Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9733014" data-attributes="member: 7025508">I'm a bit two minds about this, and this is reflected on my world Artra. There is some integration, many non-humans live alongside humans in several places. But there also are significant mono-species groups.The issue with complete integration is that the uniqueness of each species tends to vanish. I have noted this about Critical Role's Exandria recently; it is very integrated and most places are just a mix of different species. And whilst it gives a nice veneer of cosmopolitanity, it also means that the species feel pretty meaningless. There is no temperament or culture associated with a species, everyone are just different looking humans. And I think you can take the melting pot too far. Is it really multiculturalism if everyone basically has the same culture?That's why I have opted to include the mono-species "home societies" for most species in my setting, alongside more integrated elements. It gives each species a core identity, even if not every member of that species would follow it, and it will inform them culturally even when integrated into other societies. And as we are talking about literal different species, instead of just human cultures, this even seems realistic to me. Artran orcs are hardy desert dwellers because they're physically far more resilient to heat and hardship; they can endure in places that would be inhospitable to humans. Similarly the eldri are small and nimble creatures with great balance, thus they can make homes on top of the trees of the mighty jungles, and run along branches with far greater ease than humans could.</blockquote>

Verification