Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[Psyren]

Not Constant. It would be At-Will with an activation. There is a thematic difference.

The Dwarf takes a moment (costs an action, or even a minute) to put their ear to the stone or pause to listen to the earth. The Dwarves being able to read and listen to the stones is part of their folklore background.

The longer effective usage, even allows the per activation duration and range to be shortened. Tremorsense of 60ft 2/day sounds like Wildshape to me but knowing how to pause to listen for Tremorsense 5ft-10ft sounds like Species of Stone* to me.

Edit
* Context: Dwarf, Gnome, and Goliath are thematically associated with rock and stone. There was a book called Races of Stone and I was alluding to it.

Personally, I'd rather have the longer range with more limited use than the other way around. The big benefit of Tremorsense is detecting things you may not know are there - a 10ft range would pretty much either only come in handy when you're already suspicious enough of a given stimulus to get close to it, or if your dwarf is constantly doing laps around every room they enter, neither of which seem appealing.


So... we accept infravision and ultravision but not this? Why?


Again. I don't play a lot of D&D these days, so there could be game balance issues with this.

I can tell - infravision hasn't been a thing since 2e :smallbiggrin:

I hear what you're saying about dwarves being more fantastical as a way to make them more interesting, but the other thing we were discussing in this thread is how little tolerance there seems to be for deviating dwarves from their template. I think drawing on earthen power to "see" through stones is thematic, but I think doing it at will is a bit much. (And since you ask - yes, as a matter of fact I do think there is a game balance concern if dwarves are as hard to hide from as umber hulks.)


Eh, get a second feature that does the same thing as the first but better to make the first feature work isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

It's not 'better' - as established, 10' range is for things you already know are there, not for exploring.
And the feature works fine. Even if something is invisible, once you can unerringly keep track of what square it's in all you have to worry about is disadvantage. That's hardly insurmountable.

[Errorname]

Constant Tremorsense... eh. That suggests all dwarves are part-spider or part-bulette or something. I don't think they're supposed to be that overtly monstrous or mystical, they're still just humanoids.

Eh, Dwarves as creatures magically tied to the earth is not without folkloric precedent.


I guess this really depends on whether you view dwarves as just "short stocky humans who live underground", or if they are an actual unique species in a fantasy setting. I tend to lean in the latter direction.

I think part of the problem here is that the genre defining works of fantasy fiction skewed towards "short stocky humans who live underground", so that's what people expect and want from Dwarves.

[Psyren]

Eh, Dwarves as creatures magically tied to the earth is not without folkloric precedent.

There's tons of folklore about elves being overtly magical creatures too. But in game terms, at-will racial powers should be roughly equivalent to a cantrip; if they're more powerful than that, the alternative is to have them use up pretty much the race's entire power budget (see for example Changelings ability to Disguise Self at will), which is further explained by the latter being fey.


I think part of the problem here is that the genre defining works of fantasy fiction skewed towards "short stocky humans who live underground", so that's what people expect and want from Dwarves.

As mentioned though - is that actually a "problem?" And if the actual problem is something like dwarven adoption rates - how much of that problem is due to their lack of fantasticalness and not to, say, their slow movement speed as WotC themselves theorized?

[Errorname]

As mentioned though - is that actually a "problem?" And if the actual problem is something like dwarven adoption rates - how much of that problem is due to their lack of fantasticalness and not to, say, their slow movement speed as WotC themselves theorized?

It's a problem if you want to make Dwarves something more than short humans who live underground, but I agree that there's no real need for that.

[Psyren]

It's a problem if you want to make Dwarves something more than short humans who live underground, but I agree that there's no real need for that.

I already see them as more than "short humans who live underground." They don't need to become humanoid ankhegs to get there; their tremorsense being an activated ability that they can't use all day fits with that fantasy better in my mind.

[Witty Username]

I already see them as more than "short humans who live underground." They don't need to become humanoid ankhegs to get there; their tremorsense being an activated ability that they can't use all day fits with that fantasy better in my mind.

Tbf, everything is better with the ability to spit acid.

Ideas for Thri-kreen.

[Jophiel]

Dwarves have been around longer anyway. Ankhegs are just stupid insect dwarf wannabes.

I'd have no issue with expanding dwarf tremorsense beyond the proposed new PHB. Maybe not constant but with a perception check and smaller radius or something. In my opinion, that doesn't make them "part Ankheg" any more than hearing makes us part bat or smelling makes us part bloodhound. Especially when dwarven tremorsense would be more mystical/elemental and just sharing a mechanics name with bugs that have it via more traditional heightened physical senses.

[Psyren]

In my opinion, that doesn't make them "part Ankheg" any more than hearing makes us part bat

I think constant echolocation as opposed to merely "hearing" would make us/them feel "part-bat."

Anyway, if they change it to be constant tremorsense I wouldn't set my books on fire or anything, I just think the playtest version with it being an activated ability is plenty sufficient.

[Witty Username]

In my opinion, that doesn't make them "part Ankheg" any more than hearing makes us part bat or smelling makes us part bloodhound. Especially when dwarven tremorsense would be more mystical/elemental and just sharing a mechanics name with bugs that have it via more traditional heightened physical senses.

This matches my take, the requiring contact with stone is sufficient for themes for me.

Mechanically, it requiring a resource seems like a balance concern. Which will depend on how tremorsense checks out. As it is, I would have no concerns with it being at will.

[gbaji]

I already see them as more than "short humans who live underground." They don't need to become humanoid ankhegs to get there; their tremorsense being an activated ability that they can't use all day fits with that fantasy better in my mind.

I think it maybe fits with mechannical game balance better, but I'm struggling to see how "I have this mystical ability that I can only use X times a day" actually fits or makes sense more than "we just have the ability to do this thing".

I think some gamers have just gotten so used to the X/day mechanics that they don't realize just how nonsensical it really is if you actually step back and think about it. Even moreso for a perception/sense type ability. I have a much much much harder time wrapping my head around "dwarves can feel the earth and sense things moving through it, but only 3 times a day"" than "they can do this naturally all the time, because they are dwarves". Why the X/day restiction? Again. it's a game mechanic. We've all gotten used to them. But... really? Why? What is the actual rationalization for this? It takes some special mystical effort to do this, so they can only do it so often? For a sense? It's not like I'm casting a spell here. I'm not depleting some store of mystical mana or whatnot. Any rationalilzation for dwarves to be able to do this in the first place, should preclude an X/day mechanic to be involved. They either have this as a racial ability, or they do not.

And yes... <mutter mutter> game balance <mutter mutter>. But that's literally the reason to do this. It really doesn't make a lick of sense from a world setting or race building pov at all.

Er... But then again, a good portion of X/day abilities in many current games don't make sense either, and exist solely for game balance reasons, so there's that (many feats work this way and are equally unexplainable IMO). I'm just maybe suggesting we don't lose sight of that.

[VoxRationis]

I think it maybe fits with mechannical game balance better, but I'm struggling to see how "I have this mystical ability that I can only use X times a day" actually fits or makes sense more than "we just have the ability to do this thing".

I think some gamers have just gotten so used to the X/day mechanics that they don't realize just how nonsensical it really is if you actually step back and think about it. Even moreso for a perception/sense type ability. I have a much much much harder time wrapping my head around "dwarves can feel the earth and sense things moving through it, but only 3 times a day"" than "they can do this naturally all the time, because they are dwarves". Why the X/day restiction? Again. it's a game mechanic. We've all gotten used to them. But... really? Why? What is the actual rationalization for this? It takes some special mystical effort to do this, so they can only do it so often? For a sense? It's not like I'm casting a spell here. I'm not depleting some store of mystical mana or whatnot. Any rationalilzation for dwarves to be able to do this in the first place, should preclude an X/day mechanic to be involved. They either have this as a racial ability, or they do not.

And yes... <mutter mutter> game balance <mutter mutter>. But that's literally the reason to do this. It really doesn't make a lick of sense from a world setting or race building pov at all.

Er... But then again, a good portion of X/day abilities in many current games don't make sense either, and exist solely for game balance reasons, so there's that (many feats work this way and are equally unexplainable IMO). I'm just maybe suggesting we don't lose sight of that.

I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment.

[Psyren]

I think it maybe fits with mechannical game balance better, but I'm struggling to see how "I have this mystical ability that I can only use X times a day" actually fits or makes sense more than "we just have the ability to do this thing".

Why do spells (including racial spells) need slots? Spellcasting is a mystical ability right?

60' Tremorsense is more powerful than a cantrip, so it shouldn't be at-will; it's as simple as that.

[Mordar]

Why do spells (including racial spells) need slots? Spellcasting is a mystical ability right?

60' Tremorsense is more powerful than a cantrip, so it shouldn't be at-will; it's as simple as that.

I hear you...but I can easily imagine games where I'd rather have 60' limited application tremorsense (persistent) than a +2 CON. And that's more powerful than a cantrip too. Even with a CHA modifier.

- M

[VoxRationis]

Why do spells (including racial spells) need slots? Spellcasting is a mystical ability right?

60' Tremorsense is more powerful than a cantrip, so it shouldn't be at-will; it's as simple as that.

Racial spells are mostly just X/day abilities of the sort we're criticizing; I'm not going to defend them conceptually. By contrast, other spells are tied into a broader system wherein the majority of a character's mystical abilities are linked to a common pool that represents the bulk of the character's strength over the day, whether that be a power point system like RQ or 3.x psionics, the common single-level slot system of a 5e warlock, or the tiered pools of a wizard. When a spellcaster learns how to cast fireball, they don't (usually; there are odd exceptions, depending on the system) gain the ability to cast fireball specifically once a day, independently of how many times they cast lightning bolt or sending; rather, they gain the ability to devote a subset of a broader pool of power to casting that spell, at the expense of doing something else with that power.

With X/day abilities, what gets really weird is when you end up with a character who possesses half a dozen abilities with independent hard caps on their daily usage in spite of all purportedly coming from the same source (the nebulous "inner strength" of the character or what have you). One runs into the position of having to explain why one's character cannot use flaming sphere or the like again in spite of still being able to throw three more fireballs or do sprints around the battlefield while break dancing without even breathing hard. If one is playing some sort of animist or demonologist, this makes sense, because the sources are explicitly separate (e.g., the bound spirit that gives me fireballs has no contractual obligation to use flaming sphere on my behalf), but that is the exception, rather than the rule.

Plus, finally, whether or not it's more "powerful" in the sense of game mechanics (and I would agree that in many cases, it is), it's hard conceptually to argue that being able to passively sense vibrations in the earth requires or uses more power than cantrips like fire bolt. If we are to compare it to other senses, one might argue that regular optical sight is much more powerful than just about any cantrip (consider how highly the ability to hinder it is typically valued), but no one mandates that it be usable less often.

[Psyren]

Racial spells are mostly just X/day abilities of the sort we're criticizing; I'm not going to defend them conceptually.

Whether you 'defend' x/day abilities or not is totally irrelevant; they're woven into the game's very fabric.


By contrast, other spells are tied into a broader system wherein the majority of a character's mystical abilities are linked to a common pool that represents the bulk of the character's strength over the day, whether that be a power point system like RQ or 3.x psionics, the common single-level slot system of a 5e warlock, or the tiered pools of a wizard. When a spellcaster learns how to cast fireball, they don't (usually; there are odd exceptions, depending on the system) gain the ability to cast fireball specifically once a day, independently of how many times they cast lightning bolt or sending; rather, they gain the ability to devote a subset of a broader pool of power to casting that spell, at the expense of doing something else with that power.

With X/day abilities, what gets really weird is when you end up with a character who possesses half a dozen abilities with independent hard caps on their daily usage in spite of all purportedly coming from the same source (the nebulous "inner strength" of the character or what have you). One runs into the position of having to explain why one's character cannot use flaming sphere or the like again in spite of still being able to throw three more fireballs or do sprints around the battlefield while break dancing without even breathing hard. If one is playing some sort of animist or demonologist, this makes sense, because the sources are explicitly separate (e.g., the bound spirit that gives me fireballs has no contractual obligation to use flaming sphere on my behalf), but that is the exception, rather than the rule.

The spell slot pool vs. independent cap thing is also irrelevant. Let's put racial spells aside then; is a Hobgoblin's Fey Gift not mystical? A Firbolg's Hidden Step? A Shadar-kai's Blessing of the Raven Queen? A Shifter's shifting? So what's wrong with their powers having "independent caps?"


Plus, finally, whether or not it's more "powerful" in the sense of game mechanics (and I would agree that in many cases, it is), it's hard conceptually to argue that being able to passively sense vibrations in the earth requires or uses more power than cantrips like fire bolt. If we are to compare it to other senses, one might argue that regular optical sight is much more powerful than just about any cantrip (consider how highly the ability to hinder it is typically valued), but no one mandates that it be usable less often.

Optical sight is baseline to every species so it's not more powerful than anything, it cancels out. Only Dwarves get Tremorsense.


I hear you...but I can easily imagine games where I'd rather have 60' limited application tremorsense (persistent) than a +2 CON. And that's more powerful than a cantrip too. Even with a CHA modifier.

- M

Everyone can get +2 Con now too if they want, +2 to a stat is also baseline. There's no racial power budget allocated to that either, just like there isn't to "optical sight."

[Aquillion]

Why do spells (including racial spells) need slots? Spellcasting is a mystical ability right?

60' Tremorsense is more powerful than a cantrip, so it shouldn't be at-will; it's as simple as that.
I mean... Darkvision is a 2nd level spell, isn't it? And yet plenty of creatures get it at-will.

Tremorsense is sort of weird and hard to balance because it's fairly situational and also just... not very clearly written. In theory it negates invisibility and it might negate stealth, but it technically doesn't say either; and not having it auto-negate stealth is perfectly reasonable (moving carefully means less "tremor" in addition to less sound.) It's also unclear if it negates the disadvantage to attacking an unseen target. It's probably intended to but it's not at all clear.

Most of the monsters that have it also have it as an alternative to normal vision; but when used that way it has both advantages and disadvantages. If a creature got it as an alternative to darkvision then the same thing applies.

If I were designing a player race with tremorsense, I'd just give them a more limited version of it that explicitly can't detect invisible creatures and doesn't negate stealth. It does let them detect things through walls, but that's a fair tradeoff to not being able to detect things that fly and not being able to actually identify things you detect with it as precisely as vision can.

At that point it's an entirely reasonable alternative to darkvision, and they can have it 24-7.

And honestly, if the "not detecting invisible creatures" bit seems weird, I don't think it would break anything to let it work on them. Invisible enemies aren't that common, and several of the ones that do exist can fly. They might have to give up something else for this, but not much - it's just not very strong. Really the entire argument is a bit of a head-scratcher because how often are you going to encounter more than one invisible enemy in a day?

The main question of "is it permanent" isn't about power-level, it's about whether you want Tremorsense to completely replace their Darkvision or not.


Optical sight is baseline to every species so it's not more powerful than anything, it cancels out. Only Dwarves get Tremorsense.
Well, yes, but - dwarves would get permanent tremorsense instead of darkvision, right? Which is optical sight. At that point the comparison is important, because they'll be stuck with tremorsense's limitations in any situation where they would have previously used darkvision.

[Witty Username]

I hear what you're saying about dwarves being more fantastical as a way to make them more interesting, but the other thing we were discussing in this thread is how little tolerance there seems to be for deviating dwarves from their template. I think drawing on earthen power to "see" through stones is thematic, but I think doing it at will is a bit much. (And since you ask - yes, as a matter of fact I do think there is a game balance concern if dwarves are as hard to hide from as umber hulks.)

This does have an advantage on this point that tremorsense (limited or at will) doesn't change much visually. Which is where the strong emotion point is.

Heck, it come off as a more detailed way of how detecting secret doors works, kinda like pondering how darkvision works spawned infravision back in the day.

[Psyren]

I mean... Darkvision is a 2nd level spell, isn't it? And yet plenty of creatures get it at-will.

Tremorsense is sort of weird and hard to balance because it's fairly situational and also just... not very clearly written. In theory it negates invisibility and it might negate stealth, but it technically doesn't say either; and not having it auto-negate stealth is perfectly reasonable (moving carefully means less "tremor" in addition to less sound.) It's also unclear if it negates the disadvantage to attacking an unseen target. It's probably intended to but it's not at all clear.

Most of the monsters that have it also have it as an alternative to normal vision; but when used that way it has both advantages and disadvantages. If a creature got it as an alternative to darkvision then the same thing applies.


Are you reading the 2014 wording? Because I thought the updated wording for Tremorsense in the UA was crystal clear - you automatically pinpoint creatures and moving objects, meaning you know what square(s) they're in as long as they're in range, even if you don't have line of sight or they're invisible. Not only is that easy to understand, it's broadly useful.



If I were designing a player race with tremorsense, I'd just give them a more limited version of it that explicitly can't detect invisible creatures and doesn't negate stealth. It does let them detect things through walls, but that's a fair tradeoff to not being able to detect things that fly and not being able to actually identify things you detect with it as precisely as vision can.

At that point it's an entirely reasonable alternative to darkvision, and they can have it 24-7.

And honestly, if the "not detecting invisible creatures" bit seems weird, I don't think it would break anything to let it work on them. Invisible enemies aren't that common, and several of the ones that do exist can fly. They might have to give up something else for this, but not much - it's just not very strong. Really the entire argument is a bit of a head-scratcher because how often are you going to encounter more than one invisible enemy in a day?

The main question of "is it permanent" isn't about power-level, it's about whether you want Tremorsense to completely replace their Darkvision or not.
...
Well, yes, but - dwarves would get permanent tremorsense instead of darkvision, right? Which is optical sight. At that point the comparison is important, because they'll be stuck with tremorsense's limitations in any situation where they would have previously used darkvision.

As mentioned, I'd much rather have the more powerful detection ability (i.e. that you can't simply hide from) with limited uses, than constant detection that is less useful. You may disagree and that's okay.


This does have an advantage on this point that tremorsense (limited or at will) doesn't change much visually. Which is where the strong emotion point is.

Heck, it come off as a more detailed way of how detecting secret doors works, kinda like pondering how darkvision works spawned infravision back in the day.

I think this is a big part of why WotC was okay with giving dwarves such an overtly preternatural ability. A dwarf closing their eyes for a second and shifting their stance, before telling their party there are 4 ogres in the next room and a patrol coming up behind them, is something you could in theory do with really really good hearing and luck too, so it's not like it would be out of place in a campaign setting like Middle-Earth. And that sort of floor may play a role in what Dwarves are allowed to do, and be, racially.

[Mordar]

WEveryone can get +2 Con now too if they want, +2 to a stat is also baseline. There's no racial power budget allocated to that either, just like there isn't to "optical sight."

I know 5e is the current edition, but beyond that I don't really know a lot about it...but I have heard about this issue. Isn't this kind of hand-in-hand with the whole "bumpy forehead" or "let's make sure everyone is the same bland, because we don't want to be accused of making some kind of generalized statement about things outside of our game"?

I was contemplating the relative advantages of stat modifiers in general, and if 0-point balance was more than just the cheap-and-easy way out. And how hard is really is to balance across a spectrum of play styles and levels. The CON bonus is a big deal for a little while, and then a meh, then inconsequential. As far as I know, other stats don't even start with the same peak as CON, though DEX might be higher? I like the idea of differences that matter throughout the game. I'd love things that matter at level 1 and level 20 (or whatever). Maybe things completely divorced from "builds" or optimization.


This does have an advantage on this point that tremorsense (limited or at will) doesn't change much visually. Which is where the strong emotion point is.

Heck, it come off as a more detailed way of how detecting secret doors works, kinda like pondering how darkvision works spawned infravision back in the day.

Right - I think this fits perfectly with the underground/miner/delver idea...and I don't think it has to feel supernatural. Now that I have been in my new office for a while, I can tell (reasonably well) when people are moving in the hallways and neighboring offices, when the door is about to open, and things like that - because of changes in the air flow (from pressure), the way sound echoes, etc. I'm no ninja or fey...just been here long enough to be attuned and recognize changes. Like some hunters who are able to "know" the presence and type of specific predators without seeing or hearing them because of the way the rest of a region "feels".

Of course, it doesn't make sense for the players who want to play urban dwarves, or pirate dwarves, or whatever.

So while we're having a wishlist, how about an array of racial traits that includes selectables? I know that (exponentially?) increases the balance struggle, but does that make racial thingums (term de arte there) more enjoyable and meaningful?

If we were to think about "dwarfiness" we might identify 3 - 5 common themes or characteristics. Coming up with a Thingum for each, and then letting the player choose which applies could be cool. Some game somewhere must have already done this...it is just "feat selection" but for races instead of levels. So spitball for dwarves:

Craftsdwarves: Tools/structures/artwork crafted by this dwarf have a special enhancement vs standard (system dependent, but for D&D, all weapons/armor crafted by this dwarf are Masterwork, or all jewelry crafted have a 10% higher value than normal)

Delvers: Tremorsense (or the old suite of related benefits for secret doors, depth, quality, etc)

Mountain Ranger: Bonuses to outdoorsy skills, but also something like Unerring Navigator (Never gets lost in mountains) or Mountain Survivor (can find food and shelter for X people)

Hardy: Immune to disease, or natural poison, or can never be exhausted, or drunk, or some combination of that.

So in addition to my stat modification (without a "balancing" negative because *that* is where the "I can't say my totally make believe Drelks have -2 DEX because then people I am thinking real life Blists are clumsy" or stupid crap like that), I also get to choose one of these things.

Of course, the value relies on credible knowledge about the type of game you'll be playing...but Session Zero, right?

- M

[Witty Username]

I know 5e is the current edition, but beyond that I don't really know a lot about it...but I have heard about this issue. Isn't this kind of hand-in-hand with the whole "bumpy forehead" or "let's make sure everyone is the same bland, because we don't want to be accused of making some kind of generalized statement about things outside of our game"?

Old argument in the 5e section at this point, But some of the sameness is caused by it.
There is more too it though, species have tended to get more explicit features or have them highlighted.

Like how orc doesn't have the ability scores but got merged with half-orc to have the relentless endurance trait (the first time you hit 0, you don't) along with what they already had.

So if you want a tough feeling dwarf, instead of a con bonus the may have a feature that reduces damage or regenerates health to comunicate that.

The last thing for it is ability score matter more for class and build so it you want to go off script its less punishing (if you use point buy anyway)

Dwarves having the champion fighter regen ability might be pretty cool. Wining the long grind instead of the occasional no sell.

