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%

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.

The only setting on the list you provided that doesn't have Orcs is Krynn. Birthright has Orogs, who canonically in wider D&D lore are a race of Orcs. Dark Sun had Orcs, they were victims of genocide. If you claims this means they do not count, then the same applies to Gnomes. So lack of Orcs in ONE (1) setting decides what counts or not.

And on this topic, I will challenge what is or isn't a classic setting too - Why Dark Sun or Birthright over, say, Wilderlands of High Fantasy, which I suspect many more people played in? Hell, for most of modern auciences none of these settings are as influential as Eberron.

Also, you are switching the goalpost - it moved from "humans are necessary to be relatable" to "settings need a relatable race and that's msot often humans". Two DIFFERENT points.

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

No we're not, because you arbitrairly excluded Tieflings, even though they're not actually children of Fiends.

Do you suspect I do not like other races? Are you accusing me of being a fantasy racist?
I acussed you of being to ham-strung on how this were done "traditionally".

Is that a prelude to joke?

No. Explain to me why Kobold is inherently more silly as a player optionthan an Elf.

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.

Assumption based on nothing.

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.

If Kobolds and Tortles stepped up, why would it be laughable? Again, how would that be inherently sillier than 4 Hobbits, 2 humans, Elf, Dwarf and AN ACTUAL ANGEL? How is it any more ridiculous than a human girl and her dog, a metal man, a scarecrow and a talking lion? Are you going to tell me somehow Dorothy's presence alone makes the Wizard of Oz grounded and realistic?

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.

Oh so I see - you now want to exclude people who don't look like yourself, is that what it is about? You stuggle to project yourself onto people who are too different from you?

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.

MY POINT WAS that, despite not being humans, Hobbits were still MORE relatable than two humans (or Gandalf, who is not a human, but an angel), proving no, we don't need humans to be relatable.

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.

You are entitled to your worng opinion, it only shows how poorly you understand how the game has been evolving since 2e.

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.

I would like entire game in SRD, but SRD is not what you're arguing - you just want to enforce arbitrary rules what is and isn't "real, serious" fantasy, forcuing us to the limits of the same tolkien-copied stuff, and to do that you try to dismiss Planescape and Spelljammer, despite their massive influence over the decades. You are actively revising history of D&D to fit your narrative.

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. ;)

I am pointing out the most well-known and popular character of one of settings you have lsited as classic, one who inspired hundreds if not thousands of players, is not human and his best-known stories are entierly Drow and Drow perspective.

And if you limit this to just gamign tables, then this argument is even more insulting, as you now insinuate that players are too stupid to actually embody and identify with their characters, and will always first and foremost relate to Bob the Human, played by Larry from Accounting, than their own creation.

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.

You are limiting Mystara severely if you only do just Karameikos. If you want run Mystara generic, sure, be my guest, but the setting is far too rich for that to not be a waste.

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.

Your point is that the adventuring parties must have a human, that's a different argument, stop shifting goalposts.

As an absurd example, no one thinks of playing Smurfs in Star Wars, just because we have the racial write-ups for Smurfs.

But people do play Wookies or Droids. In fact, I heard of game where entire table was the same droid type as R2-D2.

There has to be a good reason why the entire party would be comprised of outsiders

Why? Why must there be a "good" reason beyond "It's what we want?". In fact, who gets to decide what is and isn't an outside? Who made you the authority in the what is or isn't an outsider of each specific world? What are your criterias, who vetted and tested them? How do you account for bias?

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

Now you're deflecting, seems you really were getting mad.

I'm just telling you how some gamers see it.

Without proving a single reason why should I care.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Sure. You can twist anything if you put your mind to it. You can do the same thing with physical advantages and disadvantages. It's up to you whether you want to twist it into something that it's not, or recognize the ability for what it is.
It's not twisting, it's the general skeeviness of the concept.
 


No. Explain to me why Kobold is inherently more silly as a player optionthan an Elf.
It's a small lizard dude vs. Gildor Inglorion. Small lizard dude is never going to be taken as seriously.
Assumption based on nothing.
This is wrong. It was assumption based on something, and he told you what that something was. Agree or disagree, but don't misrepresent the argument presented to you.
If Kobolds and Tortles stepped up, why would it be laughable? Again, how would that be inherently sillier than 4 Hobbits, 2 humans, Elf, Dwarf and AN ACTUAL ANGEL? How is it any more ridiculous than a human girl and her dog, a metal man, a scarecrow and a talking lion? Are you going to tell me somehow Dorothy's presence alone makes the Wizard of Oz grounded and realistic?
Why is small lizard dude and teenage mutant ninja tortle(I can't tell you how often I've heard that joke. The race just is not taken seriously) inherently sillier than 9 people who are all variations of human in appearance?
MY POINT WAS that, despite not being humans, Hobbits were still MORE relatable than two humans (or Gandalf, who is not a human, but an angel), proving no, we don't need humans to be relatable.
Except that the hobbits are human when it comes to relatability. Horton the Loxodon will not be as relatable to most people.
 



I don't think that some species have some sort of mental advantages is a problem. Or do a lot of people for example think that it is an issue that Vulcans in Star Trek obviously have superior ability to make mental calculations and retain and recall information compared to humans?

Given the direction discussion has gone for the last oh...5 or 6 years? Yeah, I'm sure those same people do have issue with this.
 


Remove ads

Top