Dwarf, two humans, four Hobbits and an Angel isn't any less ridiculous than a party composed entierly of Kobolds and Tortles, aside from arbitrary lines. Yes, that party had two humans BUT you are ignoring the fact that both Aragorn and Boromir were far from relatable. One was ridiculously long-lived heir to an ancient kingdom and a mysterious forest ranger, the other was presented as shady and outright antagonsitic even early on - even when they're guests of Galadriel Boromir is constantly the one to be mistrustful and throwing shade, clearly undermining the kinship other were formign with the Elves. Tolkien was laying it thick Boromir will betray the group, it was a plot twist he redeemed himself, honestly. In fact, it was the Hobbits Tolkiein intended as point of view characters and the ones readers will relate to. The hwole asusmption about the adventuring parties needing a human fall apart when you realize other races are as relatable.

Moreover, you make some weird assumptions about the settings. First of all, marking Spelljammer and Planescape as exceptions, excluding them from the mainstream line of D&D settings, is again, arbitrary. Planescape was always more influential and popular than Birthright, main reason Brithright flopped was that it had to compete with Planescape. Planescape and Spelljammer were main influences on the D&D from 3rd edition onward, as WotC always was trying to make them part of the core of what D&D is. The things you excluded had more to say about what the game is for the last 24 years than what you did include.

Also, these assumptions about D&D settings are in themselves arbitrary. One of the most beloved Forgotten Realms series is about Drizzt, a Drow. It was supposed to be about barbarian hero he is friends with, but he proved more interesting to readers. In fact, the way majority of fans seem to get into the series is t obegin with Drizzt's origin trilogy, not the Icewind Dale Trilogy that came later. And that one is entierly Drows all the way down.

You mention Mystara as if Mystara didn't have Lupins and Rakasta, multiple unique forms of Elves and ALIENS. Hell, the most famous novel series set in Mystara is from perspective of a Dragon. You mention Dragonlance as if one of the most popular POW characters wasn't a Kender, who are designed to be way different from standard races, be it humans or otrher Haflings, and the series didn't have several books from perspective of Elves, Draconians or Goblins. Again, you make arbitrary assumptions and then get mad when people don't adhere to them, despite giving no good reason to.


Why are the they supposed to be relatable or grounded again? The obsession with making protagonsits relatable is and always was misguided and stupid. I could as a kid love Spider-man, despite, as a kid growing up in post-Iron Courtain Eastern Europe, his life was so alien to me he would be more relatable if he was a green slime from Mars who has to walk his Gazonkadonk across the Six Moons every morning and find his bulgubub withg a whistle or he'll be fired from ant dressing service. one of my favorite movies is John Q despite the fact that "rptoagonsit must be relatable" dogma dictates the protagonist's experience should be incomprehensible to a person raised in a country with free healthcare. Millions of impoverished people love Batman, who is the least grounded, least relatable, most made up and impossible character ever, being a good billionaire who is omniscient, omnipotent and invincible. People don't pick up Hellboy and then find Liz Sherman only relatable character, they do it for Hellboy, despite him being a demon with six-tons brick for a hand.

Hoenstly, to hell with groudned and relatable. Give me characters who are interesting.

I'll reply shortly to your delightful mischaracterisation.

 

[pemerton]

JRRT's Hobbits are not an alternative to humans and a human perspective. They are a human perspective, and in particular a certain sort of imagined English perspective.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

JRRT's Hobbits are not an alternative to humans and a human perspective. They are a human perspective, and in particular a certain sort of imagined English perspective.

What Hobbits are is the ultimate underdog. They're small, weak and seemingly completely outclassed by all these big heroes and horrifying monsters. But they still manage to do important things and that is cool. But I don't think you can really get that feeling in D&D, especially in more recent editions, were you a halfling or not. These days characters are exceptional super people, and it is often the poor monsters who seem outclassed!

 

[AnotherGuy]

So you challenged an argument by setting up two assumptions that, honestly, are assinine.

Always a lovely start.

First of all, you draw arbitrary distinction between races you are nostalgic for - Dwarves, Elves, Haflings and Gnomes - and other races. Despite the fact that Goblins and Orcs are as old staple of Fantasy literature, you arbitrairly deny them inclusion based on your own preference.