[Psyren]

I know 5e is the current edition, but beyond that I don't really know a lot about it...but I have heard about this issue. Isn't this kind of hand-in-hand with the whole "bumpy forehead" or "let's make sure everyone is the same bland, because we don't want to be accused of making some kind of generalized statement about things outside of our game"?

Yes, there exist people seemingly incapable of critically evaluating mechanically distinct racial features who view the shift towards floating ASIs in this way. I do not consider those people remotely persuasive.



If we were to think about "dwarfiness" we might identify 3 - 5 common themes or characteristics. Coming up with a Thingum for each, and then letting the player choose which applies could be cool. Some game somewhere must have already done this...it is just "feat selection" but for races instead of levels.

The level 1 feat already accomplishes this though. Want a "Craftsdwarf?" Grab a bunch of tools with your base proficiencies and replenish them with Skilled (or maybe the 5.5e version will let you take both), or take Artificer Initiate. Want a "Hardy" dwarf? Grab Tough, Magic Initiate (Resistance+Blade Ward), or Lucky. Want a "Delver" or "Mountain Ranger" dwarf? Grab Skilled (Survival / Perception / Nature).

[Mordar]

Yes, there exist people seemingly incapable of critically evaluating mechanically distinct racial features who view the shift towards floating ASIs in this way. I do not consider those people remotely persuasive.

Not sure I understand this...are you commenting on the idea that floating ASIs do/do not increase homogeneity, or commenting on the potential link to interpretations outside the game?


The level 1 feat already accomplishes this though. Want a "Craftsdwarf?" Grab a bunch of tools with your base proficiencies and replenish them with Skilled (or maybe the 5.5e version will let you take both), or take Artificer Initiate. Want a "Hardy" dwarf? Grab Tough, Magic Initiate (Resistance+Blade Ward), or Lucky. Want a "Delver" or "Mountain Ranger" dwarf? Grab Skilled (Survival / Perception / Nature).

I know I should have more 5e familiarity to have this discussion...but aren't those just bonuses to skills or saves or whatever? That is very much what I am trying to avoid.

Also, if it is just a feat those damn dirty elves can take, then it isn't special.

- M

[Psyren]

Not sure I understand this...are you commenting on the idea that floating ASIs do/do not increase homogeneity, or commenting on the potential link to interpretations outside the game?

I'm saying they do not. To look at modern race design - say, Shadar-Kai vs Plasmoids vs Harengon vs Githyanki, and declare it "homogenous" - is ludicrous on its face.


I know I should have more 5e familiarity to have this discussion...but aren't those just bonuses to skills or saves or whatever? That is very much what I am trying to avoid.

Skilled gives skill bonuses, fittingly enough, but all the other ones I listed do other things.


Also, if it is just a feat those damn dirty elves can take, then it isn't special.

- M

There are no race-locked level 1 feats, no. (Why such a thing would even be desirable is beyond me...?)

Rather, what drives feats races are likely to select would be emphasizing strengths or mitigating gaps from their other racials. For example, a High Elf would probably be less likely to pick Magic Initiate since they can get a wizard cantrip without it, but it's not like they'd get zero benefit.

[icefractal]

There's (at least) two angles a player could come from when choosing to be a Dwarf / Plasmoid / whatever.

1) They already have an existing character concept that includes being a Dwarf. In this case, it's good for the system to "get out of the way" and make being a Dwarf as modular as possible. And it's not a problem if they could achieve the exact same result by being an Elf.

2) They don't have a concept in mind yet, and want the Dwarf rules to inspire them to be a Dwarf (or not). Now for some players, having good enough flavor alone is enough, the mechanics don't matter. But for others, they do want to be inspired mechanically as well. They want features that say "this is a distinct difference that will have a concrete effect in play, specifically because you're playing a Dwarf."

To an extent, these are opposed objectives.

[Mordar]

I'm saying they do not. To look at modern race design - say, Shadar-Kai vs Plasmoids vs Harengon vs Githyanki, and declare it "homogenous" - is ludicrous on its face.

Certainly I can agree with that...there have always been games that are far more expansive in flavor (not just in numbers) of options like that, even back to the halcyon days of TSR and boxed RPGs (Star Frontiers, I still look at you fondly...and knowing nothing contrary, I say definitively that Plasmoids are just re-skinned Dralasites!). But in terms of mass numbers, how many games and (more importantly) gamers participate with a list like that? I see that 5e has 9 base races, so even that is better than the before-time, and then I see an astounding 84 additional choices from different expansions/settings/worlds. So clearly there is an overwhelming array of racial choices.

But between the flex rules and Savage Species and all of that, 3e ended up with probably as many races. How rare or common were the non-core?

And do we care? Do we care if the 7/9 are all tiny variations from one another in the face of Shadar-Kai, Plasmoids and the rest? I mean, I care...but should the collective care? Totally unintentional Borg joke there

I enjoy that this thread is exposing me to more of 5e. Will almost certainly still never play it, but neat to see.

- M

[Witty Username]

There are no race-locked level 1 feats, no. (Why such a thing would even be desirable is beyond me...?)


That is a pretty easy question to answer, even if dwarven fortitude and elven accuracy are poor examples of it.

It is for when a feat contains abilities that fits one particular species over any other, but the abilities are too strong to include in the species stat block.

For example poison Immunity is very indicative of the cool factor of Yuan-Ti, but was cut for balance reasons. Adding it back into the play space as a feat serves both needs.

For Dwarves this could be uping the ante on resistances, connection to living rock, improving on tremorsense or darkvision, etc.

A 3.5 example, Adamantine Body, restriction: warforged. Why, because a dwarf cannot be made of forged Adamantinium. 5e's solution is warforged wear armor, as opposed to having armor as part of their body, at least in a mechanical sense.

[Psyren]

But between the flex rules and Savage Species and all of that, 3e ended up with probably as many races. How rare or common were the non-core?

And do we care? Do we care if the 7/9 are all tiny variations from one another in the face of Shadar-Kai, Plasmoids and the rest? I mean, I care...but should the collective care? Totally unintentional Borg joke there

Respectfully, I don't know what you can base "tiny variations" on if by your own admission you don't even know what these races' features are.


There's (at least) two angles a player could come from when choosing to be a Dwarf / Plasmoid / whatever.

1) They already have an existing character concept that includes being a Dwarf. In this case, it's good for the system to "get out of the way" and make being a Dwarf as modular as possible. And it's not a problem if they could achieve the exact same result by being an Elf.

2) They don't have a concept in mind yet, and want the Dwarf rules to inspire them to be a Dwarf (or not). Now for some players, having good enough flavor alone is enough, the mechanics don't matter. But for others, they do want to be inspired mechanically as well. They want features that say "this is a distinct difference that will have a concrete effect in play, specifically because you're playing a Dwarf."

To an extent, these are opposed objectives.

For #2, I think the upcoming dwarf does a better job than the 2014 one, but that's just me. I could picture a dwarf cave ranger that hunts subterranean monsters and uses their ability to sense vibrations in stone, repair their own damaged gear far from civilization, resist poison and just be generally hardy to be very good at their job, for instance.

[Mordar]

Respectfully, I don't know what you can base "tiny variations" on if by your own admission you don't even know what these races' features are.

Mostly the experience with 4e and 3e and 1e, and my perception of decreasing difference across those editions. Since this is the game- and edition-agnostic section of the forum I feel this applies, and the discussion isn't just 5e.

That being said, I am reading the 5e materials just to participate. I assume the dndbeyond.com material is current, but based on some mentions in thread am wondering if there are updates.

From this, I see some traits that are very much aligned with what I like (Halfling's Lucky or Nimbleness, Gnome cunning) but a lot are still just skill bonuses. Now, maybe the whole bounded accuracy thing makes those more valuable than in the past? Also, what I read looks like the attribute modifiers are fixed and not offset...am I missing something here?

Aside: Bonus skill proficiency and bonus feat worth +1 to four stats? For a lot of 3e I could see that being the case.

- M

[Jophiel]

I'm saying they do not. To look at modern race design - say, Shadar-Kai vs Plasmoids vs Harengon vs Githyanki, and declare it "homogenous" - is ludicrous on its face.
Truly, the spectrum across "pointy-eared person who gets Misty Step", "pointy-eared person who gets to jump" and "pointy-eared person who gets Jump at level 3 and Misty Step at level 5" is nothing short of creatively staggering :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Mostly the experience with 4e and 3e and 1e, and my perception of decreasing difference across those editions. Since this is the game- and edition-agnostic section of the forum I feel this applies, and the discussion isn't just 5e.

That being said, I am reading the 5e materials just to participate. I assume the dndbeyond.com material is current, but based on some mentions in thread am wondering if there are updates.

From this, I see some traits that are very much aligned with what I like (Halfling's Lucky or Nimbleness, Gnome cunning) but a lot are still just skill bonuses. Now, maybe the whole bounded accuracy thing makes those more valuable than in the past? Also, what I read looks like the attribute modifiers are fixed and not offset...am I missing something here?


It's current if you bought the books there, otherwise you're stuck with Basic, and those races are using the 10-year-old design rather than the modern design I was referring to (FToD and later.)


Truly, the spectrum across "pointy-eared person who gets Misty Step", "pointy-eared person who gets to jump" and "pointy-eared person who gets Jump at level 3 and Misty Step at level 5" is nothing short of creatively staggering :smalltongue:

Which pointy-eared person who gets misty step is that? The one that can teleport their allies into the fray instead of themselves, the one that gets to resist all damage when they move, the one that can freeze enemies in fear, or the one that has psychic resistance and can become proficient with any weapon? :smallamused:

(Among many other differences)

[Jophiel]

Which pointy-eared person who gets misty step is that? The one that can teleport their allies into the fray instead of themselves, the one that gets to resist all damage when they move, the one that can freeze enemies in fear, or the one that has psychic resistance and can become proficient with any weapon? :smallamused:
The funny thing is that this probably just made us both feel more confident in our opinions about 5e races.

[LibraryOgre]

Mostly the experience with 4e and 3e and 1e, and my perception of decreasing difference across those editions. Since this is the game- and edition-agnostic section of the forum I feel this applies, and the discussion isn't just 5e.


I don't know if I'd go too far up that road... 1e wasn't exactly a bastion of mechanical diversity in race design.

Dwarf: Bonus against humanoids, bonus v. magic, bonus v. poison, infravision, mining skills.
Gnome: Bonus against humanoids, bonus v. magic, infravision, mining skills
Halfling: Bonus with slings, bonus v. magic, bonus v. poison, stealth, some have infravision and mining skills
Elf: Bonus with swords and bows, charm resistance, stealth, infravision, secret doors.
Half-elf: Charm resistance, infravision, secret doors.

It's like they had 8 traits and said "Ok, these get A, B, C, D, those get D, E, F, and A, and these get just E, F."

Or, as I put it, "three different kinds of short and stout, two kinds of short and skinny."

[Psyren]

I don't know if I'd go too far up that road... 1e wasn't exactly a bastion of mechanical diversity in race design.

Dwarf: Bonus against humanoids, bonus v. magic, bonus v. poison, infravision, mining skills.
Gnome: Bonus against humanoids, bonus v. magic, infravision, mining skills
Halfling: Bonus with slings, bonus v. magic, bonus v. poison, stealth, some have infravision and mining skills
Elf: Bonus with swords and bows, charm resistance, stealth, infravision, secret doors.
Half-elf: Charm resistance, infravision, secret doors.

It's like they had 8 traits and said "Ok, these get A, B, C, D, those get D, E, F, and A, and these get just E, F."

Or, as I put it, "three different kinds of short and stout, two kinds of short and skinny."

Hey, it's not like Tolkien gave them a lot to work with :smallbiggrin:

(Well, for elves he did, but incorporating it would have probably wrecked the game balance...)


The funny thing is that this probably just made us both feel more confident in our opinions about 5e races.

The "pointy-eared races that can teleport" I described represent 4 choices out of 50+ races and counting, which a much wider array of abilities and features. You're free to feel confident about whatever you like :smallcool:

[Lemmy]

Meh... Having one or two SLA doesn't really make a race feel unique. Just "video-gamey".

IMO, in order to really feel unique, a race needs significant physiological differences from humans (and other races) that don't feel like it could be a feat or spell... And more importantly, those physiological differences (including psychological ones) should be reflected in their culture, behavior and lore...

Otherwise it's just a pointy-eared human with a rare spell.

[Mordar]

I don't know if I'd go too far up that road... 1e wasn't exactly a bastion of mechanical diversity in race design.

Dwarf: Bonus against humanoids, bonus v. magic, bonus v. poison, infravision, mining skills.
Gnome: Bonus against humanoids, bonus v. magic, infravision, mining skills
Halfling: Bonus with slings, bonus v. magic, bonus v. poison, stealth, some have infravision and mining skills
Elf: Bonus with swords and bows, charm resistance, stealth, infravision, secret doors.
Half-elf: Charm resistance, infravision, secret doors.

It's like they had 8 traits and said "Ok, these get A, B, C, D, those get D, E, F, and A, and these get just E, F."

Or, as I put it, "three different kinds of short and stout, two kinds of short and skinny."

Well, I think that misses the class/level restrictions, attributes (though they do have the penalty thing), and languages kind of count. For dwarves, the saves scale which is useful. You forgot the gnomes get to talk to animals.

Though not all good stuff, there were some real decision drivers there.


Meh... Having one or two SLA doesn't really make a race feel unique. Just "video-gamey".

IMO, in order to really feel unique, a race needs significant physiological differences from humans (and other races) that don't feel like it could be a feat or spell... And more importantly, those physiological differences (including psychological ones) should be reflected in their culture, behavior and lore...

Otherwise it's just a pointy-eared human with a rare spell.

Example? Because for D&D that sounds like it is just going to be "lore" or "fluff" without mechanical impact?

- M

[Lemmy]

Example? Because for D&D that sounds like it is just going to be "lore" or "fluff" without mechanical impact?

- M
What I mean is that just giving them super-powers doesn't make them feel like a fantasy race, it makes them feel like... I don't know, the X-men.

It's good to give a race a mechanical benefit (or disadvantage) to differentiate them and make them stick closer to whatever concept you have in mind... But if their culture behavior is basically "human, but can cast fireball twice a day", it feels bland.

Even "minor" physiological traits could (and would) have a huge impact on culture and behavior.

Imagine how different human society would be if we had darkvision, for example. Or extreme resistance/vulnerability to cold... Or if we were twice as large (or small) as we are.

Sadly, in D&D (especially 5e, in my admittedly limited experience with that edition) these things are most often treated as little more than minor bonuses and lesser game abilities, but rarely have any actual impact in how a race or society works...

I remember really enjoying Races of Eberron for 3.5 because it actually tried to give each race a culture and behavior that took their mechanical characteristics into consideration and tried to make sense.

[Jophiel]

The "pointy-eared races that can teleport" I described represent 4 choices out of 50+ races and counting, which a much wider array of abilities and features.
That's honestly part of the problem. WOTC needs to make them all mechanically identical from an attribute standpoint and tries to differentiate its race bloat with other minor things that are often barely thematic. Or shared so often that it's "which race that gets to cast Fire Bolt are we talking about?" The stuff you rattled off before didn't even make me think "Wow, that sounds just like a [race]" and if I wasn't already familiar with them mechanically wouldn't have pinged me to think "That sure sounds like some sort of shadowy elf guy..."

You could take "Gets to pick proficiency in a skill once a Long Rest" and call it Halfling Cleverness or Elfish Lore or Gnomish Ingenuity and, with what you'd guess from the racial archetypes, you'd still think "Yeah, that tracks". It's generic and doesn't feel "Githyanki", it's just a thing they tacked onto Githyanki.


You're free to feel confident about whatever you like :smallcool:
I was going to anyway but it's great that I finally have permission from people on the internet to have my own opinions.

[Psyren]

Even "minor" physiological traits could (and would) have a huge impact on culture and behavior.

Imagine how different human society would be if we had darkvision, for example. Or extreme resistance/vulnerability to cold... Or if we were twice as large (or small) as we are.

Sadly, in D&D (especially 5e, in my admittedly limited experience with that edition) these things are most often treated as little more than minor bonuses and lesser game abilities, but rarely have any actual impact in how a race or society works...

Sure, culture and behavior can be affected by physiology. But well before that, culture depends on setting, so those are the books where that should be - not core books like the PHB, unless your system is designed for a single setting, which D&D very notably isn't.


I remember really enjoying Races of Eberron for 3.5 because it actually tried to give each race a culture and behavior that took their mechanical characteristics into consideration and tried to make sense.

Yeah, I'm fine with an Eberron book taking racial physiology into account when building Eberron culture.

[Errorname]

IMO, in order to really feel unique, a race needs significant physiological differences from humans (and other races) that don't feel like it could be a feat or spell... And more importantly, those physiological differences (including psychological ones) should be reflected in their culture, behavior and lore...

Otherwise it's just a pointy-eared human with a rare spell.

Broadly agreed that if you are designing a setting these are good rules to follow, but for core D&D this is a ship that has sailed. D&D simply has too many races and too much overlap between those races to make this work, and you can't remove or merge those races, because people would revolt. D&D's ability to construct a setting will always be hampered by it's kitchen sink fantasy nature and the core rules being setting agnostic, and neither of those qualities are really negotiable.

[OldTrees1]

Broadly agreed that if you are designing a setting these are good rules to follow, but for core D&D this is a ship that has sailed. D&D simply has too many races and too much overlap between those races to make this work, and you can't remove or merge those races, because people would revolt. D&D's ability to construct a setting will always be hampered by it's kitchen sink fantasy nature and the core rules being setting agnostic, and neither of those qualities are really negotiable.

To be fair this is better/worse depends on the edition of D&D. The design constraints around species don't need to be as restrictive as 5E chose to be. 3E had many more playable species but was allowed to have physiological differences between them.

On the other hand, yeah some of the iconic species have a lot of overlap. There are ways to differentiate them still, but it does get harder. Halflings and Gnomes are different due to gnome's more magical nature, halfling's agility, and cultural features like tinkering or being favored by a luck goddess. They are a good example of your point about too much overlap without a way to fix it.

Back to the first hand, as you move away from the iconic core species, it becomes much easier to differentiate them if the edition permits differentiating them. Shadar Kai used to hide in plain sight (disappear right in front of you). Gith used to have a chance to ignore psionics (spell resistance instead of damage resistance).

I don't think the ship has sailed entirely. No major changes can happen in 5.5E, and some species will always have the problem. However 6E does not need to limit itself to the watered down 5E species. With a greater budget per species (and maybe higher level species?) it could solve most of the issue without a revolt.

[Lemmy]

Sure, culture and behavior can be affected by physiology. But well before that, culture depends on setting, so those are the books where that should be - not core books like the PHB, unless your system is designed for a single setting, which D&D very notably isn't.
However, even in setting neutral books, you can add mechanical abilities that at least feel indicative of what a race's supposed to be like, rather than generic powers that could fit any single race by simply changing their name...

As Jophiel put it:


You could take "Gets to pick proficiency in a skill once a Long Rest" and call it Halfling Cleverness or Elfish Lore or Gnomish Ingenuity and, with what you'd guess from the racial archetypes, you'd still think "Yeah, that tracks". It's generic and doesn't feel "Githyanki", it's just a thing they tacked onto Githyanki.

Too often (especially in D&D, even more so in 5e) race-related mechanics don't really evoke a race or culture... Just a build.

It's okay to have a few generic abilities. A race doesn't have to be 100% alien to feel unique... But if they're going to give a race 5+ abilities, at least 2 of them should be really evocative of what the race's identity in effect (not just name) and not feel like it'd be just as fitting for any other race if it had a different name. Hopefully make them useful and fun too.

D&D being a "everything and the kitchen sink" kind of deal already makes it hard enough to make anything feel unique... So at very least, they should try to make at least a couple of each race's mechanics be peculiar and interesting, instead of "+2 to a [X] skill" or "random SLA".

[Witty Username]

Dwarves should get con save proficiency, and con save expertise if they pick a class that already gives it. That would cover alot of hardiness in a thematic way, drink and drink and drink some more or shrug off the concussion after being knocked through a wall. And another species doesn't focus on that end.
Concentration also suggests focus, like flow states and hyper fixations which ties into the more patient aspects of mining and engineering.

[OldTrees1]

Dwarves should get con save proficiency, and con save expertise if they pick a class that already gives it. That would cover alot of hardiness in a thematic way, drink and drink and drink some more or shrug off the concussion after being knocked through a wall. And another species doesn't focus on that end.
Concentration also suggests focus, like flow states and hyper fixations which ties into the more patient aspects of mining and engineering.

Good point that is a better way to reflect Dwarf's overall fortitude rather than only talking about poison.

Here is a possible summary of Dwarf incorporating some of the ideas in this thread.

Dwarf:

Darkvision 60ft

Pick 2. The 3rd can be obtained instead of an ASI (including the 1st level floating +2 ASI)
Dwarven Fortitude: Dwarves are proficient in Con saves. If they would gain proficiency in Con saves another way, instead they gain expertise in Con saves, which means their proficiency bonus is doubled for Con saves.
Dwarven Hardiness: If a Dwarf would take Bludgeoning, piercing, and/or slashing damage, that damage is reduced by their proficiency bonus.
Stonecunning: As an Action, a Dwarf can listen to the stone to gain Tremorsense 10ft for 1 round.*

This has Dwarf remain a demihuman but differentiating from human by drawing on their lore connections to earth & stone to be a hardy resilient humanoid that has insights into their rocky world.

* Sidenote Dwarven tremorsense is not new. They had this option in 3E. Although in 3E it cost a move action, had a 20ft radius and showed direction instead of pinpointing locations/

[Psyren]

Broadly agreed that if you are designing a setting these are good rules to follow, but for core D&D this is a ship that has sailed. D&D simply has too many races and too much overlap between those races to make this work, and you can't remove or merge those races, because people would revolt. D&D's ability to construct a setting will always be hampered by it's kitchen sink fantasy nature and the core rules being setting agnostic, and neither of those qualities are really negotiable.

They have/sell more settings than any other TTRPG and are continuing to revive old ones from their back catalogue; I'm not seeing what's been "hampered."


However, even in setting neutral books, you can add mechanical abilities that at least feel indicative of what a race's supposed to be like, rather than generic powers that could fit any single race by simply changing their name...

As Jophiel put it:



Too often (especially in D&D, even more so in 5e) race-related mechanics don't really evoke a race or culture... Just a build.

