D&D 5E What’s So Great About Medieval Europe?

[Oofta]

WoW and warhammer have pretty modern view of monster races. In this matter DnD setting are often stuck in old stuff from the 80’s. but overall DnD never pretend to be medieval, the section about Government in the DM guide is definitively not medieval centric.

I would say they have a different view. Whether or not it's "better" is a matter of preference and what role they fill in the game. IMHO if they're just humans with rubber masks they don't really serve any purpose any more and there's basically no reason to have them in my campaign.

Then again I also don't want my vampires sparkling in the sun (unless they're about to explode) and being a werewolf isn't a power-up.

 

[Aldarc]

I would say they have a different view. Whether or not it's "better" is a matter of preference and what role they fill in the game. IMHO if they're just humans with rubber masks they don't really serve any purpose any more and there's basically no reason to have them in my campaign.

So you just dispose of the humans that don't look like you? That's a great message to send.

 

[Oofta]

So you just dispose of the humans that don't look like you? That's a great message to send.

If I want a different culture I'll introduce it. Sometimes they'll look slightly different, sometimes they won't. If they're human, yes there will be moral issues that come up. It happens now in my campaign.

While my knowledge of WOW is limited, the problem I had with it was that humans were just this one big monolithic block.

In any case I don't want to conflate monster with culture. It's why orcs aren't evil because of their culture in my campaign.

 

[Jester David]

I'm inclined for the easier solution: avoid race-based monocultures and racial essentialism. So one can have multiple cultures of orcs - just as there are multiple cultures of humans, elves, dwarves, etc. - which is also how it is in Eberron.

Which doesn’t solve the problem, because it just becomes “nurture” then, and killing orcs from the “evil subculture” you’re killing people who could be redeemed and are just misguided.

 

[Aldarc]

Which doesn’t solve the problem, because it just becomes “nurture” then, and killing orcs from the “evil subculture” you’re killing people who could be redeemed and are just misguided.

Which is how we often treat humans of various cultures in D&D anyway, so no biggie. I would prefer the moral complexity of cultures and societies than racial essentialism.

 

[Fenris-77]

Which doesn’t solve the problem, because it just becomes “nurture” then, and killing orcs from the “evil subculture” you’re killing people who could be redeemed and are just misguided.

There's no need to 'solve the problem'. Orcs are only redeemable and whatnot if that's what the DM decides. He could just as easily make them black hats and not worry about it. If he does decide to make them redeemable that isn't then a problem, it's by design. It's not as though orcs exist somehow independently of their use in a specific game, or have traits that aren't changeable.

 

[Oofta]

Which is how we often treat humans of various cultures in D&D anyway, so no biggie. I would prefer the moral complexity of cultures and societies than racial essentialism.

Which is how we often treat humans of various cultures in D&D anyway, so no biggie. I would prefer the moral complexity of cultures and societies than racial essentialism.

While I prefer having monsters that happen to look vaguely humanoid. It's a game, I like moral clarity now and then; it also makes the moral quandaries stand out as special when I do introduce them.

Good thing we can each do what they want in their own campaign.

 

[Fanaelialae]

One thing I never understood with the anthropomorphism of games like Pugmire is why some of the beasts sport human affectations for clothing (the dogs) but the others less so (the ants) in the cover art.

View attachment 121523

Not sure whether this has been covered or not because I'm way behind on this thread.

In the context of Pugmire, the dogs (and cats) wear clothing because they remember humanity (which is now extinct) and have modeled elements of their culture on them. The dogs revere the humans as akin to gods, whereas the cats remember them as favored servants (IIRC). Not all of the anthromorphs have that connection.

 

[Jester David]

Historically, there's virtually no such thing as just "joining other societies." The way rival societies "join" is for one to subjugate the other (not always via outright warfare), and the winners to treat you more like the Persians treated the Ionian Greeks than, say, the Manchu treated the Dzungar. Because while sometimes, the conquerors judge you capable of being incorporated into the empire...sometimes, they decide it's not worth the trouble.

If you didn't get incorporated into the Cloud Person Empire, it's for the same reason the Picts never joined the Romans: they were never conquered.

Sure. But as technology advances in England it also advanced in France, Spain, Denmark, and the like. You didn’t have a nation that was just 300 years behind living next to a refined nation.

The question of why orcs are savage remains. And if it’s cultural, than it’s likely the, being oppressed and denied trade and shared opportunity. Forced to live in undesirable locations. Reserves if you will....

 

[Jester David]

Which is how we often treat humans of various cultures in D&D anyway, so no biggie. I would prefer the moral complexity of cultures and societies than racial essentialism.

And it’s problematic to reduce other human cultures to a killable “other”. It’s literally racism, which is the opposite of “no biggie”.