Ah yes, I did not provide a comprehensive list that meets your standards. Well orcs do not exist in all published worlds - the nostalgic races do. But hey, I'm not unyielding on this issue.
The point of the discussion was that certain gamers prefer to have A relatable race and grounded race within the party. As many of the published settings are for obvious reasons human-centric that playable race is humans.
Of course, the setting changes that - so as I'm currently running a game in Rockhome (Mysyara's dwarven nation), you'd expect to see at least one dwarf within the party.

Which nicely proves the problem with Half-Orc this thread was partially about, as it did exist solely as an excuse TO arbitraily deny orcs inclusion among core playable races.

I'm actually for the inclusion of Orcs. In fact in my post #153 I wrote the following:

Mixed Heritage should be a race entry in the PHB to cater for races that have already been covered, such as Humans, Orcs and Elves. I would not put Tiefling ...etc in that category because Fiends are not included as a full playable entry.

So as you can see, we are on the same side

You also draw an arbitrary line between these four races you like and all others.

Do you suspect I do not like other races? Are you accusing me of being a fantasy racist?

What exactly makes Elf less silly than a Kobold?

Is that a prelude to joke? Because I haven't heard that one.

What makes Dwarf "more relatable" than a Goliath? None of the criteria for whatever gets a pass have been established beyond "trust me bro".

I'd say many of us relate more to Dwarves just purely on the mass content in D&D and just general literature that exists about Dwarves.

With this arbitrary difference it is no wonder you got the Fellowship of the Ring. A party sent by council of Elves, Humans and Dwarves being composed of single Elf & Dwarf, two humans, four Hobbits and an Angel isn't any less ridiculous than a party composed entierly of Kobolds and Tortles, aside from arbitrary lines.

You really think so hey? I could see kobolds replacing the Hobbits (small humans) and Teenage Mutant Ninja Tortles taking care of business. Peter Jackson missed out on that idea.

Yes, that party had two humans BUT you are ignoring the fact that both Aragorn and Boromir were far from relatable. One was ridiculously long-lived heir to an ancient kingdom and a mysterious forest ranger, the other was presented as shady and outright antagonsitic even early on - even when they're guests of Galadriel Boromir is constantly the one to be mistrustful and throwing shade, clearly undermining the kinship other were formign with the Elves. Tolkien was laying it thick Boromir will betray the group, it was a plot twist he redeemed himself, honestly. In fact, it was the Hobbits Tolkiein intended as point of view characters and the ones readers will relate to. The hwole asusmption about the adventuring parties needing a human fall apart when you realize other races are as relatable.

The Hobbits were small humans and not fully fledged heroes - I'd agree and say they are relatable to your average reader - including the 2 humans and Gandalf to a degree.
Appearance is part of relatable, just because one is short or lives long doesn't mean it just goes away.
Afterall the 4 main supernatural characters in Interview with the Vampire all looked human and yes they were vampires, but that didn't make it any less difficult to relate to them.

Moreover, you make some weird assumptions about the settings.

And here this sadly goes off the rails even further.

First of all, marking Spelljammer and Planescape as exceptions, excluding them from the mainstream line of D&D settings, is again, arbitrary.

Well I'd disagree. I see Spelljammer as space fantasy and Planescape not so far away without the vessels and a few other things...but a whole lot of Berks.

Planescape was always more influential and popular than Birthright, main reason Brithright flopped was that it had to compete with Planescape.

O-kay

Planescape and Spelljammer were main influences on the D&D from 3rd edition onward, as WotC always was trying to make them part of the core of what D&D is. The things you excluded had more to say about what the game is for the last 24 years than what you did include.

Look if you want the Giff in the SRD, just say so - don't meander on about Birthright and how popular Planescape was and what WotC was pushing.

Also, these assumptions about D&D settings are in themselves arbitrary. One of the most beloved Forgotten Realms series is about Drizzt, a Drow. It was supposed to be about barbarian hero he is friends with, but he proved more interesting to readers. In fact, the way majority of fans seem to get into the series is t obegin with Drizzt's origin trilogy, not the Icewind Dale Trilogy that came later. And that one is entierly Drows all the way down.