Jophiel's point continues to be nonsensical. When a game has 50+ races already with even more to come, and the design space of racial features is "a small collection of abilities that are appropriate for a level 1 character", then yes, you're going to have some degree of overlap among small pockets of them. But 4-6 races out of 50+ having some form of misty step or 4-6 out of 50+ having some manner of floating proficiencies they can swap out each day is still considerable variation, because that means there are still 40+ species that don't have those things. Expecting every single species to be totally mechanically distinct from every single other species across every single one of their features in a game with this many is frankly ludicrous.


It's okay to have a few generic abilities. A race doesn't have to be 100% alien to feel unique... But if they're going to give a race 5+ abilities, at least 2 of them should be really evocative of what the race's identity in effect (not just name) and not feel like it'd be just as fitting for any other race if it had a different name. Hopefully make them useful and fun too.

There is plenty of uniqueness among the modern power sets and even within the overlapping powers. Githyanki might have a similar astral knowledge feature to, say, Astral Elves (and given that they share a habitat, some commonality is reasonable), but only the latter lets you stay conscious and keep watch over the party the entire time you're learning your new weapon/skill/tool. But if I ran into a nautiloid full of mindflayers out there I'd probably rather be the former.


D&D being a "everything and the kitchen sink" kind of deal already makes it hard enough to make anything feel unique... So at very least, they should try to make at least a couple of each race's mechanics be peculiar and interesting, instead of "+2 to a [X] skill" or "random SLA".

Yeah, if only there were only one race that could squeeze their entire body through a 1-inch keyhole, or only one race that could change their appearance at will, or only one race that walks around in splint mail even while naked, or only race that got a rogue's Cunning Action on every class, or only two races with an extra pair of arms, or... only one race that gets tremorsense, which is what started this whole tangent.

There are in fact plenty of the "peculiar and interesting" racial mechanics you describe. But as mentioned above, the real source of uniqueness between species is the combination of the features they get - not expecting each and every feature on each and every one of the 50+ to be unique.

[Jophiel]

Jophiel's point continues to be nonsensical.
Well, "nonsense" that multiple people see the sense in but anyway...


When a game has 50+ races already with even more to come, and the design space of racial features is "a small collection of abilities that are appropriate for a level 1 character", then yes, you're going to have some degree of overlap among small pockets of them.
It's almost as though it's been pointed out that WOTC flooding the field with a bajillion races into one big slurry is a major part of the issue with making any of them actually distinctive.


But 4-6 races out of 50+ having some form of misty step or 4-6 out of 50+ having some manner of floating proficiencies they can swap out each day is still considerable variation, because that means there are still 40+ species that don't have those things.
They also can't turn into elm trees or shoot potatoes out of their eyes but so what? The question isn't "What can't some other people do?", it's "What can this race do that's unique and flavorful and sets this race part?" If your answer is shared by another half-dozen disparate races, it's not actually an answer.

You're not going to make some subdivision of elf distinctive and interesting (a) with an ability that's not remotely unique, being both shared with other races but also shared with all races via common spells and feats, and (b) when "Elf" isn't distinctive in the game to start with.


Expecting every single species to be totally mechanically distinct from every single other species across every single one of their features in a game with this many is frankly ludicrous
Saying it's "expected" is a straw man. No one expects that. Instead, it's 100% expected that WOTC's races would largely blend into a homogeneous slurry when you have 50+ (and more on the way!). Likely no one is going to make that many races distinctive or stand on their own and WOTC's design space simply doesn't allow for distinct races since they have decided not to use many possible limiters/benefits that would make them distinctive but instead rely on 2-3 abilities out of a limited bag of mechanical tokens (not coincidentally, much like many M:tG cards all start to look the same aside from a couple stand-outs each season).

"Nonsensical" is looking at WOTC's pile of Build-a-Bear species and insisting that the Red/Blue/Green one is totally different from the Red/Blue/Yellow one (and from the Red/Yellow/Green one).

[Errorname]

I don't think the ship has sailed entirely. No major changes can happen in 5.5E, and some species will always have the problem. However 6E does not need to limit itself to the watered down 5E species. With a greater budget per species (and maybe higher level species?) it could solve most of the issue without a revolt.

I don't think there's any core species that are really negotiable at this point, you can add new ones but I don't think there's any that people would accept getting demoted out of core


They have/sell more settings than any other TTRPG and are continuing to revive old ones from their back catalogue; I'm not seeing what's been "hampered."

Quality, or perhaps more accurately the things that I think make for a quality setting, this is admittedly a very subjective matter.


Jophiel's point continues to be nonsensical. When a game has 50+ races already with even more to come, and the design space of racial features is "a small collection of abilities that are appropriate for a level 1 character", then yes, you're going to have some degree of overlap among small pockets of them. But 4-6 races out of 50+ having some form of misty step or 4-6 out of 50+ having some manner of floating proficiencies they can swap out each day is still considerable variation, because that means there are still 40+ species that don't have those things. Expecting every single species to be totally mechanically distinct from every single other species across every single one of their features in a game with this many is frankly ludicrous.

I think anyone making the argument that D&D species are kind of samey and one-note would also say that D&D has too many of them.

[Psyren]

Dwarves should get con save proficiency, and con save expertise if they pick a class that already gives it. That would cover alot of hardiness in a thematic way, drink and drink and drink some more or shrug off the concussion after being knocked through a wall. And another species doesn't focus on that end.
Concentration also suggests focus, like flow states and hyper fixations which ties into the more patient aspects of mining and engineering.

This illustrates my point about racial design space. Is expertise in a key saving throw, perhaps even the most key saving throw in the game once you consider concentration, reasonable for a racial ability? Is there any other ability in the game that gives this, and what level is it available at? Especially when you consider that that's just one racial among several that the game really needs them to have, like darkvision and tools? Because I would argue that suggestion is too strong to be a racial, much less one among several.

As far as dwarves being strong drinkers, they already have that - given that alcohol is functionally poison (alcohol poisoning is right in the name), their advantage should apply to it if and when a saving throw is required.



It's almost as though it's been pointed out that WOTC flooding the field with a bajillion races into one big slurry is a major part of the issue with making any of them actually distinctive.

3.5 had twice as many. If your cunning business strategy is for WotC to leave 3/4 their IP to wither on the shelf... that seems like a tough sell.



They also can't turn into elm trees or shoot potatoes out of their eyes but so what? The question isn't "What can't some other people do?", it's "What can this race do that's unique and flavorful and sets this race part?" If your answer is shared by another half-dozen disparate races, it's not actually an answer.

You're not going to make some subdivision of elf distinctive and interesting (a) with an ability that's not remotely unique, being both shared with other races but also shared with all races via common spells and feats, and (b) when "Elf" isn't distinctive in the game to start with.

So the question is what can this race do that's unique, but not what can this race do that others can't? ...What? :smallconfused:


Saying it's "expected" is a straw man. No one expects that. Instead, it's 100% expected that WOTC's races would largely blend into a homogeneous slurry when you have 50+ (and more on the way!). Likely no one is going to make that many races distinctive or stand on their own and WOTC's design space simply doesn't allow for distinct races since they have decided not to use many possible limiters/benefits that would make them distinctive but instead rely on 2-3 abilities out of a limited bag of mechanical tokens (not coincidentally, much like many M:tG cards all start to look the same aside from a couple stand-outs each season).

"Nonsensical" is looking at WOTC's pile of Build-a-Bear species and insisting that the Red/Blue/Green one is totally different from the Red/Blue/Yellow one (and from the Red/Yellow/Green one).

That you aren't interested in thinking of any fun/distinctive/unique character or build concepts that use these races doesn't mean nobody else is. I'm quite happy there are more on the way; in fact I'm excited for when they take another swing at the Ardling or when they take another look at 3.5 races like the Neraphim, Illumians, Dvati, Elans, Blues, Killoren Avariels, Janni etc.

[Mordar]

3.5 had twice as many. If your cunning business strategy is for WotC to leave 3/4 their IP to wither on the shelf... that seems like a tough sell.

I think that's actually pretty common...companies leave material on the cutting room floor all the time. And then they get to make it again later, if they want, or license it elsewhere, or just let it fade. Just like why monster cereals used to be available all the time, not just at Halloween. Or why you can't find the Hostess full sized 3-variety donut boxes. Or Dark Tower.

- M

[Jophiel]

3.5 had twice as many.
So what? For one thing, 3.5 had more means of distinction than 5e allows. For another, I never pointed to 3.5e as a paragon of great game race design. As for "cunning business strategy", I absolutely agree that making things bland and homogeneous is a typical way to go for the most commercial sales even if I don't like it as a design choice. I wouldn't except Hasbro to pick anything other than the path of least resistance to selling books.

I don't even think they're wrong for doing it or would deny their success. I just find it weird that someone would deny that this is the case.


So the question is what can this race do that's unique, but not what can this race do that others can't? ...What? :smallconfused:
"This race gets to do a thing that another 10-15% of races can do but the other 85% CAN'T do, so it's unique!" isn't a winning argument, even if they also gets other generic traits (that are shared by a different 10-15%...).


That you aren't interested in thinking of any fun/distinctive/unique character or build concepts that use these races
I have no problem making fun and flavorful characters. That's despite WOTC's milquetoast approach to races though, not something supported and encouraged by it.

[Errorname]

3.5 had twice as many. If your cunning business strategy is for WotC to leave 3/4 their IP to wither on the shelf... that seems like a tough sell.

Yes, it would be, both for WotC and the fans. There are many things that are good design and writing principles that aren't really possible for D&D to do retroactively.

[Psyren]

I just find it weird that someone would deny that this is the case.

Why? If you think I'm ever going to agree that "5 races out of 50 have X feature in common, therefore everything is bland and homogenous" - I wouldn't hold my breath.


I think that's actually pretty common...companies leave material on the cutting room floor all the time. And then they get to make it again later, if they want, or license it elsewhere, or just let it fade. Just like why monster cereals used to be available all the time, not just at Halloween. Or why you can't find the Hostess full sized 3-variety donut boxes. Or Dark Tower.

- M

Right, which they already did. To reiterate, 5e has already reduced the 3.5 race output by at least half (and honestly, it's closer to 75%, 3.5 had a PROLIFIC release schedule.) But even that is still too many options for some people; all I'm saying is that expecting them to take even more of a hatchet to their IP when that's one of their biggest market differentiators over other publishers is neither a reasonable nor sensible expectation.

We're going to get more races over the next 10 years. But even if they released 5 per year every year for the next decade, we'd still be behind prior editions.


Yes, it would be, both for WotC and the fans. There are many things that are good design and writing principles that aren't really possible for D&D to do retroactively.

There are plenty of things that are bad design and writing principles that they shouldn't be trying to perpetuate, either.

[Witty Username]

They have/sell more settings than any other TTRPG and are continuing to revive old ones from their back catalogue; I'm not seeing what's been "hampered."


There is a criticism that the actual settings have blended together some. Even if that is partially due to table culture (no your not playing a Drow or Orc in Dragonlance, save that character for Tucker's Eberron game, well your a bad DM and should feel bad for stiffling my creativity).

That and we have what, FR, Eberron, Dragonlance and Spelljammer. Oh and Ravenloft. Spelljammer got reconed to just be the Astral plane, and has little in common with the original setting as far as I can tell.

Ravenloft was always kinda a crossover setting, although I don't recall any non upper three from the setting book. Or any of the AD&D personallies beyond Straid and that one Lich.

Which leaves us with 3?

[OldTrees1]

I don't think there's any core species that are really negotiable at this point, you can add new ones but I don't think there's any that people would accept getting demoted out of core
I mostly* agree although that is a nonsequitor to the part of my post you quoted, so I should clarify. I think the 5E version of species are watered down versions of those species (core, secondary, and "monstrous" species to different degrees). 5.5E's power budget per species is not going to differ much from 5E, but in 6E they could raise the power budget per species and thus add flavorful abilities that they just won't in 5E/5.5E.


*They could remove half elf and half orc, and promote orc to the PHB. I expect they will eventually do that. That might be a small enough difference that enough people would accept it. Which means you are essentially correct about the same core species continuing to be in the PHB.


I think anyone making the argument that D&D species are kind of samey and one-note would also say that D&D has too many of them.
Quick interjection:
If the 5E rules for species design were less restrictive, then 5E could have more species and be less samey than it is today. 3E is an example with an order of magnitude more species but it was less samey that 5E. There is a green dragon PC in the campaign I am running.

So I do think 5E's species tend to be kind of samey and has too many species given its inflexibility with species, however I would prefer D&D have more species and simultaneously have them be less samey.

Edit: Forum is really slow. Please pardon typos and errors. It took 10min to fix as -> has.

[Mordar]

Right, which they already did. To reiterate, 5e has already reduced the 3.5 race output by at least half (and honestly, it's closer to 75%, 3.5 had a PROLIFIC release schedule.) But even that is still too many options for some people; all I'm saying is that expecting them to take even more of a hatchet to their IP when that's one of their biggest market differentiators over other publishers is neither a reasonable nor sensible expectation.

If you will indulge me further, am I correct in understanding that 5e released with 9 races, and the other 84 have "dripped" in over the last 8 years? That seems pretty normal, for them anyway. So WotC clearly didn't have a problem with cutting from XXX down to 9 to restart, so it would seem they didn't feel anything was withering on the vine. They have now re-flooded the field with choices, and will absolutely continue to do so, especially with co-branded properties, right?

I suppose you're right that Plasmoid (as a playable RPG race) is IP, but trimming races isn't really hatchet-jobbing your IP when you have 84 of them and race accounts for what tiny fraction of the D&D 5e product which accounts for what fraction of the whole D&D IP? So it is incredibly unlikely to harm their business by trimming. However, it is probably equally unlikely that doing so will improve their business.

So I guess this comes down to the idea that for some products, a surfeit of options doesn't hurt sales, and there is room for sweaters that are blue, or turquoise, or lapis, or cerulean.

I just wish that my cerulean felt more distinct from lapis, sometimes.

- M

[Psyren]

If you will indulge me further, am I correct in understanding that 5e released with 9 races, and the other 84 have "dripped" in over the last 8 years?

No (where did you get 84 / 93 from? Even double-counting the Legacy races and throwing in the third-party ones I'm not seeing that.)


There is a criticism that the actual settings have blended together some. Even if that is partially due to table culture (no your not playing a Drow or Orc in Dragonlance, save that character for Tucker's Eberron game, well your a bad DM and should feel bad for stiffling my creativity).

Putting aside that these are both bad examples as they do show up in the novels (Raistlin fights drow in his test and knows what they are, and there's a half-orc in Kendermore) - no, of course you're not a bad DM for saying no orcs and drow in your Dragonlance game. But a DM who chooses to allow them isn't being a bad DM either. All WotC is doing is saying "hey DM, it could actually work if you wanted it to, here's how." (Gestures towards high-magic empires like Istar pulling interlopers in from other settings pre-Cataclysm.)


That and we have what, FR, Eberron, Dragonlance and Spelljammer. Oh and Ravenloft. Spelljammer got reconed to just be the Astral plane, and has little in common with the original setting as far as I can tell.

Ravenloft was always kinda a crossover setting, although I don't recall any non upper three from the setting book. Or any of the AD&D personallies beyond Straid and that one Lich.

Which leaves us with 3?

Planescape has a book as well, and Greyhawk, Mystara and Athas all got name-checked in core, so they still exist too. No sign of Al-Qadim and Rokugan yet, though they might just fold the latter into their Kamigawa or something.

[icefractal]

I suppose you're right that Plasmoid (as a playable RPG race) is IP, but trimming races isn't really hatchet-jobbing your IP when you have 84 of them and race accounts for what tiny fraction of the D&D 5e product which accounts for what fraction of the whole D&D IP? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if the problem is 5E races not feeling distinct enough, then why even consider cutting Plasmoid? Isn't it one of the most distinctive ones?

[Mordar]

No (where did you get 84 / 93 from? Even double-counting the Legacy races and throwing in the third-party ones I'm not seeing that.)

Counting on the dndbeyond.com/races page. 9 from "Player's Handbook / Basic Rules" and 84 from all of the books named below it. I assume (please correct if mistaken) that those that are tagged "Legacy" are from previous editions, but presumably have 5e rules and were thus converted and count. Unlike the core 9 I cannot see the special rules for these, having not purchased the referenced books.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if the problem is 5E races not feeling distinct enough, then why even consider cutting Plasmoid? Isn't it one of the most distinctive ones?

That was a total random grab based on one of the non-standard races I could think of at that moment. I even mentioned above that I would be more likely to consider it above any of the other..."unusual" races because it is reminiscent of the Dralasites from my gaming past.

- M

[Psyren]

Counting on the dndbeyond.com/races page. 9 from "Player's Handbook / Basic Rules" and 84 from all of the books named below it. I assume (please correct if mistaken) that those that are tagged "Legacy" are from previous editions, but presumably have 5e rules and were thus converted and count. Unlike the core 9 I cannot see the special rules for these, having not purchased the referenced books.

They're reprints, so you'd be double-counting. In addition, there are multiple 3rd-party races on that page, not all of them are WotC.

[Witty Username]

Raistlin fights drow in his test and knows what they are

Which book is at, legitimately curious since the only dark elf I recall being Dalinar which is in line with my recollection.
Dark Elves exist, Drow do not was my understanding. Dark elves being not a different species but a term for exiles.

I am only passingly familiar with Raslins tests, the only bit I remember is when he killed his brother Caramon during the test.

[Errorname]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if the problem is 5E races not feeling distinct enough, then why even consider cutting Plasmoid? Isn't it one of the most distinctive ones?

From a perspective of worldbuilding cohesiveness, I think it makes sense enough. Making species internally diverse and integrating them well into the larger setting takes work, so picking a small number of species that you then give extensive development to is something that (I think) tends to produce better results than going broad on a bunch of very simple species concepts. That said, this is an idea that would obviously clash with the kitchen sink appeal of a lot of D&D.

[LibraryOgre]

Which book is that at? legitimately curious since the only dark elf I recall being Dalinar which is in line with my recollection.
Dark Elves exist, Drow do not was my understanding. Dark elves being not a different species but a term for exiles.

I am only passingly familiar with Raslins tests, the only bit I remember is when he killed his brother Caramon during the test.

It's always been that Raistlin fights a dark elf in his test, but whether that dark elf is a drow somewhat depends on how closely the editor was paying attention.

https://dragonlance.fandom.com/wiki/Raistlin_Majere#The_Test_of_High_Sorcery

[Psyren]

To be clear - whether the dark elves he saw were drow or not, or how commonplace they might or might not be on Krynn, are not actually germane to the point I was making. The point was moreso that a player reading the DL novels might think "oh, orcs and drow dark elves exist here!" and ask to play one, and have textual support to show to a DM who is hesitant or on the fence. And thanks to WotC, that DM now has a potential way to explain it that might preserve their own immersion as well. A DM who wants to say no can still do so, but one who is open to the idea but needs a nudge gets that too.

[Witty Username]

To be frank, I am more interested in having more Dragonlance novels to read (apart from summer flame, I have been told to leave that for last).
--
Tables being flexible with settings or being encouraged isn't a bad thing, but it does contribute to settings feeling homogeneous.

Wotc simplifing settings is another: like Spelljammer doing away with phlogiston, crystal spheres, and wildspace; or elf lore being one size fits all with Tome of Foes; or further still treating Fizban and Bahaumet as the same character.

To brief stay on Dragonlance lore, sorcerers:
- lore one, sorcerer and wizard are synonymous with mage and aren't distinct. Mages are unlike other settings in that they are reliant on the worlds moons and must forge a connection to one in particular which causes there power to wane and wax with it. There is also a faction devoted to this to the extreme the mages of high sorcery
- lore two, wizards practice moon sorcery and sorcerers practice primal sorcery which uses Krynn as a 'Moon'
- lore three, wizards and sorcerers behave like they do in any other setting, and sorcerers have a 'Moon' one

To eaches preference on what is 'better' but lore three feels alot like every other setting.

[Jophiel]

It's always been that Raistlin fights a dark elf in his test, but whether that dark elf is a drow somewhat depends on how closely the editor was paying attention.

https://dragonlance.fandom.com/wiki/Raistlin_Majere#The_Test_of_High_Sorcery
As I recall, Dalinar gets called a drow in a description in one of the novels ("The drow climbed the stairs..." sort of thing). The powers that be handwaved it away as "drow" just meaning "evil elf" on Krynn but not a separate race. As you said, it seemed to be covering an editor error rather than a deliberate choice about elves on Krynn. All the art of Dalinar just has him being a regular looking garden variety elf.

[Lemmy]

"There are 50+ races, but only one of them has this particular SLA" isn't a compelling argument... It just reinforces the fact that D&D races (especially 5e) are extremely homogeneous... Only differentiated by minor mechanics.

That's what makes them boring.

Having 10 well-developed races would be much better than having 50+ that simply feel like a slightly different selection of minor bonuses.

It's true that WotC probably wouldn't go for that kind of design philosophy... But I'm not commenting on what's the best commercial strategy for WotC (although, considering their recent performance, maybe they should reevaluate how they do things). I'm commenting on what makes fictional races feel interesting and unique. And it isn't "can use tremorsense 1/day for 10 minutes", which is the kind of thing that feels so "gamey" that it actually detracts from the race's identity and makes them feel more like a generic character build and less like actual people.

If all you want from your fictional races and classes is a slight variation of +2 bonuses and 1/day SLA, that's fine. To each their own, I suppose... But that kind of design just makes them feel incredibly bland and boring to me.

[Elanfanforlife]

I don't think this forum is physically capable of staying on topic for more than a few pages.

[Errorname]

I don't think this forum is physically capable of staying on topic for more than a few pages.

Hey, we're still topic adjacent! That's gotta count for something

[Lemmy]

It's kind of on-topic, though...

(IMO) Dwarves being consistent and having a much more developed background than 99% of the stuff WotC puts out there makes them much more interesting than many of the "cool" races around, whose whole appeal is a single line description "these guys are half-[insert random animal or monster here]" and a couple minor bonuses or SLA.

They prove that you don't have to be completely alien to be interesting or unique and also that you can have restrictions and negative traits and still be fun to play and roleplay.

[LibraryOgre]

I don't think this forum is physically capable of staying on topic for more than a few pages.

The Mod Ogre: I've been on forums of various sorts for more than twenty years. It takes someone really choking up on the reins to keep them there. This one drifted, but not too far, and we haven't reached the point where everyone is calling each other poop-heads and insisting "you didn't read what I wrote"... or, not uncommonly, "you didn't read what I meant to write", so I'm not getting too bent out of shape.

