D&D 5E Yes to factionalism. No to racism.

[Bolares]

In this template a valenar elf would be something like:

Elf:

darkvision, trance, sleep and charm resist.

Valenar:

spirits of the past: you gain proficiency with history and another skill of you choice.

valenar weapon training: you gain proficiency with the double scimitar.

 

[cowpie]

Just a side comment -- in the original G1-G3/D1-D3 Giant/Drow modules, (spoiler) it turns out the Drow stirring up all the trouble with the Giants are actually a heretical faction that are worshiping the Elder Elemental God. So the players in the Vault of the Drow, can actually ally with rival Drow houses against house "Eliserv". There is also a neutral Drow Prisoner in the Fane of Lolth, who is an underground rebel leader, who the players can free and make an alliance with.
Due to the limited size of the module, these features aren't fully developed, so it's up to the DM to flesh this stuff out.

In general, Drow have been portrayed as corrupted villains and monsters in D&D. However, the capacity for good Drow characters, or Drow that don't fit into a single stereotype has always been in the game. Given the DIY nature of designing campaigns and scenarios, it's just been up to the players to customize them to fit their individual taste.

 

[el-remmen]

Two Three things I don't understand:

1) Why some people think this is hard to implement and not just an extension of how various groups and orgs and cultures already work in D&D?

2) Why can't there just be generic factions in a core book with examples for each setting? For example, "Reactionary Factions object to changes in the world, especially re-distribution of power, and seek to return the world/nation/community to its notion of a previous 'golden age' where members of the faction just happened to be in power. See Scarlet Brotherhood (Greyhawk) or Grognards (Earth)."

Edit to add: 3) Why there has to be anything mechanical connected to it (aside from some recommended backgrounds that might come along with each)

 

[Bolares]

Edit to add: 3) Why there has to be anything mechanical connected to it (aside from some recommended backgrounds that might come along with each)

It doesn't have to be mechanical, but it can be. And in some cases mechanical options can help drive home the point of that culture/nation/faction, and help a character from that faction stand out.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I am puzzled by this fancy debate over culture and background. Are you evil and can I kill you and take your stuff?

Do they have a goatee?

 

[DemoMonkey]

Drow neatly divide into two factions.

1) "Drow who appear in game or are mentioned" who are universally mono-coloured and deliciously evil.

2) "Drow who never appear in game and are never mentioned" who can be infinitely diverse.

 

[Laurefindel]

Despite my natural tendency to say "yes, but...", I agree with @Yaarel 's OP.

But (ha! told you that'd be coming!), in essence that'd just be a clarification on how things already are without addressing racial/racist issues. Especially if faction = culture. However, it does give us more tools and pathways to avoid some of them.

If instead of "all drows = evil" we say that "all Menzoberanzan = evil", then the profiling and stereotyping problem remains. But it would at least acknowledge that "all drows =/= Menzoberanzan, therefore all drows =/= evil", thus introducing the possibility that Menzoberanzan might be also broken-up in yet more factions. That's more or less the case already with Lolth worshipers, Vhaeraun worshiper, and Ellistraee worshipers in FR, but at least it would spell this better.

Now, the grognard in me wonders where that level of "faction resolution" will end. Nations are at war. Cultures are at war. Religions are at war. Good people can be pricks, and I'm not interested in a utopia-D&D where all people of all origins unite against the demons and clearly identifiable non-sapient monster (or other kind of similar oversimplification and far-stretched hyperbole). War is ugly, regardless of the scale of battles, and almost by definition, morally self-contradicting.

In the end, I don't care if Menzoberranzan drows aren't all evil. They already are divided in dozens of sub-factions by family and alliances that shift and change faster than you can catalogue them. All I care about it that in Menzoberanzan, evil drows are in charge, and everyone (who want to live) play by their rule. In this setting, Menzoberanzan is the enemy, with all the yuk and (im)moral crap that goes with it. And I hope that my PCs will rise above that.

 

[Scribe]

All I care about it that in Menzoberanzan, evil drows are in charge, and everyone (who want to live) play by their rule. In this setting, Menzoberanzan is the enemy, with all the yuk and moral crap that goes with it. And I hope that my PCs will rise above that

Agreed, it's as easy as that.

 

[Minigiant]

The problem with factions is that they are setting specific. I have factions in my campaign world that follow Fenris (aka Fenrir depending on how you Anglicize it) the wolf. The highest honor is to become werewolves, and the truly powerful ones become far deadlier than your typical lycanthrope.

Which works great for me, makes no sense in FR. As far as monsters, I think we should go back to "often", "frequently" and so on for alignments. But that's been hashed to death.

Not necessarily.

MTG has been milking the same 5 factions over multiple settings for decades now.

Green Elves and Dwarves vs Purple Elves and Dwarves vs Orange Elves and Dwarves!

 

[Umbran]

Race, subrace.
Background, culture?
Class, subclass.

To make these things analogous, I think it'd be
Culture, background.

Edit: Nevermind, someone got the same point I did.