I'm not sure what Fly-Noise Elf has to do with anything. Are you trying to tell me that gamers could relate to him? You do realise my entire discussion was about a party not a single individual. Of course you could be trying to tell me that a party could be made of 1 and those games are called Duets but unfortunately, I'm not talking about those. I'm not looking to change goal posts.

You mention Mystara as if Mystara didn't have Lupins and Rakasta, multiple unique forms of Elves and ALIENS. Hell, the most famous novel series set in Mystara is from perspective of a Dragon.

Yes. And when I'm running a game in the Karameikos it is all about how relatable Rakasta's and ALIENS are in that environment. I cannot believe my players never thought of all playing an party made of ALIENS and Rakastas.
I will grant you there is a secret Lupin group within the Duchy.

At this point I have to ask, do you even understand the point I've been unsuccessfully trying to make? There are gamers that enjoy (for the most part) some representation of the setting they're playing in otherwise why play in that setting.
As an absurd example, no one thinks of playing Smurfs in Star Wars, just because we have the racial write-ups for Smurfs.
There has to be a good reason why the entire party would be comprised of outsiders

You mention Dragonlance as if one of the most popular POW characters wasn't a Kender, who are designed to be way different from standard races, be it humans or otrher Haflings, and the series didn't have several books from perspective of Elves, Draconians or Goblins. Again, you make arbitrary assumptions and then get mad when people don't adhere to them, despite giving no good reason to.

Get mad?!!!
Buddy tell us about your DM without telling us about your DM.

Why are the they supposed to be relatable or grounded again? The obsession with making protagonsits relatable is and always was misguided and stupid. I could as a kid love Spider-man, despite, as a kid growing up in post-Iron Courtain Eastern Europe, his life was so alien to me he would be more relatable if he was a green slime from Mars who has to walk his Gazonkadonk across the Six Moons every morning and find his bulgubub withg a whistle or he'll be fired from ant dressing service. one of my favorite movies is John Q despite the fact that "rptoagonsit must be relatable" dogma dictates the protagonist's experience should be incomprehensible to a person raised in a country with free healthcare. Millions of impoverished people love Batman, who is the least grounded, least relatable, most made up and impossible character ever, being a good billionaire who is omniscient, omnipotent and invincible. People don't pick up Hellboy and then find Liz Sherman only relatable character, they do it for Hellboy, despite him being a demon with six-tons brick for a hand.

Hoenstly, to hell with groudned and relatable. Give me characters who are interesting.

Look there is a lot of rambling towards the end so I'm just going to leave you with this

I'm just telling you how some gamers see it.
Play what you will - I'm just a dude on the internet

 

[pemerton]

What Hobbits are is the ultimate underdog. They're small, weak and seemingly completely outclassed by all these big heroes and horrifying monsters.

And yet are the ultimate heroes. This is why I say they are a type of imagined English people. (As imagined by a rather reactionary English author.)

 

[Not a Decepticon]

JRRT's Hobbits are not an alternative to humans and a human perspective. They are a human perspective, and in particular a certain sort of imagined English perspective.

So you agree that them being a different species does not stop them from being elatable to gumans and a party of Hobbits wouldn't need a human to provide relatbility?

 

[Remathilis]

Ah yes, I did not provide a comprehensive list that meets your standards. Well orcs do not exist in all published worlds - the nostalgic races do.

Just jumping in here.

Halflings do not exist on Krynn.
Gnomes do not exist on Athas. They are not a playable race on Mystara* and Cerilia.
Half-elves* do not exist on Mystara.
Orcs (and half-orcs*) do not exist on Cerilia, Athas, Ravenloft, or Krynn.

So if you're looking for "all published worlds" you have human, elf, and dwarf.

---
* The reason gnomes and half-races don't exist on Mystara is that the overwhelming majority of the setting was made for Basic D&D and these races didn't have playable stats until the line made its ill-fated jump to AD&D. There is a debate on if that should count. Gnomes and orcs did exist as monsters only in both Mystara and Cerilia though.

 

[Hriston]

JRRT's Hobbits are not an alternative to humans and a human perspective. They are a human perspective, and in particular a certain sort of imagined English perspective.

They're also a 20th century human perspective that serves as a viewpoint for 20th century readers.