Incidentally, this is just "Mod Voice". No one is in trouble, but let's keep it that way. Today is a nice day, and I would rather not have to write an official warning or anything because folks couldn't discuss peacefully.

[Psyren]

Wotc simplifing settings is another: like Spelljammer doing away with phlogiston, crystal spheres, and wildspace; or elf lore being one size fits all with Tome of Foes; or further still treating Fizban and Bahaumet as the same character.

I do agree with you that MToF attempting to pass off FR elven lore as universal was silly. Though I will say, the stuff about Arvandor/Faerie in the Feywild before they became humanoids is reasonable, and could easily underpin multiple settings.

My 5e copy of Spelljammer does contain all three of the things you list though, so I disagree that they were "done away with." (Sure, they don't use the name "phlogiston" anymore, but "stuff between the crystal spheres" still exists.) And Fizban = Paladine = Bahamut has been a thing long before 5e reinforced it, so it seems odd to take issue with it now.


To brief stay on Dragonlance lore, sorcerers:
- lore one, sorcerer and wizard are synonymous with mage and aren't distinct. Mages are unlike other settings in that they are reliant on the worlds moons and must forge a connection to one in particular which causes there power to wane and wax with it. There is also a faction devoted to this to the extreme the mages of high sorcery
- lore two, wizards practice moon sorcery and sorcerers practice primal sorcery which uses Krynn as a 'Moon'
- lore three, wizards and sorcerers behave like they do in any other setting, and sorcerers have a 'Moon' one

To eaches preference on what is 'better' but lore three feels alot like every other setting.

Lore 1 hasn't been a thing since 2e became 3e 20+ years ago - again, odd to take issue with its removal now.

Lore 2 and 3 are not as incompatible as you imply. The "moon sorcerers" draw from all three, while the others draw from Krynn or its surrounding multiversal energies directly, but what all the sorcerers have in common is that none of them need bother with the Towers and their tests or need to bond with a single moon. I'm not seeing the gulf there.

[Witty Username]

Lore 1 hasn't been a thing since 2e became 3e 20+ years ago - again, odd to take issue with its removal now.


Kinda, lore 1 is still true in 3rd for adventurers set pre War of Souls, since sorcerery and mysticism were invented in response to that particular event.

Kinda like how Wild magic in FR draws its origin from the time of troubles, or warforged are tied to the Last War.

5e doesn't really allow for this since sorcerer = bloodmage is the option.

[Psyren]

Kinda, lore 1 is still true in 3rd for adventurers set pre War of Souls, since sorcerery and mysticism were invented in response to that particular event.

Kinda like how Wild magic in FR draws its origin from the time of troubles, or warforged are tied to the Last War.

5e doesn't really allow for this since sorcerer = bloodmage is the option.

5e sorcerers aren't just "bloodmages." You can attain sorcery through exposure to magical phenomena, cosmic events, and even divine intervention; it doesn't have to be a bloodline at all.



The appearance of sorcerous powers is wildly unpredictable. Some draconic bloodlines produce exactly one sorcerer in every generation, but in other lines of descent every individual is a sorcerer. Most of the time, the talents of sorcery appear as apparent flukes. Some sorcerers can’t name the origin of their power, while others trace it to strange events in their own lives. The touch of a demon, the blessing of a dryad at a baby’s birth, or a taste of the water from a mysterious spring might spark the gift of sorcery. So too might the gift of a deity of magic, exposure to the elemental forces of the Inner Planes or the maddening chaos of Limbo, or a glimpse into the inner workings of reality.
...
The most important question to consider when creating your sorcerer is the origin of your power. As a starting character, you’ll choose an origin that ties to a draconic bloodline or the influence of wild magic, but the exact source of your power is up to you to decide. Is it a family curse, passed down to you from distant ancestors? Or did some extraordinary event leave you blessed with inherent magic but perhaps scarred as well?

That fits in with Krynn perfectly, there's all kinds of cosmic alignments and natural (or artificial) phenomena continually wreaking havoc in that world.

But yes, if you wanted to do a Krynn campaign where sorcerers and wizards have no distinction, that's completely fine - it might even be fun for your players. I'm just pointing out that Weis wrote in that distinction decades ago, long before 5e was a thing.

[Jophiel]

Why? If you think I'm ever going to agree that "5 races out of 50 have X feature in common, therefore everything is bland and homogenous" - I wouldn't hold my breath.
I have no interest in making you or convincing you to agree. If you think WOTC's races are great and fascinating and inspire great stories from you and your table then I'm legitimately and sincerely happy for you. I don't share that impression but I'd be a happier person (well, in a relative sense) if I also read the race descriptions 5e has on offer and thought they were distinct and inspiring. To be fair, I find it a little puzzling that you've landed in that spot because I can't see it but I wouldn't begrudge you your happiness with it. I don't even dislike 5e; it's a perfectly enjoyable and popular edition even if it has reflected an increased vanilla flavor to expand its market.

That said, my opinion isn't that WOTC's races are bland and homogeneous because 10% share the same SLA. My opinion is that WOTC's races are bland and homogeneous for various other reason related to their own guardrails and commercial intent and that giving them a few minor SLAs or ribbons doesn't come close to making up for what was lost when they created their design template and decided what could be on the table as a racial attribute/characteristic. You could give Race XYZ a wholly unique cantrip as their SLA and it would still be the same ole same ole 5e racial design. Whether it's shared by 33% or 10% or 1% is missing the forest for the trees.

It is something of a shame that 5e takes up so much oxygen in an RPG conversation like this because it's likely the system least equipped to make dwarves more interesting as a race due to its own limitations and dwelling on "What would (or can) WOTC do?" is quite restricting.

[Psyren]

And that's fine, I have no interest in convincing you either. But your earlier point of confusion was "I don't even think they're wrong for doing it or would deny their success; I just find it weird that someone would deny that this is the case." I was explaining my reasoning, that's all.

Moreover, I think your approach to making dwarves (or any other species) interesting is entirely retrograde. Fixed stat bonuses or even penalties just limit character concepts in my mind - they mean that a dwarven wizard or sorcerer or even artificer will always and forever be "less than." And I find that far blander than anything you could possibly decry about the current approach.

[Jophiel]

Fixed stat bonuses or even penalties just limit character concepts in my mind - they mean that a dwarven wizard or sorcerer or even artificer will always and forever be "less than."
Different mindsets, I guess. I know people who just love a "I'm going to make a gnome fighter with 6 STR and no legs" approach and those who say "My orc wizard will have a +3 instead of a +4 at level 1? Literally unplayable!". I'm not on either end of the spectrum but I have zero issue working around limitations or thinking that I can make a perfectly viable and fun character without the same mechanical ceiling as every other character. Half the time, the limitations make for a fun (to me) character building opportunity. I'm not a big fan of 6 STR Fighter meme characters but I'd give up role playing if I ever felt like I'm unable to have a good time with a concept that has a -1 WIS attached to it. If that -1 WIS or class restriction or whatever is in service to a strong core racial identity, I'm all for it and can work around that happily. I know -- from personal experience -- that some people literally can't (which is, again, part of the WOTC vanilla racial design concept). They simply must play an orc wizard and, in the same breath, will not have fun if they are carrying a 5% lower To Hit chance than if they picked an elf. That level of hang up is what feels limiting to me versus a racial culture that says "These guys aren't great at magic" and me saying "Eff it, I'm gonna rock an orc wizard anyway; lemme brainstorm how I got to this place..."

[Psyren]

I can still make an orc or dwarf wizard with +1 or +2 Int and huge muscles at level 1 just fine if I find that fun. But the printed game isn't forcing me to - that's the difference.

[Jophiel]

I can still make an orc or dwarf wizard with +1 or +2 Int and huge muscles at level 1 just fine if I find that fun. But the printed game isn't forcing me to - that's the difference.

Exactly. Anyone can just make a 12 INT wizard if they want. But there's no interesting cultural or lore basis for it. You're just making a dipstick orc wizard in a world where your orc neighbor is an 18 INT wizard and no one cares that you're an orc wizard because, sure, why not -- everyone is whatever they want. Boring.

I see it sort of like audience-based improv. Half the fun is working within the rails to create something cool. If you just whine that they wanted you to be a pirate bartender when you really want to pretend to be a pirate hairdresser instead, that's a total failure of creativity to me. Of course, some people are hung up on being a pirate hairdresser and that's the only way they can have fun and D&D under WOTC is built to cater to that mindset.

[Psyren]

Exactly. Anyone can just make a 12 INT wizard if they want. But there's no interesting cultural or lore basis for it. You're just making a dipstick orc wizard in a world where your orc neighbor is an 18 INT wizard and no one cares that you're an orc wizard because, sure, why not -- everyone is whatever they want. Boring.

As opposed to a world where every orc wizard is artificially limited, for no better reason than moldy stagnant tradition. Boring.

There's no point in us continuing this exchange so I'll leave it there. Back to dwarves or whatever.

[Jophiel]

"Artificially" limited is meaningless: it's a game, everything is artificial. You're artificially limited to level 20. You're artificially limited to 20 in your attributes at start (and beyond, without magic or a specific class trait). Your Fire Bolt is artificially limited to 1d10+Mod damage. People still manage to have fun despite that because the "artificial" limits are in service of something, just like various racial characteristics are in service of developing a strong and interesting cultural/lore presence in game (versus "moldy stagnant tradition") -- something definitely lacking in 5e for virtually all of its races.

This directly relates to dwarves because this sort of thing is often used to lay down markers for a strong dwarf culture (again, largely lacking in 5e) and help create interesting stories and stretch creative muscles. For example, Dagna in Dragon Age: Origins who lacks magical ability because she's a dwarf but is fascinated by it and instead rises above the numerous attacks on her character and successfully becomes an accomplished arcane academic researcher. From a PC standpoint, that feels to me like a far more creative approach than just complaining that you can't be a dwarf wizard so this game is dumb and boring.

[Witty Username]

But yes, if you wanted to do a Krynn campaign where sorcerers and wizards have no distinction, that's completely fine - it might even be fun for your players. I'm just pointing out that Weis wrote in that distinction decades ago, long before 5e was a thing.
I mean, no drow was a decision made years ago, and is still in 5e, yet you still don't seem to care for it.

My actual preference is actually lore 2 happenstantially. It allows for sorcerers in a way that is unique to Krynn, as well as why sorcerers weren't crawling out of the woodwork in the novels.

What is the benefits of sorcerers being the same across all settings?

In FR they are connected to Wild magic, dragon blood, etc.

Saying you can do the same for Dragonlance does suggest the question, why? Couldn't we just use FR?

But that lead into an obvious question, what, if any, restrictions on a player would you impose if you wanted to use a particular setting?

My take is personally, if a player rolls up with a drow ranger from Menzoborenzen that is a worshiper of Mielki, that is a sign that maybe I should do an FR module instead, they are probably going to be more interested in that anyway
--
I have a pin in Dwarf stuff, and species mechanics but I feel like that will have a pretty strong disconnect so I want to make sure the point is clear and my attention is not split while I am writing.

[icefractal]

Playing against type can be an interesting twist for a character (although don't get me started on people who say "my character is mechanically weak and therefore inherently more interesting than anything you power gaming plebians could come up with"), but I don't feel like that requires specifically a racial stat mod involved?

Like, if I play an Int 10 Human Wizard whose dream is to become a great mage despite not being particularly smart, that's pretty strongly against type! To the point that in 3E you wouldn't even be able to cast 1st level spells.

Or conversely, being a Dwarf Wizard has at many tables been considered definitely against type, despite that Dwarves are (in 3E) as good a choice mechanically as anything in the PHB. And that's simply because of how most Dwarf cultures were described in several settings, plus some general nerd-osmosis memes.

[Jophiel]

Like, if I play an Int 10 Human Wizard whose dream is to become a great mage despite not being particularly smart, that's pretty strongly against type!
Sure, but the point wasn't "I can't play against type without a racial penalty", it's "Racial penalties in the service of (attempting) a strong in-game culture/lore don't stop me from making fulfilling and interesting characters because I can incorporate those limitations into my story rather than just complaining that elves are better at casting spells than me".


Or conversely, being a Dwarf Wizard has at many tables been considered definitely against type
I assume that would be very table dependent. In years of playing/running 5e on various levels, I've never seen anyone blink at any race/class combo as particularly unusual or interesting. Likely in large part because 5e races don't really have strong cultures. Dwarf wizard for the armor proficiency is basically a stock choice in 5e.

[Psyren]

I mean, no drow was a decision made years ago, and is still in 5e, yet you still don't seem to care for it.

It is? Can I assume you overlooked the "People From Beyond" sidebar in 5e Dragonlance then?


What is the benefits of sorcerers being the same across all settings?

Having common traits != "the same."

And those common traits are common so that they don't have to print a different version of every class in every splat book they write, or ban half of core in every setting for tradition's sake. The benefits of that should be obvious.



But that lead into an obvious question, what, if any, restrictions on a player would you impose if you wanted to use a particular setting?

I have neither need nor inclination to answer such a broad question in a vacuum :smallconfused: it would depend on the campaign and the other players during session zero.

Generally speaking - if someone has a concept that they put thought into and would engage them with the campaign, I would make it work. I could say something off the cuff like "no Spelljammer races in my Krynn campaign" but even then I would probably be open to Astral Elves and Autognomes because I could place them in the world with a modicum of creativity.


Playing against type can be an interesting twist for a character (although don't get me started on people who say "my character is mechanically weak and therefore inherently more interesting than anything you power gaming plebians could come up with"), but I don't feel like that requires specifically a racial stat mod involved?

Like, if I play an Int 10 Human Wizard whose dream is to become a great mage despite not being particularly smart, that's pretty strongly against type! To the point that in 3E you wouldn't even be able to cast 1st level spells.

Indeed, it doesn't.

(Sidenote - you could in fact make a viable wizard with low Int, e.g. a Magic Missile-spamming Evoker; no big Int score needed)

[Witty Username]

Having common traits != "the same."

And those common traits are common so that they don't have to print a different version of every class in every splat book they write, or ban half of core in every setting for tradition's sake. The benefits of that should be obvious.


It depends on what aspect of core is being included/excluded.

Species (since that is closest to the root topic), at least in 5e are a small enough part of the game that they don't need to be in every setting - and new entries for prominent does a significant amount to flesh out a setting.
Guildmaster's guide to Ravnica going over elves and goblins aas a quick how they fit into the Guilds, or Eberron's noting the major Houses and associated dragonmarks for its species as examples.

The phb even notes you aren't expected to use everything all the time, it even has a the unusual races section for species that don't exist in all settings.

But the broader point is the importance of contrast, if two settings are functionally interchangeable, then we lose the value of having multiple settings.

[Errorname]

What is the benefits of sorcerers being the same across all settings?

Simplicity mainly. You don't need to relearn the lore or adjust the mechanics in a new setting.


And those common traits are common so that they don't have to print a different version of every class in every splat book they write, or ban half of core in every setting for tradition's sake. The benefits of that should be obvious.

I mean the expectation that a setting will support all of the 'core' content can become a pretty major constraint depending on how much core content there is, and how setting specific some of that stuff is. Obviously there's benefits to consistency, but it can result in the feeling that these different settings aren't all that different, they're just reconfiguring the same elements slightly differently.


(Sidenote - you could in fact make a viable wizard with low Int, e.g. a Magic Missile-spamming Evoker; no big Int score needed)

D&D can be pretty unforgiving of non-standard statblocks though, which probably contributes to the flattening. D&D designs classes with intended attribute distributions in mind and do not expect alternative distributions to be competitive or even viable, and even in cases where they are players expectations can create still pressure to go for optimal builds.

So I definitely get the desire to avoid severe stat penalties or bonuses, it's very easy for it to feel restrictive in ways that aren't fun.

[Psyren]

It depends on what aspect of core is being included/excluded.

Species (since that is closest to the root topic), at least in 5e are a small enough part of the game that they don't need to be in every setting - and new entries for prominent does a significant amount to flesh out a setting.
Guildmaster's guide to Ravnica going over elves and goblins aas a quick how they fit into the Guilds, or Eberron's noting the major Houses and associated dragonmarks for its species as examples.

The phb even notes you aren't expected to use everything all the time, it even has a the unusual races section for species that don't exist in all settings.

Can you point to anywhere I said "you're expected to use everything all the time?" :smallconfused:


But the broader point is the importance of contrast, if two settings are functionally interchangeable, then we lose the value of having multiple settings.

"DM, here are ways you can allow nonstandard races in a given setting if you and your players want to do so" != "the settings are functionally interchangeable."



I mean the expectation that a setting will support all of the 'core' content can become a pretty major constraint depending on how much core content there is, and how setting specific some of that stuff is.

Sure - but we're nowhere near that being an issue. Both the current and new core contain a whopping 9 races, that's a fraction of the overall total and hardly a monumental accommodation for any setting.


Obviously there's benefits to consistency, but it can result in the feeling that these different settings aren't all that different, they're just reconfiguring the same elements slightly differently.

If a given group truly feels that including all 9 in a given campaign will harm their immersion or fun, they have the tools to manage that at the table level. WotC's job is to say "the default options for the setting are X/Y/Z, but if you want to add these others, here's how" - not "you can't ever do this, and if your lowly players have the temerity to ask, clout them around the head with the campaign setting book."


D&D can be pretty unforgiving of non-standard statblocks though, which probably contributes to the flattening. D&D designs classes with intended attribute distributions in mind and do not expect alternative distributions to be competitive or even viable, and even in cases where they are players expectations can create still pressure to go for optimal builds.

So I definitely get the desire to avoid severe stat penalties or bonuses, it's very easy for it to feel restrictive in ways that aren't fun.

You're preaching to the choir, I'm in favor of floating ASIs for this reason; I was just mentioning a quirky (and nowhere near optimal) build idea.

[Errorname]

Sure - but we're nowhere near that being an issue. Both the current and new core contain a whopping 9 races, that's a fraction of the overall total and hardly a monumental accommodation for any setting.

To be clear I think this is something you run into with core content in general, monsters and classes as well as races. You have concepts built for the existing settings that might not fit naturally into what you want to do with your new setting, but if they're core content you are sort of expected to include them somehow. That is a major constraint.

A question like "should this setting have dwarves (or orcs or paladins or anything) at all?" is something that (I think) deserves serious consideration, and I think it really can damage a setting if the answer to that was "probably not, but we think people expect it so we'll put them in anyways". Especially since this sort of thing can potentially crowd out setting-original concepts.

[Deepbluediver]

I'm joining the conversation here pretty late, so I apologize if I'm retreading old ground...

But anyhow, I'm wondering if some of the unpopularity of dwarves is due to them lacking a certain feeling of epicness. Maybe it's just a tall-person bias, but there's something about them that doesn't seem to lend itself to being a tagonist, either pro- or an-; in most stories they seem to be playing second-fiddle to every other type of character. But at the same time they're too serious and warlike to be a funny joke-race, or even a convincing underdog (like a hobbit being the ringbearer, for example).

Even in LotT, where there are some very well-known dwarvish characters, their biggest war ever took place mostly underground and involved almost no-one else from another race, and they mixed it up with the dark lord(s) and his servants much less than any other group except maybe the hobbits themselves. And compare their biggest boo-boos ever, stealing a sylmaril and unleashing the balrog, to some of the other stuff that happens. For the first, I'm not even sure the dwarves who stole the sylmaril get names, but the elf they killed to take it certainly does. And that's why the dwarves and elves don't like each other, and the end result of this millennial-long blood feud is what: some insane betrayal or epic moment of reconciliation? No, it's that Gimli has to wear a blindfold while he walks through that one forest. And for the Balrog the people who suffer the most are the Moria-dwarves themselves, who wander about in exile for a bit, then Gandalf kills it and they go home.

Now look at Feanor and his sons, who's ****-ups set the entire course of elvish history for thousands of years, and (eventually) led to the heaven-shaking, world-remaking War of Wrath.

Other media is often similar; I remember there being a dwarf in the Drizzt books, who's biggest contribution to the story was raising the human barbarian character who gets far more screen-time in the long run. None of the story is really ABOUT the dwarf, except as how he relates to non-dwarves.

So nearly every interaction with dwarves feels kinda the same: "and now, here's a brief break for a word from our sponsors to talk about dwarves.... .... .... and now back to the REAL show!" It's like they're just kinda there, but there's no spice or sourness to them. It's like dwarves are the mayonnaise on your fantasy-sandwich; they hold the sandwich together and a sandwich without them might feel like it's missing something, but they are never the reason anyone EATS a sandwich.

To paraphrase a certain internet personality, "something something being in the middle of "top 5 blandest list" sucks".
Or maybe it's just harder to make a dwarf look good in a chainmail bikini :P


"There are 50+ races, but only one of them has this particular SLA" isn't a compelling argument... It just reinforces the fact that D&D races (especially 5e) are extremely homogeneous... Only differentiated by minor mechanics.

That's what makes them boring.

Having 10 well-developed races would be much better than having 50+ that simply feel like a slightly different selection of minor bonuses.

It's true that WotC probably wouldn't go for that kind of design philosophy... But I'm not commenting on what's the best commercial strategy for WotC (although, considering their recent performance, maybe they should reevaluate how they do things). I'm commenting on what makes fictional races feel interesting and unique. And it isn't "can use tremorsense 1/day for 10 minutes", which is the kind of thing that feels so "gamey" that it actually detracts from the race's identity and makes them feel more like a generic character build and less like actual people.

If all you want from your fictional races and classes is a slight variation of +2 bonuses and 1/day SLA, that's fine. To each their own, I suppose... But that kind of design just makes them feel incredibly bland and boring to me.

Regarding mechanics, from my own experience it's a lot easier to write passive (often defensive) abilities that would at least kinda-sorta apply to a wide range of classes, so you don't pigeonhole any one race into being the "swords race" or the "magic race" or the "barbarian race", etc etc etc. It is boring and not good, but at the other end of the spectrum designing races that are very very VERY distinct tends to lead to imbalance, and pigeonholing. It's like, if you have one race that is savage axe-wielding barbarians and the other that is sentient gas-clouds, well I'll never mix them up but there are going to be issues when they try to interact. Or when someone wants to play their gas-cloud as a barbarian.

So yeah I agree that we don't need yet-another geographic-specific flavor of elf, but at the same time you gotta think about many different people trying to get into the setting and wanting to avoid things like "welcome to our table; Dave here is playing a pixie, Sam is the Gargantuan Kraken (don't ask about the water-breating) and Karen is the souls of 16 archmages bound to stone statue's broken left hand....oh you asked about the water breathing? well here's 60 pages of setting-specific lore and backstory to read while you design your character".

To pretend to be at least a LITTLE on topic, one well-trod trait of dwarves is that they are good craftsmen, but modern systems haven't really leaned into that. In 3.5, players could deck themselves up like christmas trees, but most of the best magic items required high-level magic and dwarves didn't lend themselves to being casters. And in 5E I would say that WotC is still working hard to kill off the christmas-tree effect, so crafting systems feel like an afterthought, if they exist at all.

Not that most players are complaining IME- I tried to start a thread to discuss improvements to crafting rules one time, and it got a grand total of ZERO replies. (not 28+ pages worth).
Its like, players want to wield a bastard-sword named Deathbane and use it to slay dragons, but no one cares about the guy who spends his time in the forge to MAKE said sword. It's why Will Turner gets a not plot-insignificant amount of character-development as a blacksmith's apprentice in the first PotC installment, and then (to my knowledge) this part of his background has come up exactly never again in any of the next 5 movies.

So one of the Dwarves most defining, and potential actively INTERESTING (IMO) features either gets ignored, or you get a choice between really easily being a great craftsmen vs. a bonus +2 to some skill. And the skill-bonus is by far the more popular pick for most players.

[Psyren]

To be clear I think this is something you run into with core content in general, monsters and classes as well as races. You have concepts built for the existing settings that might not fit naturally into what you want to do with your new setting, but if they're core content you are sort of expected to include them somehow. That is a major constraint.

Core monsters are things like bears and trolls and ghosts and dragons. Standard fantasy fare in other words. That doesn't seem particularly "constraining" to me.

And even if they were - what monsters are in a given world, hell a given campaign, are entirely DM discretion. It's not like a PC race or class where you need to come to some kind of accord with the players - whatever monsters you feel like running are the ones they'll come across, period. Nothing is forcing you to use a monster you don't want to, even if an obscure wiki entry says that monster has shown up in a corner of that world somewhere.


A question like "should this setting have dwarves (or orcs or paladins or anything) at all?" is something that (I think) deserves serious consideration, and I think it really can damage a setting if the answer to that was "probably not, but we think people expect it so we'll put them in anyways". Especially since this sort of thing can potentially crowd out setting-original concepts.

They didn't say "we'll put them in anyway." They said "ask your DM if you want to play one." Why is that so unreasonable?

[Dr.Samurai]

Okay, back from vacation and ready to give some thoughts.


So if you compare setting-specific lore to the abstract concept of "evil empire" the latter comes up short? I'm not surprised. Perhaps try comparing it to setting-specific evil empires, like Thay or Cheliax.
I don't have to make a comparison between different lores to like one though. I can like Thay and I can like Orcs too. It's only if you approach this with an a priori assumption that the orc lore is bad or something that I would have to justify liking it.

But yeah, human cultists and necromancers and evil wizards... sure. Cool, if you're into that stuff. My preference is for strong physical threats with some magic sprinkled in, not magocratic nations where everyone is a spellcaster and has warrior minions. No idea what Cheliax is but I'm sure it's cool too.

Not that a given person can't prefer one to the other, but it's a matter of taste rather than "lore vs no lore".
I think this will be a matter of opinion.

The 10 pages that orcs receive in Volo's is far superior to the little blurb they get in Monsters of the Multiverse. And while someone might say "well hey, there's still lore in Monsters of the Multiverse", it is true in only the most technical sense. Almost all creatures receive very similar treatment in MotM, indicating they have some spark from some deity that makes them some way. This to me is an erasure of lore, rather than a matter of taste.

To be clear, I do not think you have to be presenting your players with these sorts of moral quandaries. I do think "what's it like to be an orc child" is a question that a worldbuilder should probably have an answer for, in the same way I think it's generally good to consider stuff like what people eat or what resources they have easy access to, it's an important culture shaping thing.
Understood but wholly not necessary to run a game of D&D. I think for many tables this would be entirely academic, so I can't agree with the moral imperative that it should be done.

I do not have a problem with simple heroic adventures. I do not have a problem with games that do not raise uncomfortable moral questions. But when an entire race is written in such a way where a policy of on-sight extermination is just and necessary, that is not a story that feels like a simple heroic adventure and that is a story that is raising uncomfortable moral questions whether it realizes it or not
Yeah, that's just your opinion, whether you realize that or not as well.

These are not uncomfortable moral questions to my mind, and in fact I think Lord Raziere does a good job demonstrating why I tend to be suspicious of all of this type of hand-wringing over this stuff.

Yes. :smallconfused:

Why the hell would there be any other answer.

They are beings from a different environment. Its not their fault if they think or act differently from us. If they are capable of being negotiated with, its bad if we get into a war with them, just as bad getting into a war with any human nation....because war is bad.

If the aliens are super-genocidal P-Zombies that we need to genocide back, that IS STILL BAD. INCREDIBLY. HORRIBLY. BAD. It still causes all the suffering of war, all the problems of war even if you win, with no possibility of a better solution. You have to deal with the social problems of people thinking genocide is a good solution afterwards and having to convince them that its NOT because you NEVER EVER have full control over humanity, what its cultures learn and react to and what they apply their lessons to. Experiences like that shape generations, and cause problems decades or more down the line no matter what, there will be idiots who will take the wrong lesson, there will be idiots powerful enough to ENFORCE the wrong lesson for generations to come, so that their children and their children's children learn the wrong lesson, you might never see that wrong lesson be unlearned in your lifetime, on things this large of a scale with politics, cultures and so on involved, you cannot say "oh this was an exception, we'll just go back to normal afterwards" because it doesn't work like that, because when something like that is DONE? its a precedent. Its a validation of all the worst impulses of humanity. People would look back at the precedent set, and see not that reasons why it was allowed, but that it was allowed at all, and figure out ways to make sure its allowed again for worse reasons at people who do not deserve to be targeted. and people will have to fight for that precedent to not be used, for that influence to be curtailed, lessened, unlearned, dismantled, for that to NOT become normality.
it doesn't matter what moral high ground you have when you victoriously kill the genocidal hive mind aliens or whatever, your civilization will still be traumatized and hurt from that conflict, and twist that trauma to see enemies wherever they want, not to mention the kind of leaders that could easily come into power whose only experience is making everyone kill the nasty bug monsters and exploiting peoples fear and hatred of the nasty bug monsters. methods they can easily turn to do other things that are less good, and thus sooner or later will, because those are the methods that got them results and thus think maybe they can apply it to get results elsewhere. whatever outcast group of the generation (it doesn't matter which one) will sooner or later be compared to those aliens out of sheer stupidity (it doesn't matter how this stupid conclusion is reached) and they will face problems because of it, and they will have to fight tooth and nail to be accepted, maybe even just get to back to where they were before the aliens ever attacked, and more to actually get accepted.

and all that.....are the complex problems you face without having a sympathetic villain or good people on the other side of the conflict involved when you do that. because humanity is still the complex, flawed and often full of people doing bad decisions and believing stupid things no matter how simple and evil you make the opposition, and in some ways facing such a foe would only make humans worse.
I vehemently disagree with all of this and I think it's important to point out that this sort of perspective or outlook is not necessary to have an interesting or good game, since generally this sort of thinking is seen as somehow intrinsically superior to running a game where the good guys defending themselves from annihilation is simply seen as a good act, without all of this self-loathing and self-hatred being required.

Because that's exactly what this is; it's a hatred of self, so deep as to say explicitly that self-preservation in the face of genocidal alien monsters is still "bad" because we are too stupid and bloodthirsty as a people to handle the ramifications of fighting back in self-defense. That's not a foregone conclusion, and it's also just supremely irrelevant in the face of the immediate threat of a world-ending foe.

The only part where I sort of agree, kind of, is where Lord Raziere makes the case at the end that you can have complexity and drama without sympathetic villains, and I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I think all of this discussion is premised on this idea that some people think the complexity and drama is to be found in the enemies, as opposed to in our heroes. It would be like erasing or ignoring all of the character growth and drama and heroics of the Fellowship of the Ring, and instead drawing the drama from the perspective of the orcs, and trolls, and Southron and Easterling men, and wondering what is it like to be in the service of Sauron and are they fully autonomous or have they been forced and the orcs were created and let's delve into that. And then turning around and saying that, unless we do it that way, the story will be one note and simple and boring and not interesting. Clearly this is not true, no matter how many times people type the words on a forum.

But again, I disagree with Lord Raziere because I think it can still be interesting because the heroes are characters and the world itself is already complex, not because they are stupid bloodthirsty buffoons that will essentially take the place of the villains.

Going back to LotR, no one has come to Rohan's aid, will they go to Gondor's aid? Well there's the matter of the Steward, who is not in his right mind, and of convincing Theoden. There's Gollum turning Frodo against Sam, and Sam remaining loyal and brave despite the heartache of Frodo dismissing him. Aragorn compelling the spirits of the traitorous bannermen to make good on their oaths, Faramir's conflict with his father and resisting the lure of the ring, Boromir succumbing to the ring and betraying Frodo, yadda yadda yadda yadda. You don't need morally gray enemies to make a compelling story and you don't need to assume that humanity is a lost cause (there is a question in that about how humanity will handle the Age of Man, but Aragorn is a hopeful answer to this).

I find it one-dimensional and reductive. 99% of it relates to fighting, and not just fighting, but "hatred of civilized races" and "destroying elves, dwarves, and humans" specifically. About the only thing they hate as much as those other races is each other; there's are paragraphs literally titled "All Are Fighters" and "Search, Destroy, Repeat."
If you look at it from the perspective of providing a mortal force in the world to serve as perfect enemies of the heroes, it's all grade A material.

If you look at it from a perspective of "I don't want these creatures to be enemies of people", then I can see the case for not liking it.

Woopty-do; the whole thing brings to mind a pre-teen incessantly banging their action figures together.
Don't worry, Captain Highbrow will swoop in and pull those action figures apart. "Now Timmy, shame on you for playing with your toys like that. Haven't you ever wondered how Skeletor got his skull face? Maybe there's a tragic sob story in there that you don't know about. And did you ever stop to wonder if He-Man's bravery, loyalty and muscly heroics are actually hiding some deep-seeded insecurities and character flaws that you could explore?"

As he watches Timmy put the toys down and walk away, never to play with them again, his sidekick says "Another imagination ruined, nice work Captain Highbrow". The hero smiles, "It's all in a day's work Postmodern Pete, all in a day's work."

Truly, the spectrum across "pointy-eared person who gets Misty Step", "pointy-eared person who gets to jump" and "pointy-eared person who gets Jump at level 3 and Misty Step at level 5" is nothing short of creatively staggering :smalltongue:
Indeed.

Sure, culture and behavior can be affected by physiology. But well before that, culture depends on setting, so those are the books where that should be - not core books like the PHB, unless your system is designed for a single setting, which D&D very notably isn't.
Disagree, and I don't think I've seen argumentation for why the core books have to be setting agnostic.


With regards to dwarves, what's not to like? Look at the differences between dwarves and a "popular" race like elves:

This is how Gimli reacts when he sees that Aragorn is vulnerable to the orc vanguard that has breached the wall at the Hornburg:
https://i.makeagif.com/media/4-19-2021/1JT3cX.gif

This is how Legolas reacts when the fellowship hears the horn of Gondor as an outnumbered Boromir calls for aid:
https://y.yarn.co/6071e7ad-25a7-4172-b5fd-ec5ca23675c0_text.gif

Case closed. Dwarves will ALWAYS be too cool for some people :smallcool:.

[Psyren]

If you look at it from the perspective of providing a mortal force in the world to serve as perfect enemies of the heroes, it's all grade A material.

If you look at it from a perspective of "I don't want these creatures to be enemies of people", then I can see the case for not liking it.

Orcs reduced to having no purpose beyond being "perfect enemies of the heroes" is maybe fine if you're playing in Middle-Earth. But that has no place in any officially printed D&D setting.



Don't worry, Captain Highbrow will swoop in and pull those action figures apart. "Now Timmy, shame on you for playing with your toys like that. Haven't you ever wondered how Skeletor got his skull face? Maybe there's a tragic sob story in there that you don't know about. And did you ever stop to wonder if He-Man's bravery, loyalty and muscly heroics are actually hiding some deep-seeded insecurities and character flaws that you could explore?"

As he watches Timmy put the toys down and walk away, never to play with them again, his sidekick says "Another imagination ruined, nice work Captain Highbrow". The hero smiles, "It's all in a day's work Postmodern Pete, all in a day's work."

No one's "swooping in and pulling anyone's action figures apart"; Timmy is free to bash to his heart's content. But they don't have to encourage Timmy either.


Disagree, and I don't think I've seen argumentation for why the core books have to be setting agnostic.

If not that, then what? Should the PHB be linked to a specific setting? Which one, Forgotten Realms yet again?

[Errorname]

Core monsters are things like bears and trolls and ghosts and dragons. Standard fantasy fare in other words. That doesn't seem particularly "constraining" to me.

Yes I would consider mandatory inclusion of standard fantasy fare a constraint.


And even if they were - what monsters are in a given world, hell a given campaign, are entirely DM discretion. It's not like a PC race or class where you need to come to some kind of accord with the players - whatever monsters you feel like running are the ones they'll come across, period. Nothing is forcing you to use a monster you don't want to, even if an obscure wiki entry says that monster has shown up in a corner of that world somewhere.

So ultimately what this comes down to is that I am arguing about how settings should be written in published material, and you are arguing about how these settings should be run in individual games. Ultimately I don't really care if someone breaks the rules of the setting in half in their own game. Even if I'd find all their changes really obnoxious, how someone plays a game with their friends is none of my business.


But yeah, human cultists and necromancers and evil wizards... sure. Cool, if you're into that stuff. My preference is for strong physical threats with some magic sprinkled in, not magocratic nations where everyone is a spellcaster and has warrior minions.

It is very easy to do an evil empire that is a strong physical threat with some magic sprinkled in. Arguably that's the default form of the evil empire


Wondering what is it like to be in the service of Sauron and are they fully autonomous or have they been forced

"He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would rather have stayed there in peace”.


And then turning around and saying that, unless we do it that way, the story will be one note and simple and boring and not interesting.

I don't think that. I do think that the Orcs are largely bad and that the brief glimpses of sympathy for the enemy we get with Sauron's human followers are a lot more compelling and a lot more resonant with the tone of the material, but the Orcs being a weak link does not ruin the whole of the story. Lord of the Rings can have bad stuff in it and still be a genre defining classic.


Don't worry, Captain Highbrow will swoop in and pull those action figures apart. "Now Timmy, shame on you for playing with your toys like that. Haven't you ever wondered how Skeletor got his skull face? Maybe there's a tragic sob story in there that you don't know about. And did you ever stop to wonder if He-Man's bravery, loyalty and muscly heroics are actually hiding some deep-seeded insecurities and character flaws that you could explore?"

What you are describing is "The Storm" from Avatar: The Last Airbender, one of the best episodes of an extremely popular cartoon and something which (at least in my experience) every kid who was watching it absolutely loved. Giving your villains dramatic backstories that inform their villainy and giving your heroes interesting character flaws they must overcome ain't exactly highbrow, it's classic action-drama stuff.

Hell, He-Man probably has that sort of thing. It was before my time and my parents had no nostalgia for it so I didn't watch it growing up, but are you telling me Skeletor doesn't have some dramatic origin story and He-Man never has to overcome a flaw or learn some lesson in order to overcome adversity?

[Deepbluediver]

Disagree, and I don't think I've seen argumentation for why the core books have to be setting agnostic.
If not that, then what? Should the PHB be linked to a specific setting? Which one, Forgotten Realms yet again?
I think trying to make the core rulebooks completely setting non-specific would make things very boring very fast. It's just a bunch of numbers, then, with nothing to make any character or example interesting. For example, no explanation WHY the Drow can cast Darkness at will or WHY Dwarves can resist poison, etc. In other words, no explanation about WHY anyone or anything is the way it is.
To this day, D&D hasn't managed to entirely exorcise the ghost of Tolkein.
Even moving on from PC races and classes, what about monsters? Is an evil-dragon setting specific? Is disallowing evil dragons, more in line with eastern mythology, setting specific? etc etc etc

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I don't think there's anything wrong with giving some fluff, some morality or ethics or philosophy, in other words some WORLDBUILDING, in a core rulebook. And then letting people set stories that work WITH that, but at the same time lead with a big splashpage at the front that says "this is the world-ish we wrote, you're free to revise it for your own gaming-group as much as you want". Except that the corporate legal team would probably have an aneurism at anything that even HINTS at open-sourcing material.

I think that MOST people understand this, but in the interest of heading off arguments between players and DMs (and forum-ites, especially once we start dragging in non-core material) I think it's worth reiterating that the core rulesbooks are a GUIDE and a jumping-off point, and that any group or GM is allowed to have their own rules and fluff that extends no further than the edge of the gaming table.

[Jophiel]

are you telling me Skeletor doesn't have some dramatic origin story
Looking at Wiki, "Classic" era Skeletor has always just been a jerk. He either came into Eternia through a portal on his own or else came through with his old boss but either way just decided that conquering Eternia would be awesome. I do like the original minicomics implication that there's a whole world of skull-faced blue dudes somewhere rather than Skeletor being the tragic victim of some misfortune that twisted his once bright body & spirit. No, there's seemingly just a planet of Always Evil Skullface Guys. I wonder if they all have bone-sounding names.

I didn't bother to look at content made after the classic cartoon and toy era because I don't care what some dork in the mid-90s wanted to retcon to pretend He-Man is actually a great dramatic story and not a toy commercial. Also, I didn't type the above to prove anything: I was alive and cartoon watchin' during that era and didn't remember Skeletor having a backstory of note but was curious to check.

Edit: I did scroll down and see his 2002 origin was being a warlord and fighting the king, he throws acid at the king which is deflected back into his face. So his face melts off and he goes insane. This is a hundred times more boring and trite than an awesome planet/dimension full of swole skull-faced blue guys just because.

[Errorname]

I did scroll down and see his 2002 origin was being a warlord and fighting the king, he throws acid at the king which is deflected back into his face. So his face melts off and he goes insane. This is a hundred times more boring and trite than an awesome planet/dimension full of swole skull-faced blue guys just because.

Yeah it seems like they might have tried to go for a Darth Vader angle at some point too? In contrast to like Shredder or Megatron it doesn't feel like they ever locked in a definitive version of the character's origin that all subsequent derivatives would stick to.

[Dr.Samurai]

But that has no place in any officially printed D&D setting.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, stated as fact.

It is very easy to do an evil empire that is a strong physical threat with some magic sprinkled in. Arguably that's the default form of the evil empire
I'm replying to what people are saying.

And an orc horde or empire is very easy to do, I agree.

"He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would rather have stayed there in peace”.
Are you suggesting that doing away with evil enemies such as the orcs in Tolkien and in Volo's and replacing them with "not all evil" enemies is the same as one character wondering about the mindset of his enemy?

It seems you think you're proving a point here, but my claim was pretty specific, and didn't say that this concept can't be touched on in the game. But it's quite different for a player character, as an example, to wonder something like "Man, I wonder how this soldier I just killed came to make the choices he made", and for the DM to say "None of the enemies in this story are totally evil, everything is going to be a gray quagmire, and you should be wrestling with every choice you make and reflecting on your decisions all the time. This isn't your grandpa's good vs evil tale of heroics..."

I don't think that. I do think that the Orcs are largely bad and that the brief glimpses of sympathy for the enemy we get with Sauron's human followers are a lot more compelling and a lot more resonant with the tone of the material, but the Orcs being a weak link does not ruin the whole of the story. Lord of the Rings can have bad stuff in it and still be a genre defining classic.
The orcs can't ruin the story because they are the driving force behind the story in some instances. They give us the drama and heroics at Helm's Deep, and on the Pelennor Fields, and in Mordor, etc. They set the stage for the heroes to be heroes. If this was all replaced with the pseudo-intellectual exercise of wondering about how good the good guys are and how bad the bad guys are the story would be objectively worse off for it, not improved by it.

What you are describing is "The Storm" from Avatar: The Last Airbender, one of the best episodes of an extremely popular cartoon and something which (at least in my experience) every kid who was watching it absolutely loved. Giving your villains dramatic backstories that inform their villainy and giving your heroes interesting character flaws they must overcome ain't exactly highbrow, it's classic action-drama stuff.
Highbrow is lobbed at the idea that this is the only interesting story that can be told, and anything else is childish, simplistic, boring, etc that has been levied in this thread.

I'm sure "The Storm" is awesome, because dramatic villain backstories and sympathetic villains can be awesome. I can hold that view without REQUIRING that lore in D&D all get morphed to reflect that opinion. Because other stuff is awesome too.

I think trying to make the core rulebooks completely setting non-specific would make things very boring very fast. It's just a bunch of numbers, then, with nothing to make any character or example interesting. For example, no explanation WHY the Drow can cast Darkness at will or WHY Dwarves can resist poison, etc. In other words, no explanation about WHY anyone or anything is the way it is.
To this day, D&D hasn't managed to entirely exorcise the ghost of Tolkein.
Even moving on from PC races and classes, what about monsters? Is an evil-dragon setting specific? Is disallowing evil dragons, more in line with eastern mythology, setting specific? etc etc etc

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I don't think there's anything wrong with giving some fluff, some morality or ethics or philosophy, in other words some WORLDBUILDING, in a core rulebook. And then letting people set stories that work WITH that, but at the same time lead with a big splashpage at the front that says "this is the world-ish we wrote, you're free to revise it for your own gaming-group as much as you want". Except that the corporate legal team would probably have an aneurism at anything that even HINTS at open-sourcing material.

I think that MOST people understand this, but in the interest of heading off arguments between players and DMs (and forum-ites, especially once we start dragging in non-core material) I think it's worth reiterating that the core rulesbooks are a GUIDE and a jumping-off point, and that any group or GM is allowed to have their own rules and fluff that extends no further than the edge of the gaming table.
Yeah, I think we lose too much to make the core books system agnostic, and I don't really know what the benefit is. Who cares if the core books refer to a certain world? We all know that DMs can run the game however they want. Pick the most generic setting and use that. Much better than trying to strip all the lore out and just give mechanics for things. That's uninspiring. And given the quality of the settings they have put out, this seems like it will be more half-assed production of stuff. Here's some core books with minimal lore, and here's a soul-less setting splat. Enjoy.

Edit: I did scroll down and see his 2002 origin was being a warlord and fighting the king, he throws acid at the king which is deflected back into his face. So his face melts off and he goes insane. This is a hundred times more boring and trite than an awesome planet/dimension full of swole skull-faced blue guys just because.
Agreed.

[Psyren]

Yes I would consider mandatory inclusion of standard fantasy fare a constraint.

There's zero chance of me agreeing with that then. Core is exactly where such creatures belong.


So ultimately what this comes down to is that I am arguing about how settings should be written in published material, and you are arguing about how these settings should be run in individual games. Ultimately I don't really care if someone breaks the rules of the setting in half in their own game. Even if I'd find all their changes really obnoxious, how someone plays a game with their friends is none of my business.

I'm arguing both actually; the published game should contain a series of common elements (such as there being a place for all 12 core classes in each 1st-party published setting) and individual games should be allowed to deviate from those common elements as far and widely as they want to for their own sense of fun (e.g. if you want to run a Krynn campaign where Clerics are banned because it's set when the gods are still silent, or it's even set in a more modern era but you're extending that silent period, you're allowed to do that.) Both of these things can be true simultaneously; hopefully that clears up my position relative to what you thought it was.


I think trying to make the core rulebooks completely setting non-specific would make things very boring very fast. It's just a bunch of numbers, then, with nothing to make any character or example interesting. For example, no explanation WHY the Drow can cast Darkness at will or WHY Dwarves can resist poison, etc. In other words, no explanation about WHY anyone or anything is the way it is.
To this day, D&D hasn't managed to entirely exorcise the ghost of Tolkein.
Even moving on from PC races and classes, what about monsters? Is an evil-dragon setting specific? Is disallowing evil dragons, more in line with eastern mythology, setting specific? etc etc etc

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I don't think there's anything wrong with giving some fluff, some morality or ethics or philosophy, in other words some WORLDBUILDING, in a core rulebook. And then letting people set stories that work WITH that, but at the same time lead with a big splashpage at the front that says "this is the world-ish we wrote, you're free to revise it for your own gaming-group as much as you want". Except that the corporate legal team would probably have an aneurism at anything that even HINTS at open-sourcing material.

I think that MOST people understand this, but in the interest of heading off arguments between players and DMs (and forum-ites, especially once we start dragging in non-core material) I think it's worth reiterating that the core rulesbooks are a GUIDE and a jumping-off point, and that any group or GM is allowed to have their own rules and fluff that extends no further than the edge of the gaming table.

I never said core should be devoid of world-building - just that it should avoid anything that's specific to one setting or a couple of settings. The "orcs and elves hate each other" thing is specific to Faerun and Greyhawk, but it isn't true in Eberron or Ravenloft, so to me putting it into the PHB is pointless, and it would be extra pointless to give elves a racial bonus to hit or damage orcs or vice-versa. But if you, in your FR campaign, wanted to give each race a mechanical bonus to represent their hatred of one another - sure, you're allowed to do that. I wouldn't, but you can.

Elven worldbuilding in core should focus on the traits that they have in common across multiple settings. "They have extremely long lifespans, but the reason they haven't completely mastered every single profession and completely blown humanity and dwarves out of the water in every single endeavor is because they spend a comparatively much larger amount of effort on incorporating flowery artistry into anything they do + they get bored easily" - something like that would be core worldbuilding, because (a) it focuses on traits they have in every setting (long lifespan + trance) and (b) it truly does apply to elves in every printed setting (Ravnica elves, Eberron elves and FR elves all have a strong bent towards artistry, but in radically different ways - FR elves are artistic in terms of blending nature and civilization, Ravnica elves tend to be mad scientists who turn their love of artistry into body horror, and Eberron elves use artistry in their ancestor worship and mummification.)

[Errorname]

"None of the enemies in this story are totally evil, everything is going to be a gray quagmire, and you should be wrestling with every choice you make and reflecting on your decisions all the time. This isn't your grandpa's good vs evil tale of heroics..."

You're acting like I think stories shouldn't have villains at all, which I don't. I am completely fine with a good vs evil tale of heroics, like the Empire from Star Wars does not have this sort of problem

The problem is this desire to completely dehumanize the enemy, to erase any chance that the audience might feel any sympathy for them, and it leads to people writing stories where the bad guys are bad not because of what they do or what they believe, but because they come from the bad race, who are ugly and savage and subhuman and against whom any violence no matter how brutal is justified.


There's zero chance of me agreeing with that then. Core is exactly where such creatures belong.

I would agree that they belong in core. My stance is that that secondary settings should maybe not be expected to include all the core elements, part of the way you distinguish settings from each other is what they don't have.


I'm arguing both actually; the published game should contain a series of common elements (such as there being a place for all 12 core classes in each 1st-party published setting) and individual games should be allowed to deviate from those common elements as far and widely as they want to for their own sense of fun

I think that fundamentally limits what official settings can do. It's not a problem for classes like fighters or rogues, which tend to be pretty setting agnostic, but many of the core classes and races bring with them a lot of assumptions about the sort of setting the game takes place in.

[Jophiel]

I never said core should be devoid of world-building - just that it should avoid anything that's specific to one setting or a couple of settings. The "orcs and elves hate each other" thing is specific to Faerun and Greyhawk, but it isn't true in Eberron or Ravenloft, so to me putting it into the PHB is pointless, and it would be extra pointless to give elves a racial bonus to hit or damage orcs or vice-versa.
Feels like a non-issue. If your setting's race is similar to the PHB version then you just say "Use PHB except as noted..." like, for example, the 1e Dragonlance guide did. If your race is bespoke enough that the PHB description is irrelevant, then you needed to write up a whole race description for them anyway so you just say "This is what elves are here..." That doesn't make the PHB description pointless since it still gives DMs who aren't using your setting a good starting point to either slot in untouched, elaborate on, or tweak to fit their own games. But giving someone a creative starting point is never "wasted" even if they deviate from it.

At no point in reading Krynn material did I ever think "Wow, they don't even HAVE orcs in this world! The Player's Handbook really screwed up that one when they gave some player races an advantage against orcs..."

[Dr.Samurai]

The problem is this desire to completely dehumanize the enemy, to erase any chance that the audience might feel any sympathy for them, and it leads to people writing stories where the bad guys are bad not because of what they do or what they believe, but because they come from the bad race, who are ugly and savage and subhuman and against whom any violence no matter how brutal is justified.
Again, there's some sort of disconnect reminiscent to what Lord Raziere was saying. The orcs are bad not because they are ugly or subhuman. They are bad because they want to kill humans and eradicate them and/or subjugate them for their dark master who also does not care about human life. And insofar as they do these things, then violence against them IS justified.

Drow are not ugly or subhuman, quite the opposite in fact. And yet because of their culture of raiding, killing, and enslaving, as well as demon summoning, etc. they are evil and no one should wring their hands about defending themselves against their depravity.

It's perfectly fine for fantasy creatures to occupy this space.

It's also just weird to me how the idea of "brutality" is focused on with regards to the protagonists, but not the orcs. Like... orcs are brutal in the lore. And that brutality is directed at elves and dwarves and humans, all of which generally represent the goodly nations. But in your comment, you mention "no matter how brutal" in regards to the actions of the would-be heroes, not the orcs. And this again goes back to this concept of self-hatred or loathing. We ignore or reject the traditional lore of the villain (orcs are brutal savages that hate humanity), then turn the lens to the good guys and talk about how brutal THEY are. Lord Raziere did the same thing, where the genocidal aliens were immediately glossed over to instead focus on how brutal the humans defending themselves are and will be.

I'm completely uninterested in this mental exercise and the story narratives that typically spawn from it from a D&D perspective. It would take a pretty talented DM to weave these elements in without it being a heavy-handed and eye-rolling slog to play through. Nothing I've read in this thread has made me think otherwise. If someone can't accept a simple reality like "it's perfectly fine for humans to defend themselves against genocidal aliens" without complaining that the humans are being violent, I don't expect them to handle "gray morality" very well at all.


Feels like a non-issue. If your setting's race is similar to the PHB version then you just say "Use PHB except as noted..." like, for example, the 1e Dragonlance guide did. If your race is bespoke enough that the PHB description is irrelevant, then you needed to write up a whole race description for them anyway so you just say "This is what elves are here..." That doesn't make the PHB description pointless since it still gives DMs who aren't using your setting a good starting point to either slot in untouched, elaborate on, or tweak to fit their own games. But giving someone a creative starting point is never "wasted" even if they deviate from it.

At no point in reading Krynn material did I ever think "Wow, they don't even HAVE orcs in this world! The Player's Handbook really screwed up that one when they gave some player races an advantage against orcs..."
Agreed. Also begs the question... if they are going to be pushing this multiverse thing... presumably we will need multiple settings in order to make use of it. Why not just knock two birds with one stone and make a core setting?

[Errorname]

It's also just weird to me how the idea of "brutality" is focused on with regards to the protagonists, but not the orcs. Like... orcs are brutal in the lore. And that brutality is directed at elves and dwarves and humans, all of which generally represent the goodly nations. But in your comment, you mention "no matter how brutal" in regards to the actions of the would-be heroes, not the orcs. And this again goes back to this concept of self-hatred or loathing. We ignore or reject the traditional lore of the villain (orcs are brutal savages that hate humanity), then turn the lens to the good guys and talk about how brutal THEY are.

We are not talking about how the violence committed by the "good races" against the "bad races" was messed up within the logic of the fiction, we are talking about how it is kind of messed up as a writer to make a story about "good races" vs "bad races".

Dehumanizing an entire race of people as brutes and savages in order to justify your violence against them as noble and righteous has a long and ugly history in the real world, and that parallel does not stop being uncomfortable just because you gave them tusks.

[Witty Username]

Feels like a non-issue. If your setting's race is similar to the PHB version then you just say "Use PHB except as noted..." like, for example, the 1e Dragonlance guide did. If your race is bespoke enough that the PHB description is irrelevant, then you needed to write up a whole race description for them anyway so you just say "This is what elves are here..." That doesn't make the PHB description pointless since it still gives DMs who aren't using your setting a good starting point to either slot in untouched, elaborate on, or tweak to fit their own games. But giving someone a creative starting point is never "wasted" even if they deviate from it.

At no point in reading Krynn material did I ever think "Wow, they don't even HAVE orcs in this world! The Player's Handbook really screwed up that one when they gave some player races an advantage against orcs..."

I am not sure I have a point of reference to say which is better, as D&D as far as I am aware has always used the default setting approach. 'Core' being one particular setting with significant overlap with other settings, Greyhawk for 3.5, Nentir Vale for 4e, the Forgotten Realms for 5e. All I can say I have never felt it as an issue, It makes sense to present things in a context as it gives players and DMs a framework to run games without needing settings books or homebrew. And then a campaign setting can provide comparison and contrast with that initial framework.

I heard at one point One is going with Planescape, is that the case?

[Satinavian]

Again, there's some sort of disconnect reminiscent to what Lord Raziere was saying. The orcs are bad not because they are ugly or subhuman. They are bad because they want to kill humans and eradicate them and/or subjugate them for their dark master who also does not care about human life. And insofar as they do these things, then violence against them IS justified.

You can have all of that, including the justified violence against not-always-evil orc. Those may be evil and can do evil, just like humans.
The only difference occurs when the orcs haven't done any killing, subjugating and so on. With always evil orcs you know they always would if given a chance.


I never found always evil races particularly interesting. I might accept it with some very nonhuman races like demons at best.

[OldTrees1]

Agreed. Also begs the question... if they are going to be pushing this multiverse thing... presumably we will need multiple settings in order to make use of it. Why not just knock two birds with one stone and make a core setting?

In every edition of D&D that I have checked (3E, 3.5E, 4E, 4.5E, and 5E), WotC did exactly this. The PHB uses 1 setting as an example. In 3E it used Grayhawk.


We are not talking about how the violence committed by the "good races" against the "bad races" was messed up within the logic of the fiction, we are talking about how it is kind of messed up as a writer to make a story about "good races" vs "bad races".

Dehumanizing an entire race of people as brutes and savages in order to justify your violence against them as noble and righteous has a long and ugly history in the real world, and that parallel does not stop being uncomfortable just because you gave them tusks.

The presumption of dehumanizing can be premature. Not all sapients are human. Just because a species is written as "this is an antagonist" does not mean they were dehumanized or subhuman. It does not help us to put humanity on some kind of pedestal. (There is an ugly history in the real world where a previous definition of humanity was put on a pedestal, and was later used as a weapon)

Consider the stories about Illithids. Some, not all, but some, of them are written as "protagonist good species" vs "antagonist evil species".

In general, D&D lore does not have always evil orcs. The one time it did to my knowledge (Volo's take) did not strike me as dehumanizing, but rather as a non-human people afflicted by a curse. Many of the elements people would identify as "dehumanizing" ("savages" "tribal" etc) are not related to whether they were one of the allied vs antagonist species. Addressing those concerns is a bit orthogonal.

Edit: Please forgive how many edits this post took. (Forum was slow for me)



Again, there's some sort of disconnect reminiscent to what Lord Raziere was saying.
To be fair what Lord Raziere said was a bit more nuanced
Edit: Lord Raziere posted the very next post. Their post is a better source to use to clarify.

[Lord Raziere]

@ Dr. Samurai:

My point isn't that we should feel bad about defeating genocidal P-Zombie #1452532 or whatever. Its that even in a Good Vs. Evil set up, that is only One. Situation. where the option to genocide is viable, perhaps the only situation. And in that ONE SITUATION you can say you had the moral high ground, that you can feel good about it, for that one goddamn instant. But settings, worlds, people, history, culture, are much much bigger than A Single Instant, a Single Moment, a Single Snapshot of time.

Again, you can go kill the dark god of all orcs and burn every chaotic evil orc out of existence if your truly committed to that species being that evil with no redemption allowed. I have no friggin' clue why that'd be your first solution to that, or why you want that with it even if its morally right, or you insist on jumping to that specific solution out of all solutions if you want to play a good person so much, because if I was running Good Vs. Evil morality, I wouldn't say that solution is Good at all. I'd be stricter than I would be in Grey Morality, in grey I don't care because morality is subjective, who can really say if the solution was "bad" if it increases the overall happiness of everyone and doesn't impact anyone's freedoms?

But in White and Black Morality, subjectivity and situational conditions doesn't matter, every action has an inherent good or evil, and genocide is evil in our world therefore its reasonable to make it evil in the worlds we play because it matches up with what we value, therefore genocide can't be excused in this paradigm, because saying genocide is acceptable in a certain circumstance when it normally isn't, IS grey morality, because its implicitly introducing and acknowledging moral complexity by implying that it needs to be pointed out its not normally done! Therefore its not a moral principle, but an exception being made, and in a Black in White morality, NO Exceptions are Made. You do something bad, that is that, you don't get an excuse, you don't get weasel out, your hand are stained with an action that is by itself A Bad Action regardless of the consequences. You do a genocide, Black and White Morality is less forgiving, because it is blind, it doesn't see the circumstances, it doesn't see the outcome, it just sees You Have Done This Thing And This Is Bad Because It Is Bad, regardless of your opinion on it, but don't worry anyone who kills you for it is also evil because Murder Is Wrong, and they won't be lessening the world's evil at all by killing you, unlike in a Grey Morality system where Killing Genocidal Jerks is Okay because thats an exception to Murder Is Wrong and who can really blame the people who get the opportunity? Not me. It is in fact through Grey Morality that exceptional circumstances like this "Chaotic Evil P-Zombie" hypotheticals are allowed, because it doesn't depend on some Objective Morality from on high turning a blind eye Just This Once, when it doesn't DO THAT. On the contrary, all the simplified black and white morality stories I know of? Are SUPER against killing ANYONE. Forget a genocide, the simplified black and white morality light tales I know of, every story that takes such idealistic and simplified moral stances, don't even allow you to kill a single bad guy no matter what bad things they've done, because murder in of itself is a moral problem that takes moral complexity to solve. You can say whatever to the mortal authorities about exceptions, but the Angels won't be so lenient on your soul. The idea that genocide has any place in such a simplified story for simple morality is baffling and anathema to me, because your wanting to be light with perhaps one of the heaviest topics possible, when people get up in arms over ONE KILLING in such a story! ONE! For ANY reason, no matter how justified! Because people as a society have decided that life has an inherent, intrinsic value in of itself, no matter what you or me think about that! So if you include a single killing as positive at all? Your violating that simple rule, your already making it more complex! and DnD violates that rule A LOT.

And if you response is "I don't agree with that/actually Black and White Morality is different" too bad. There is no actual objective Black and White Morality, not in DnD, not in anywhere because guess what? it aaaaaaall depends on the person your talking to, what they think should be "White", what they think should "Black" and therefore the objective black and white morality.....is subject to all the same problems Grey Morality, but without acknowledging the problems and therefore making it worse and whatever book you cite? will be interpreted differently by different people, no matter how clearly stated. Gee, its almost as if we don't use this Black and White Morality thinking for a reason, because if we did use it humanity either never stop arguing or people would start killing each other over whether its right for someone steal a slice of bread to feed their loved ones or not instead of just acknowledging that sometimes we just have different solutions for things, we don't have perfect knowledge of right and wrong and therefore can't ever KNOW what right and wrong is and therefore we're stuck with the subjective grey morality REGARDLESS of how we feel about it, and just get on with our lives without expecting everyone to agree on how to solve things that don't any objective good solutions. So if you don't like how what the universes/GMs definition of "Black and White Morality" doesn't allow genocide to be done on anyone then uh.....try not to be born in that universe?/don't play with them? don't know what else to say.

But all that is beside the point.

The point I was making, is that even if your in a Good Vs. Evil morality system, even if you face that situation, even if you come out victorious and can feel good in that moment about being victorious about the Evilinians or whatever.....you have to wake up the next day, and deal with whatever jerk decides to say "Hey I hate blond people, anyone else hate blond people? blond people are like Evilinians, we should wipe them out, like we did the Evilinians, remember when we wiped out them out? that felt good, we should do it again to feel good again about killing people we hate" and the moral good in THAT situation is to start explaining "NO, blond people are not like Evilinians, they are people with lives that don't deserve it you jerk" because blond people are not Evilinians! Yes Evilinians are bad! Really, horribly bad! They are the horror of not having a better solution to war than wiping out the enemy!

Like you act like I'm treating the Evilinians invading as a light casual thing. It isn't. When you face Evilinians, your talking about Total War. Anything that ensures humanities survival becomes Good, in that situation. If they come to conquer a city, there is no surrender, no hope of simply being an occupying force and just enforcing their laws or whatever, they are just going to kill everyone and take the city over the corpses. Thus, there are no refugees. No such thing as a civilian. Everyone is in danger. Young, old, infirm, doesn't matter, everyone is either a contributor, or they are dead. A child is either working in some labor, or they are wielding a weapon to hopefully kill two Evilinians before they kill them, because every person counts when it comes to humanity's survival, they don't have time to play. Even if they're laborers, they still have to fight, and thus every civilian is a conscript, a draftee whether anyone likes it or not, there is no human society anymore, only an army, and the support structure for it. Thus all the people you want to save are now potential resources to be sacrificed for this evil to be eradicated. You can't take hostages because they are evil, they're not going to talk, they won't care if another one of them dies and you need to kill them every single one anyways, and they're not going to take hostages of your people, they will just kill them. All the weapons you thought were too horrible to use on people? you can use them now! now or never, either you survive to be tried for it or you die so you might as well use them! Whatever horrible thing you can imagine? you can do to them so that humanity is saved and as many people survive, because not everyone is going to survive, there are going to be casualties, people motivated by those casualties, hurt by those casualties, and all that hurt, oh that gonna be useful to motivate them to kill more! Oh wait an Evilinian disguised as a human tried to use our morals to restrain us from killing them more, guess we can't ever trust any human speaking out against the war effort, anyone that isn't with us is against us, best kill any dissidents just to be safe, any human that isn't actively hating the Evilinians isn't hating them enough! The budget, the economy, screw those, whats the use of money if we're too dead to spend it? Spend all the money to keep us safe, we'll get to that later! Wait, did the Evilinians just do THAT atrocity to us!? we need to respond in kind! no Mercy! NO MERCY! And so on and so forth until all the humans are yelling "PURGE THE XENO" and don't stop at merely killing any leaders or whatever but hunt down every last Evilinian to the ends of the earth, to every last nook, cranny and corner to stab, shoot or burn every last one so that no trace is left, no Evilinian left alive, no stone unturned, nothing left unchecked, over and over and over again, until the war is done.

and then you wake up the next day. The day after the victory. After the celebration. After all the Things That Need To Be Done, Were Done, and all the Hard Decisions that needed to be Made so that Right Thing Was Done, Were Decided Upon. After the high is dissipated. Everyone is traumatized. the Budget for Everything, is in the red. The cultures, the various people that united to face this threat all probably have their losses to mourn, and go their separate ways, sooner or later. People sooner or later begin arguing about where to go from here. there is a faction that argues that humanity should stay in case there are more out there, or something like the Evilinians are encountered again. they want power, to keep that power forever to ever be vigilant and it could be used to harm humans on the suspicion that they could be infiltrators or remnant Evilinians that they somehow missed, made up of popular war heroes that killed a lot of Evilinians in the war. But you know their skills are now useless, that they just want to be important, and that if you left them have that power? it could easily devolve into dictatorship in a couple generations. They use rhetoric preying upon peoples fear, trauma and memories of the war to push for their policies of vigilance that isn't needed, and it has to explained that was done during the most horrible time of humanity's life, the time where their extinction was imminent, that was done during it- was an exception. That we should put away the horrible weapons, that we no longer need the vigilance, that we should move on and heal from the way that the Evilinians have hurt humanity, that hopefully we never do anything like this ever again, that no, the hate isn't needed anymore, that we should move on, that we need to recover not just in terms of prosperity but in terms of morality so that we don't make mistakes based on maladapting to circumstances that no longer apply. One speech won't be enough, and one leader making that speech won't be enough, thats one person trying to stop the river of history. You simply have to hope that enough people will make similar speeches, do similar efforts to course correct enough that humans learning from the Evilinians, won't do something horrible themselves BECAUSE of the horrible things the Evilinians did to them.

Goodness is more than just recognizing and eliminating the bad externally, its maintaining and upholding the good, over and over again internally and externally- this is not a grey morality thing to me, this is simply how being a good person works. That is what the simplified, black and white morality tales I know of, have taught me. What they've also taught me, is that a real hero is not one who takes lives, but one who saves them. That they're not measured in how many villains they vanquish, but in how many victims they rescue, how many innocents they protect, the values they stand up for, the principles they do not bend on. This whole thing where I say you have the moral high ground in one moment? Thats a Gray Morality Concession I'm making To You, thats me giving you the benefit of the doubt.

In my heart of hearts if I was truly going full Black and White Morality, truly holding to the principles that simplified morality taught me and going off into fantasy land where I suggest alternative solutions without any regards to moral complexity or practicality of the solution? I'd just make up a spell for humanity (and whoever else is good) to be teleported away to some other world then any means or knowledge to follow them to be destroyed so they can never be found. After all, the Evilinians are stupid and violent right? they don't know anything other than killing so they won't be able to figure out how to replicate it and I'm taking the moral high ground here, I can just go find some other world to live on, escape and let them destroy themselves and live happily away from them. Now you could criticize me that this doesn't actually solve the problem of the Evilinians existing and that its no guarantee to work or whatever there might be danger son the other world, but that holds true for any genocide plan against whatever fantasy race you care to name, because the rules for how they work are made up and don't matter, the Evilinians might just be too strong for humans to kill! Or too numerous! Or have some other advantage that makes it impossible to win! There is no actual guarantee that you will be able to fight and win against them just because you want to. That horrible war I detailed above? Could all be for nothing! Humanity could just die because it was too stubborn to realize that Hey, while this enemy is certainly evil, its also too strong to kill ourselves! Maybe survival involves....not fighting? Maybe it involves...fleeing and waiting it out somewhere else and returning later to find the Evilinians destroyed each other or whatever, they're violent and stupid after all so they're not going to be intelligent enough to follow to actually organize their society to live without killing so they're just to kill each other for whatever stupid evil desires they want until they screw each over into oblivion. and sure maybe an Evilinian killed my sister or something and I feel angry over that, but y'know what they say, the best revenge is living well, and um, since Evilinians are stupid and violent I'm probably living better than them on a fresh new world. Now to be fair when humanity returns to the old world its probably gonna look like an apocalyptic wasteland after the Evilinians are all dead from their own stupidity, but restoring the world's life and such seems like a much better deed and undertaking than fighting the Evilinians, so morally it all works out. You don't actually need to ever fight something like the Evilinians really, they'll just destroy themselves sooner or later.

The only reason anyone would want to go fight them is well....not for any actual moral reasons. but for deciding AMORAL ones. Namely, Action Hero Amorality. Because Samurai, your not actually advocating for black and white morality. Your advocating for Action Hero Amorality where the action hero gets to jump into the villains lair and go kill the people that Need To Be Killed and walk into the sunset happily with no consequences involving the outside world after the credits of the movie are rolled. Which is fine! I enjoy being an Amoral Action Hero that just kills what needs killing and walks off happily myself. I just don't pretend that there is a moral, simple or complex to doing that. I'm fine with being an action hero that goes around killing stuff to show off and be cool, but that doesn't make the character a good person in any way, I don't NEED them to be good when they are doing that, this is not grey morality this is not ANY morality, this is just ignoring morality to live a power fantasy. If you want to live that power fantasy, just say so, don't muddle the issue with morality of any kind, because honestly that just distracts from the actual point of that power fantasy.

But my point is: if your making a world where peoples actions make sense, where there is history, consequences and such and so on, so forth, you have to consider what the consequences of things are outside that power fantasy, to detail the world and negative effects when something bad things happen, its generally how good GMing is done in my experience, and the consequences of that scenario would be horrible both during and after for different reasons as I detailed! and in my experience the difference between Black/White Morality and Grey Morality gets kind of blurry and indistinct as well because one person's Grey Morality is another's White Morality with Complexity/Exceptions and vice-versa, after all how many exceptions do you make to your white morality paint until the shades start looking distinct, and how competent and considerate can your Grey Morality character be until they resemble a saint pale and pure? At some point, the terms just don't mean anything because what system someone uses to think about these things doesn't really matter as much as how they conduct themselves, what positive impact they have upon the world, what other people think of them, how thankful other people are for what they've done for the good deeds they have done, and how they respond to seeing that in return. Being a good person day-to-day has very little to do with this edge-case scenario you conjured where suddenly you have to go full extreme murder, and I'd wager most good people would be horrified to learn is necessary and try to figure out any other solution before having to resort to it. So, black and white morality isn't really useful to talk about this scenario really because its so extreme and exceptional that it warps what being a good person means beyond all recognition. and as detailed in my pacifist fleeing solution above, there is technically an alternative that is more moral from a nonviolent perspective that doesn't redeem or feel sympathy for the Evilinians at all. And even if you do put the genocide solution to the Evilinians in a world, and you do allow it to be The Right Thing To Do In That Situation, there is still all the situations before and after it. History doesn't stop when the Evilinians die, nor did it began when they invaded. Unless you making a movie-like action-fantasy story about specifically that scenario and ignoring everything else, stopping the game right in a movie finish as you look at the ruins of victory hollywood style no epilogue or follow up, you have to think about the wider implications of that happening, regardless of what moral terms your throwing around, and the Evilinians could inflict cultural wounds on humans that could make them worse! thats simply something that could happen as a result of winning against them, it doesn't matter if there a grey gradient or a binary white/black computation behind it, the result is bad either way and the right thing to do is make sure that influence is healed and stopped so humans are better people.

Because again: a good person is someone who maintains and upholds good, over and over again, not just gets rid of something bad once. I don't think thats a complex moral issue that is too painful for anyone or anything, thats just basic, thats what being a good person is and if your saying even that is too complex for even the most simple of black and white morality stories to acknowledge, then I disagree and cast doubt on what you think is black and white morality is actually that or whether its just an amoral power fantasy of killing those dudes that has no relation to any wider fictional world that actually deals with black and white morality as apart of their story, because what you describe as black and white morality isn't one I've ever seen anyone actually do or replicate intentionally, but does sound a lot like action films that don't think about morality at all and thus aren't moral.

[Psyren]

Feels like a non-issue. If your setting's race is similar to the PHB version then you just say "Use PHB except as noted..." like, for example, the 1e Dragonlance guide did. If your race is bespoke enough that the PHB description is irrelevant, then you needed to write up a whole race description for them anyway so you just say "This is what elves are here..." That doesn't make the PHB description pointless since it still gives DMs who aren't using your setting a good starting point to either slot in untouched, elaborate on, or tweak to fit their own games. But giving someone a creative starting point is never "wasted" even if they deviate from it.

At no point in reading Krynn material did I ever think "Wow, they don't even HAVE orcs in this world! The Player's Handbook really screwed up that one when they gave some player races an advantage against orcs..."

Why do you think it's better to make the core version of something specific to one setting then include a bunch of "except except except" caveats in every splat, than it is to simply focus on what's actually core in the core version and then expand on it via splat?


You're acting like I think stories shouldn't have villains at all, which I don't. I am completely fine with a good vs evil tale of heroics, like the Empire from Star Wars does not have this sort of problem

The problem is this desire to completely dehumanize the enemy, to erase any chance that the audience might feel any sympathy for them, and it leads to people writing stories where the bad guys are bad not because of what they do or what they believe, but because they come from the bad race, who are ugly and savage and subhuman and against whom any violence no matter how brutal is justified.

Exactly, and we already have monsters explicitly designed for this; fiends, undead, and aberrations are designed for this exact purpose. If you absolutely must have the existentially evil threat be orc-shaped, do what Azeroth did and make one of the above (e.g. fiends) corrupt them for the length of an entire campaign war.


I would agree that they belong in core. My stance is that that secondary settings should maybe not be expected to include all the core elements, part of the way you distinguish settings from each other is what they don't have.

That's why the core elements are things that are truly baseline to the race and therefore easy to include. All elves have keen senses and trance, and all dwarves are good with tools and resistant to poison - take those away and you might as well be using something else. It goes back to one of the questions that started this thread - what is inalienable to a given race like dwarves, such that altering it would end up making them not feel like that race anymore? That's the stuff that should be in core.

By contrast, things like "hating orcs" are not, because then that creates assumptions about what orcs should be in that setting in order for such hatred to be justified, and now you've locked yourself out of portraying orcs in any other more nuanced way like how Eberron made them guardians of nature who oppose aberrations.


I think that fundamentally limits what official settings can do. It's not a problem for classes like fighters or rogues, which tend to be pretty setting agnostic, but many of the core classes and races bring with them a lot of assumptions about the sort of setting the game takes place in.

Follow-up question then - why do you need official settings to do everything? I'm not saying that a setting where clerics and paladins are banned (as some versions of Athas have done) or a setting where bards can only be low-magic minstrels, can't possibly be interesting - but you don't need WotC to build that. Just like reducing orcs to slavering monsters fit only for genocide, some things are better left to third party creators. If anything, that would be a win for all involved, because if there's sufficient demand for such unorthodox settings it will fuel the idea that settings don't have to come from WotC to be desirable or playable. Isn't that what critics want?

[OldTrees1]

About Lord Raziere's Point

The point I was making, is -snip Go Read It In Lord Raziere's post. I'll wait-
A long point but worth reading and rereading.

I do suggest people replying to Lord Raziere's point jump to this part of their post. Everything above is context but can be a bit tangential. Don't let that stop you from reading their point itself.

Even with my slightly different premises (see my comments above about parts of the preamble) your point holds up. There will be consequences and you do a good job of laying those out.


About the preamble (These are informative nitpicks. No need to follow up on these comments.)

because saying _______ is acceptable in a certain circumstance when it normally isn't, IS grey morality, because its implicitly introducing and acknowledging moral complexity by implying that it needs to be pointed out its not normally done! Therefore its not a moral principle, but an exception being made, and in a Black in White morality, NO Exceptions are Made.
To be fair, most black and white (deontological) moral systems do divide broader actions into smaller categories before labeling it as moral, amoral, or immoral. For example "killing" gets divided up into subcategories (hunting, farming, murder, warfare) and you could either frame it as those categories being exceptions, or frame it as the original category being too broad.

You address the question of subcategories using a different approach in the body of your point.


And if you response is "I don't agree with that/actually Black and White Morality is different" too bad. There is no actual objective Black and White Morality, not in DnD, not in anywhere because guess what? it aaaaaaall depends on the person your talking to, what they think should be "White", what they think should "Black" and therefore the objective black and white morality.....is subject to all the same problems Grey Morality, but without acknowledging the problems and therefore making it worse
Cultural relativity does not prove moral relativity, so different people having different moral opinions is orthagonal to whether an objective morality exists. This is in part because the "objective" in "objective morality" means a statement about morality will be true or false independent of opinions people have about morality. This does not imply those truth values would be common knowledge nor that people would commonly have beliefs that coincidentally matched the reality.

This is why fiction is in the privileged position where the author can decide what, if any, objective morality is intended to exist in the story. (Whether that intent reflects in the story the reader reads depends on what the reader reads. See death of the author)

I frequently see the "objective" in the term "objective morality" misunderstood. It does not mean people can't/won't have differing subjective beliefs.


Gee, its almost as if we don't use this Black and White Morality thinking for a reason, because if we did use it humanity either never stop arguing or people would start killing each other over whether its right for someone steal a slice of bread to feed their loved ones or not instead of just acknowledging that sometimes we just have different solutions for things, we don't have perfect knowledge of right and wrong and therefore can't ever KNOW what right and wrong is and therefore we're stuck with the subjective grey morality REGARDLESS of how we feel about it, and just get on with our lives without expecting everyone to agree on how to solve things that don't any objective good solutions.

But all that is beside the point.
Not everyone realizes we "can't ever KNOW what right and wrong is" and of those that do, not all conclude to use a subjective grey morality model. So there are many that do use Black and White Morality thinking. Your predictions of their behavior don't necessarily follow.

You are right this is besides your point.

[Witty Username]

Follow-up question then - why do you need official settings to do everything? I'm not saying that a setting where clerics and paladins are banned (as some versions of Athas have done) or a setting where bards can only be low-magic minstrels, can't possibly be interesting - but you don't need WotC to build that.

I mean, why do you need official settings to tell you everything in core is allowed?

This line of reasoning feels 6 of one, half-dozen of another.

[Mordar]

They're reprints, so you'd be double-counting. In addition, there are multiple 3rd-party races on that page, not all of them are WotC.

So assuming there is no playability for the "legacy" versions at all, we're looking at 9/68?

Third party, but included on the officially branded and hosted resource seems like it should count. It isn't just a mention of "you can use other people's stuff if you want", it is "we are including other people's stuff in this resource".

On potency of racial traits:

Why do the traits need to be at or below "first level" of power?

I can understand not wanting to eclipse an entire class, or give something that allows, say, spamming a 3rd level spell as a racial trait. Mechanically, though, I don't understand why it isn't appropriate to have traits that can be impactful through the spectrum of class levels and not trivialized once you hit 3rd/5th/whatever level.

Is it an issue of balance not baked into the system (e.g. too hard to add once the system is established because it skews the carefully calculated power levels and progressions?), or the idea that attribute modifications have persistent benefit so it is already accomplished, or something else entirely?

- M

[Psyren]

I mean, why do you need official settings to tell you everything in core is allowed?

This line of reasoning feels 6 of one, half-dozen of another.

Because expecting material from books labeled as core to the game actually be core to the game is reasonable? WotC themselves set that expectation, so following through on it makes more sense than the reverse.

[OldTrees1]

On potency of racial traits:

Why do the traits need to be at or below "first level" of power?

1) They don't.
2) I don't think Psyren meant the features couldn't/wouldn't scale. Githyanki for example have their spells delayed to later levels. It is more along the lines of species that wouldn't be balanced as 1st level characters. Either because their minimum power would be too high or because they would scale faster than the other species. For example a Troll Cleric 5 would be stronger than a Human Cleric 5.
3) They don't (repeated for emphasis). Higher level species could have been included. Their omission is a choice by WotC rather than a restriction on what WotC could have done. They have done it before (3E). This is one area where Psyren with insist on the status quo while I will critique WotC's unforced omission.
4) They do. WotC made a decision to have the power curve of PCs be an irregular mess. They wanted big irregular spikes at 5th, 11th, 17th and that makes everything, including higher level species, harder to design around. Multiclassing runs into friction around those levels. A higher level species is like multiclassing into a monster class (Troll 3 / Cleric 2 as a 5th level character).

[Mordar]

1) They don't.
2) I don't think Psyren meant the features couldn't/wouldn't scale. Githyanki for example have their spells delayed to later levels. It is more along the lines of species that wouldn't be balanced as 1st level characters. Either because their minimum power would be too high or because they would scale faster than the other species. For example a Troll Cleric 5 would be stronger than a Human Cleric 5.
3) They don't. Higher level species could have been included. Their omission is a choice by WotC rather than a restriction on what WotC could have done. They have done it before (3E).

Not sure who, but someone upstream in the 27 pages was tying a power cap to things not beyond a cantrip (or first level spell) tier. The who doesn't matter much to me, and the fact that I had responded to Psyren in my post was only intended as indicative of that specific part of the response.

My hope would be for *all* the races to have ballpark-balanced power to their racial traits. No character level adjustment muck, all intended for play from the start, but either with something that under current paradigms would be OP for starting characters (but would be the norm in a system designed to accommodate) or evolves to remain valuable at 10th level too. That does mean no "full monster version" Troll as a player character, perhaps...but doesn't mean an evolving DR trait couldn't be included.

- M

[BRC]

Again, there's some sort of disconnect reminiscent to what Lord Raziere was saying. The orcs are bad not because they are ugly or subhuman. They are bad because they want to kill humans and eradicate them and/or subjugate them for their dark master who also does not care about human life. And insofar as they do these things, then violence against them IS justified.

Drow are not ugly or subhuman, quite the opposite in fact. And yet because of their culture of raiding, killing, and enslaving, as well as demon summoning, etc. they are evil and no one should wring their hands about defending themselves against their depravity.

It's perfectly fine for fantasy creatures to occupy this space.


So, I'm going to make up some terms here

A Situational Enemy is somebody who is your enemy because of the situation you find yourself in. A Bandit has decided they want to take all your stuff with either violence, or the threat of violence. The Bandit is a Situational enemy. If you met the bandit under different circumstances, they would not be your enemy.

A Definitional enemy is something that, for whatever reason, is definitionally your foe. For example, if there is a cultist of the slaughter-god, and you oppose people being slaughtered, you want to oppose the cult of the slaughter-god. This particular individual could stop being your enemy by stopping being a cultist of the slaughter-god, but so long as they are a cultist of the slaughter-god, they are your enemy.

Finally, an Inherent enemy is an enemy that is, by it's very nature, your foe. In fantasy terms this might be a demon or undead. It's very existence represents a real and present threat.


In real life, almost all our enemies (as defined as "People it is justified to do violence to") are situational. From violent criminals to soldiers on the other side of a war, they are our enemies today, but could have not been our enemies yesterday. There's an occasional Definitional enemy, somebody who holds to an ideology that makes them a threat. The closest thing we get to an Inherent enemy might be, say, an infected animal that needs to be put down in the name of local safety. We don't have Human inherent enemies, because there is nothing inherent about being human that makes you an enemy of another human.

You can have a cool action story against situational and definitional enemies. If soldiers invade your homeland on the orders of their king, you're not wrong to take up arms in defense simply because those soldiers wouldn't be attacking you if they were not ordered to. You're not wrong to lead a party into their homeland in order to sabotage their supply lines. You're not wrong to assassinate said king and his counselors. It's a war, you're allowed to fight it.

The issue that Fantasy Races usually bring is that they tend to turn Situational and Definitional Enemies into Inherent ones in the name of creating a world of Black and White morality. Rather than creating a situation where our Heroes might justifiably do battle with Orcs, they just say "Yeah, Orcs are inherently evil. Some types of people in this world are just evil by nature and you can wipe them out without guilt". An Orc is a shorthand for "Somebody it's okay to kill", the narrative role of an enemy soldier with the moral certainty of a rabid dog. This is a problem because now you've introduced into your world the following fact:"There's a certain type of person that is just inherently evil and it is morally correct to kill them simply for living". This is something that is UNTRUE in the real world, but which plenty of people throughout history have felt is very true, and you have just created a world where they are objectively correct. Fantasy races tend to be allegorical for different cultural groups, but within the fiction of the universe they are also distinct biological groups. An Orc is born an Orc, a dwarf is born a dwarf.

So while it's obvious to us that a person born to, say, Italian parents but raised in England by English parents will behave like an English person, fantasy races love to conflate biology and culture and say that an orc raised by Dwarves is still inherently an Orc.

The Drow are evil because they are a slave-based civilization. That's fine right there. History is full of empires that practiced slavery, and I feel confident in saying that slavery is an evil practice and that nobody is wrong for defending themselves from slavers who wish to enslave them. If "Drow" meant "Elves who live in this culture and practice slavery" that would be fine. If a surface elf went and joined drow society and therefore became Drow, then you've just got a culture of evil elves.
But Drow are defined as a race of Elves, not a culture (Although I understand more recent lore have introduced alternative drow cultures). So you've got this evil culture whose members just so happen to near-perfectly overlap with a certain biological group of dark-skinned elves. It's an easy shorthand, but one whose implications are pretty disturbing.


Of course, part of the issue is that this idea is so pervasive in both fantasy fiction and history that it's easy to fall into the trap unless you take some specific steps to avoid it. Devoid of any other cultural context, one could assume a perfectly reasonable and non-racist explanation for why The Drow overwhelmingly belong to this evil culture the same way somebody might read historical fiction about Gauls fighting off a Roman invasion and not question why all the people from Italy who show up are the bad guys. But there's almost a default assumption in fantasy that if there's an evil culture which is largely made up of a certain biological group, then we're supposed to read that the group in question is inherently predisposed to that particular flavor of evil.

[Psyren]

Third party, but included on the officially branded and hosted resource seems like it should count.

No - the whole argument that started the counting tangent was whether WotC is printing too much or too little race stuff. Third parties are not WotC.


On potency of racial traits:

Why do the traits need to be at or below "first level" of power?

Because those traits will be available to first-level characters.

I'm not saying they can't spike above, say, a 1st-level spell, nor that they can't ever scale as OldTrees1 correctly stated, but the nature of the ability needs to be taken into account at that point too. A 2nd-level spell like Misty Step or Spider Climb is an okay ability for a first-level character, while one like Scorching Ray or Moonbeam would not be. Invisibility would be fine if it doesn't last for an hour like the spell does. That kind of game designer judgment of the ability is what is needed.


I can understand not wanting to eclipse an entire class, or give something that allows, say, spamming a 3rd level spell as a racial trait. Mechanically, though, I don't understand why it isn't appropriate to have traits that can be impactful through the spectrum of class levels and not trivialized once you hit 3rd/5th/whatever level.

As mentioned, I'm fine with racials that are useful at higher levels, whether due to being things that are always useful (like bonus action teleportation) or that scale with level (like a pool of healing dice.) I think most modern racials fall into one of these categories in fact; I can't think of any off the top of my head that become "trivialized once you hit 3rd/5th level" as you claim, though there's certainly a shift where the degree of power coming from your class and feats eclipses what comes from your race more and more, but that's to be expected. The bulk of your power should come from your build choices throughout your career, not a single choice you made at the start of the campaign.

[Dr.Samurai]

We are not talking about how the violence committed by the "good races" against the "bad races" was messed up within the logic of the fiction, we are talking about how it is kind of messed up as a writer to make a story about "good races" vs "bad races".
Is that what the topic is? I think you are getting hung up on "race". Stories are about good people contending with evil forces. It's sort of not the point if the evil forces all happen to be of one kind of creature.

Dehumanizing an entire race of people as brutes and savages in order to justify your violence against them as noble and righteous has a long and ugly history in the real world, and that parallel does not stop being uncomfortable just because you gave them tusks.
"In order to justify".

Again, I think this is missing the point. I don't think anyone is dehumanizing anything, and I don't think we're doing it to make the good guys. And I don't think it's useful to draw parallels to the real world.

In fact, you guys keep drawing parallels to the real world and it sort of just confuses the issue.

I never found always evil races particularly interesting. I might accept it with some very nonhuman races like demons at best.
A couple of points, I find it funny that even demons might not get this label.

More importantly, I'm not arguing for "always evil races". I'm arguing about lore, and the changes to lore, and the reasons behind those changes and the reasons to object to those changes. I can use the lore in Volo's and still have some orcs be good/resist Gruumsh/etc.

In every edition of D&D that I have checked (3E, 3.5E, 4E, 4.5E, and 5E), WotC did exactly this. The PHB uses 1 setting as an example. In 3E it used Grayhawk.
Indeed. Seems there should be a really good reason not to continue doing it this way. Especially when your big concept (multiverse) requires multiple settings, seems like you should just come out the gate fleshing out at least one, no?

To be fair what Lord Raziere said was a bit more nuanced
Edit: Lord Raziere posted the very next post. Their post is a better source to use to clarify.
Perhaps, but it all goes to the same place. Maybe in cutting to the point I mischaracterized what they said.

@ Dr. Samurai:

My point isn't that we should feel bad about defeating genocidal P-Zombie #1452532 or whatever. Its that even in a Good Vs. Evil set up, that is only One. Situation. where the option to genocide is viable, perhaps the only situation. And in that ONE SITUATION you can say you had the moral high ground, that you can feel good about it, for that one goddamn instant. But settings, worlds, people, history, culture, are much much bigger than A Single Instant, a Single Moment, a Single Snapshot of time.
To be clear... I did not bring up genocide, just as I didn't bring up killing babies or camp followers.

And you are using "settings, worlds, people, history, culture" as these things that are much bigger than a "snapshot" to make your case, but later on you will admit that you would not use violence to defend these "big concepts" because you still find it morally wrong. So these things actually mean nothing to you in the face of a violent enemy. It's a position that I don't understand, and am not really interested in understanding.

Again, you can go kill the dark god of all orcs and burn every chaotic evil orc out of existence if your truly committed to that species being that evil with no redemption allowed. I have no friggin' clue why that'd be your first solution to that, or why you want that with it even if its morally right, or you insist on jumping to that specific solution out of all solutions if you want to play a good person so much, because if I was running Good Vs. Evil morality, I wouldn't say that solution is Good at all. I'd be stricter than I would be in Grey Morality, in grey I don't care because morality is subjective, who can really say if the solution was "bad" if it increases the overall happiness of everyone and doesn't impact anyone's freedoms?
Again, I never put forth genocide as a solution to anything. You and others brought it up.

As you and others keep insisting on removing the context of "d&d game", and keep trying to throw this conversation on rails that inevitably lead to baby-killing and genocide, the points become more and more irrelevant to me. I don't have to defend genocide because I'm not talking about a game that requires it. I'm talking about keeping a world where Orcs are amassing and ready to overtake the Sword Coast because they are godsworn to Gruumsh and the other orc deities and hate civilization and want to destroy it. This concept DOES NOT require ANY of the things you have brought up or that I will reply to shortly, nor many of the things others have mentioned in this thread.

But in White and Black Morality, subjectivity and situational conditions doesn't matter, every action has an inherent good or evil, and genocide is evil in our world therefore its reasonable to make it evil in the worlds we play because it matches up with what we value, therefore genocide can't be excused in this paradigm, because saying genocide is acceptable in a certain circumstance when it normally isn't, IS grey morality, because its implicitly introducing and acknowledging moral complexity by implying that it needs to be pointed out its not normally done! Therefore its not a moral principle, but an exception being made, and in a Black in White morality, NO Exceptions are Made. You do something bad, that is that, you don't get an excuse, you don't get weasel out, your hand are stained with an action that is by itself A Bad Action regardless of the consequences. You do a genocide, Black and White Morality is less forgiving, because it is blind, it doesn't see the circumstances, it doesn't see the outcome, it just sees You Have Done This Thing And This Is Bad Because It Is Bad, regardless of your opinion on it, but don't worry anyone who kills you for it is also evil because Murder Is Wrong, and they won't be lessening the world's evil at all by killing you, unlike in a Grey Morality system where Killing Genocidal Jerks is Okay because thats an exception to Murder Is Wrong and who can really blame the people who get the opportunity? Not me. It is in fact through Grey Morality that exceptional circumstances like this "Chaotic Evil P-Zombie" hypotheticals are allowed, because it doesn't depend on some Objective Morality from on high turning a blind eye Just This Once, when it doesn't DO THAT. On the contrary, all the simplified black and white morality stories I know of? Are SUPER against killing ANYONE. Forget a genocide, the simplified black and white morality light tales I know of, every story that takes such idealistic and simplified moral stances, don't even allow you to kill a single bad guy no matter what bad things they've done, because murder in of itself is a moral problem that takes moral complexity to solve. You can say whatever to the mortal authorities about exceptions, but the Angels won't be so lenient on your soul. The idea that genocide has any place in such a simplified story for simple morality is baffling and anathema to me, because your wanting to be light with perhaps one of the heaviest topics possible, when people get up in arms over ONE KILLING in such a story! ONE! For ANY reason, no matter how justified! Because people as a society have decided that life has an inherent, intrinsic value in of itself, no matter what you or me think about that! So if you include a single killing as positive at all? Your violating that simple rule, your already making it more complex! and DnD violates that rule A LOT.
Needless to say, I disagree with your premise here. If someone kills an animal for food, we don't call it murder. If someone kills another person in self defense, we don't refer to it as murder. There are nuances to this that invalidate your point before it even gets going.

And if you response is "I don't agree with that/actually Black and White Morality is different" too bad. There is no actual objective Black and White Morality, not in DnD, not in anywhere because guess what? it aaaaaaall depends on the person your talking to, what they think should be "White", what they think should "Black" and therefore the objective black and white morality.....is subject to all the same problems Grey Morality, but without acknowledging the problems and therefore making it worse and whatever book you cite? will be interpreted differently by different people, no matter how clearly stated.
"There is no actual object Black and White Morality, not in DnD, not in anywhere..."

And yet... there's a lot of moral posturing going on in this very thread about how awful it is to have orcs be evil as a culture.

Gee, its almost as if we don't use this Black and White Morality thinking for a reason, because if we did use it humanity either never stop arguing or people would start killing each other over whether its right for someone steal a slice of bread to feed their loved ones or not instead of just acknowledging that sometimes we just have different solutions for things, we don't have perfect knowledge of right and wrong and therefore can't ever KNOW what right and wrong is and therefore we're stuck with the subjective grey morality REGARDLESS of how we feel about it, and just get on with our lives without expecting everyone to agree on how to solve things that don't any objective good solutions. So if you don't like how what the universes/GMs definition of "Black and White Morality" doesn't allow genocide to be done on anyone then uh.....try not to be born in that universe?/don't play with them? don't know what else to say.
I honestly don't know what to say to this.

The point I was making, is that even if your in a Good Vs. Evil morality system, even if you face that situation, even if you come out victorious and can feel good in that moment about being victorious about the Evilinians or whatever.....you have to wake up the next day, and deal with whatever jerk decides to say "Hey I hate blond people, anyone else hate blond people? blond people are like Evilinians, we should wipe them out, like we did the Evilinians, remember when we wiped out them out? that felt good, we should do it again to feel good again about killing people we hate" and the moral good in THAT situation is to start explaining "NO, blond people are not like Evilinians, they are people with lives that don't deserve it you jerk" because blond people are not Evilinians! Yes Evilinians are bad! Really, horribly bad! They are the horror of not having a better solution to war than wiping out the enemy!
Yes, understood. My point is that this is Lord Raziere's take on how this would play out. As I said in my previous post, this is not a foregone conclusion. If you want to play it that way as a DM, by all means. But if my players save the Sword Coast from an orc horde, no, it does not necessarily follow that they will turn on themselves, or each other, or some other defined group, or hunt the orcs to extinction, or literally ANY OF THE OTHER THINGS you've posited in your posts. That's just you, and your opinion about what would logically make sense and what inevitable outcomes there might be. So as I've said before, and as others have chimed in, I don't need to contend with this because I don't agree that it has to happen this way.

Like you act like I'm treating the Evilinians invading as a light casual thing. It isn't. When you face Evilinians, your talking about Total War. Anything that ensures humanities survival becomes Good, in that situation. If they come to conquer a city, there is no surrender, no hope of simply being an occupying force and just enforcing their laws or whatever, they are just going to kill everyone and take the city over the corpses. Thus, there are no refugees. No such thing as a civilian. Everyone is in danger. Young, old, infirm, doesn't matter, everyone is either a contributor, or they are dead. A child is either working in some labor, or they are wielding a weapon to hopefully kill two Evilinians before they kill them, because every person counts when it comes to humanity's survival, they don't have time to play. Even if they're laborers, they still have to fight, and thus every civilian is a conscript, a draftee whether anyone likes it or not, there is no human society anymore, only an army, and the support structure for it. Thus all the people you want to save are now potential resources to be sacrificed for this evil to be eradicated. You can't take hostages because they are evil, they're not going to talk, they won't care if another one of them dies and you need to kill them every single one anyways, and they're not going to take hostages of your people, they will just kill them. All the weapons you thought were too horrible to use on people? you can use them now! now or never, either you survive to be tried for it or you die so you might as well use them! Whatever horrible thing you can imagine? you can do to them so that humanity is saved and as many people survive, because not everyone is going to survive, there are going to be casualties, people motivated by those casualties, hurt by those casualties, and all that hurt, oh that gonna be useful to motivate them to kill more! Oh wait an Evilinian disguised as a human tried to use our morals to restrain us from killing them more, guess we can't ever trust any human speaking out against the war effort, anyone that isn't with us is against us, best kill any dissidents just to be safe, any human that isn't actively hating the Evilinians isn't hating them enough! The budget, the economy, screw those, whats the use of money if we're too dead to spend it? Spend all the money to keep us safe, we'll get to that later! Wait, did the Evilinians just do THAT atrocity to us!? we need to respond in kind! no Mercy! NO MERCY! And so on and so forth until all the humans are yelling "PURGE THE XENO" and don't stop at merely killing any leaders or whatever but hunt down every last Evilinian to the ends of the earth, to every last nook, cranny and corner to stab, shoot or burn every last one so that no trace is left, no Evilinian left alive, no stone unturned, nothing left unchecked, over and over and over again, until the war is done.

and then you wake up the next day. The day after the victory. After the celebration. After all the Things That Need To Be Done, Were Done, and all the Hard Decisions that needed to be Made so that Right Thing Was Done, Were Decided Upon. After the high is dissipated. Everyone is traumatized. the Budget for Everything, is in the red. The cultures, the various people that united to face this threat all probably have their losses to mourn, and go their separate ways, sooner or later. People sooner or later begin arguing about where to go from here. there is a faction that argues that humanity should stay in case there are more out there, or something like the Evilinians are encountered again. they want power, to keep that power forever to ever be vigilant and it could be used to harm humans on the suspicion that they could be infiltrators or remnant Evilinians that they somehow missed, made up of popular war heroes that killed a lot of Evilinians in the war. But you know their skills are now useless, that they just want to be important, and that if you left them have that power? it could easily devolve into dictatorship in a couple generations. They use rhetoric preying upon peoples fear, trauma and memories of the war to push for their policies of vigilance that isn't needed, and it has to explained that was done during the most horrible time of humanity's life, the time where their extinction was imminent, that was done during it- was an exception. That we should put away the horrible weapons, that we no longer need the vigilance, that we should move on and heal from the way that the Evilinians have hurt humanity, that hopefully we never do anything like this ever again, that no, the hate isn't needed anymore, that we should move on, that we need to recover not just in terms of prosperity but in terms of morality so that we don't make mistakes based on maladapting to circumstances that no longer apply. One speech won't be enough, and one leader making that speech won't be enough, thats one person trying to stop the river of history. You simply have to hope that enough people will make similar speeches, do similar efforts to course correct enough that humans learning from the Evilinians, won't do something horrible themselves BECAUSE of the horrible things the Evilinians did to them.

This is certainly one way to handle this. It's not the only way.

Again, this smacks of trying to handle the subject in some conceived "real" way that reflects how it would "really" happen. And despite the "no objective morality", this "real" way happens to depict us in a real immoral light. As I said previously, I don't think it's always useful to try and bring the game "back to reality" so to speak. This is also what I meant about how we're killing the fantasy by inserting these gotcha morality issues into the story.

Goodness is more than just recognizing and eliminating the bad externally, its maintaining and upholding the good, over and over again internally and externally- this is not a grey morality thing to me, this is simply how being a good person works.
Sure, and in your view people won't be able to do that. Once they have to do stuff to contend with a potential annihilation, it will send them on a path to evil. Therefore, according to you, there is no goodness, because you're not allowing for the possibility of defeating an existential threat without retaining who you are as a people. I don't like this storytelling, and I'd feel like the DM is setting us up for failure if this is the premise of the game.

That is what the simplified, black and white morality tales I know of, have taught me. What they've also taught me, is that a real hero is not one who takes lives, but one who saves them.
And sometimes you save a life by taking a life. And as I said previously, if someone doesn't understand that, I don't trust them to handle these concepts very well at all.

In my heart of hearts if I was truly going full Black and White Morality, truly holding to the principles that simplified morality taught me and going off into fantasy land where I suggest alternative solutions without any regards to moral complexity or practicality of the solution? I'd just make up a spell for humanity (and whoever else is good) to be teleported away to some other world then any means or knowledge to follow them to be destroyed so they can never be found.
This does not surprise me in the least. And I still disagree with you. These would be the actions of an NPC antagonist in my game. Not an evil person, but someone there to foil the PCs who are trying to stop a threat, instead of using resources to avoid it and not have a way to deal with it later.

I would not consider someone that is so ideologically opposed to violence that they can't fathom killing a threat to your life as "good".

After all, the Evilinians are stupid and violent right?
No idea. You guys are injecting things like spider eggs, genocide, etc. to make your point. Might as well assume the enemy is stupid too.

Now you could criticize me that this doesn't actually solve the problem of the Evilinians existing and that its no guarantee to work or whatever there might be danger son the other world, but that holds true for any genocide plan against whatever fantasy race you care to name, because the rules for how they work are made up and don't matter, the Evilinians might just be too strong for humans to kill!
No, I would just accuse you of being an ideologue with bad ideas, and of posing a danger to your own people, that you purport to care about, but can't get over your own squickiness to actually defend them.

The only reason anyone would want to go fight them is well....not for any actual moral reasons. but for deciding AMORAL ones. Namely, Action Hero Amorality.
I'm afraid that, like others in this thread, you're not aware that you're putting forth an opinion instead of laying down some cosmic law.

This is not the only reason to fight someone. Both FIGHT and FLIGHT in the fight or flight response are intended to save your life.

I get that you're opposed to violence. That's fine. That doesn't mean violence in defense of yourself and others is bad or immoral. You haven't done anything to demonstrate that. So I disagree with you that anyone fighting an existential threat is doing so only for amoral reasons. It's one of the most absurd things I've ever read.

Because Samurai, your not actually advocating for black and white morality.
I'm advocating for D&D to be allowed to keep it's evil creatures.

Your advocating for Action Hero Amorality where the action hero gets to jump into the villains lair and go kill the people that Need To Be Killed and walk into the sunset happily with no consequences involving the outside world after the credits of the movie are rolled.
I don't like your framing but I AM reminding everyone to keep the context of the game in mind. Because yes, I think playing a hero is fun, and I think saving people is fun, and beating up bad guys and stopping evil is fun. And there are consequences to the actions; evil is stopped and people are saved.

Oh... right, you want other consequences, that makes the good guys into bad guys. Yeah, I'll pass.

Which is fine! I enjoy being an Amoral Action Hero that just kills what needs killing and walks off happily myself. I just don't pretend that there is a moral, simple or complex to doing that. I'm fine with being an action hero that goes around killing stuff to show off and be cool, but that doesn't make the character a good person in any way, I don't NEED them to be good when they are doing that, this is not grey morality this is not ANY morality, this is just ignoring morality to live a power fantasy. If you want to live that power fantasy, just say so, don't muddle the issue with morality of any kind, because honestly that just distracts from the actual point of that power fantasy.
No no. This is a common misunderstanding of the action hero. People like to pretend that it's just some power fantasy for the sake of having power. If that was the case, the action hero would be something more like a wizard or god or something.

There ABSOLUTELY is morality baked into the action hero. Going off instinct, having principles, overcoming fear, helping those that can't help themselves. It's all there. You can choose not to see it and reduce it to something to deride, but that's just your perspective on the matter.

Action heroes are people of action. We are dealing with this RIGHT NOW in this thread. Instead of simply taking action to defend everyone you love and care about, we are in this heady conversation about the ramifications and consequences and the implications and all of this other theoretical stuff in the future that may or may not happen but is impacting the choices we have to make right now. The action hero stands against this. Notably, many villains of these types of heroes are NOT action villains but MASTERMINDS. Intelligent/creative/ideological people that justify/plan bad things to harm people. There is absolutely a moral lesson in the action hero, including against black/white stuff. Many times, the action hero breaks or bends the rules/laws in order to do what needs doing in order to stop the bad guy and save people.


But my point is: if your making a world where peoples actions make sense, where there is history, consequences and such and so on, so forth, you have to consider what the consequences of things are outside that power fantasy, to detail the world and negative effects when something bad things happen, its generally how good GMing is done in my experience, and the consequences of that scenario would be horrible both during and after for different reasons as I detailed!
But again, I've already stated that I don't think this sort of world building is necessary or intrinsically better.

This is the difference between Superman Returns, and Man of Steel.

In Superman Returns, the earthquake that hits Metropolis results in shattered glass falling onto the people below, a potential gas leak that would cause a devastating explosion, and the giant statue on the Daily Planet falling to the street below. These things happen with a timing and locality so that Superman can address them all one after the other and save "the day", and "the day" here is these little pockets of potential tragedy that the movie shows us in just the right way so the hero comes out on top and everyone is left unharmed. We are never prompted to think about all of the things we didn't see, or weren't shown or mentioned.

That is fantasy.

In Man of Steel, we get a more "real" version of Superman, with all of that worldbuilding and "gritty" take on "what Superman would really be like". So we get to watch thousands of people die as skyscrapers get demolished while one indestructible being plays whack-a-mole with the other through every steel and glass structure in Metropolis. Explosions abound and we are told that Superman is inexperienced and is outnumbered and this is how it would really happen.

That's "real".

And as I've said before, one is not better than the other. It's just a different type of story to tell. And I'm not saying that the "real" one is bad, I just don't think it's the only interesting or entertaining story to tell, whereas it seems to me others are saying the fantasy version IS bad.

Being a good person day-to-day has very little to do with this edge-case scenario you conjured where suddenly you have to go full extreme murder, and I'd wager most good people would be horrified to learn is necessary and try to figure out any other solution before having to resort to it.
I did not conjure any scenario, especially one about full murder.

So, black and white morality isn't really useful to talk about this scenario really because its so extreme and exceptional that it warps what being a good person means beyond all recognition. and as detailed in my pacifist fleeing solution above, there is technically an alternative that is more moral from a nonviolent perspective that doesn't redeem or feel sympathy for the Evilinians at all.
It's not obvious that fleeing is "more moral" than stopping the threat. That's just your opinion.

Unless you making a movie-like action-fantasy story about specifically that scenario...
I haven't been given a reason why a D&D game has to be anything other than this.

This is like when Eben sacrifices his life at the end of 30 Days of Night, transforms into a vampire to save the woman he loves and an innocent child, and after he kills the lead vampire and the other vampires flee, he asks "Should I go after them?", and she tells him no. I don't take that as an opportunity to castigate Eben as a bad moral actor, or the movie for not considering "the wider implications" of his actions, etc etc etc. Like... you don't have to do this.

Because again: a good person is someone who maintains and upholds good, over and over again, not just gets rid of something bad once.
I don't think anyone is in a position to consider what is "good" if they can't admit killing an evil creature that is trying to murder others is an act of good.

[Errorname]

Stories are about good people contending with evil forces.

Hardly universal, and even for stories it does describe it's still so reductive it might as well be wrong.


It's sort of not the point if the evil forces all happen to be of one kind of creature.

How a story chooses to characterize "the evil forces" matters a lot, actually.


"In order to justify". Again, I think this is missing the point. I don't think anyone is dehumanizing anything, and I don't think we're doing it to make the good guys.

The most common argument I've seen in favour of evil races is that it simplifies the morality of your fantasy action story, no handwringing about "do these enemy combatants deserve death". So yes, I would absolutely say the point of always evil orcs is a dehumanized other that can exist as a target of righteous violence from our heroes.


In fact, you guys keep drawing parallels to the real world and it sort of just confuses the issue.

Well, I'm sorry you're confused, but fantasy stories exist in parallel to the real world.

[Mordar]

No - the whole argument that started the counting tangent was whether WotC is printing too much or too little race stuff. Third parties are not WotC.

Respectfully disagree. The argument as I perceive it was about the lack of distinction between races in D&D, and then it moved to the current state (5e) and the relative number of races appearing that may or may not dilute the "Race Individuality Pool". The pool of races actively endorsed by WotC seems to me to be at the 9/64 level *if* D&D Beyond is a reasonable source. That is way below the number that appeared in WotC Books by the end of the 3e arc, but that number is well below the total available using 3rd party resources...but WotC never seemed to promote those races like I am seeing with 5e.

Further, it isn't directly about the number, but the "true variety". While it is probably easier to have 10 races show "true variety" (however that is best defined) I think you could have many many more and still have it. The question here seems to be (as argued by others to a greater degree) how much overlap is acceptable.

Obviously the pool of races available for play always depends on the table, but I think the 9/64 to be appropriate for discussion.


Because those traits will be available to first-level characters.

I'm not saying they can't spike above, say, a 1st-level spell, nor that they can't ever scale as OldTrees1 correctly stated, but the nature of the ability needs to be taken into account at that point too. A 2nd-level spell like Misty Step or Spider Climb is an okay ability for a first-level character, while one like Scorching Ray or Moonbeam would not be. Invisibility would be fine if it doesn't last for an hour like the spell does. That kind of game designer judgment of the ability is what is needed.

Yes, and?

There are an array of games, with different power curves and design styles, granted, where starting characters get things other characters don't get until much later in their progression. I don't feel "because someone gets it at first level" is necessary and sufficient for why it couldn't be more powerful than currently envisioned. Agree of course on what "higher level" things could be acceptable will vary with design goals etc. Flatter progression games (systems?) obviously have more wiggle room in this regard than D&D.


As mentioned, I'm fine with racials that are useful at higher levels, whether due to being things that are always useful (like bonus action teleportation) or that scale with level (like a pool of healing dice.) I think most modern racials fall into one of these categories in fact; I can't think of any off the top of my head that become "trivialized once you hit 3rd/5th level" as you claim, though there's certainly a shift where the degree of power coming from your class and feats eclipses what comes from your race more and more, but that's to be expected. The bulk of your power should come from your build choices throughout your career, not a single choice you made at the start of the campaign.

Again, I am approaching things is a less-5e centric fashion, and thinking back to both previous editions and other games. For example, at what level do +1 or +2 skill bonuses become trivialized, particularly in a standard mixed party? And then how much later for a +1 save bonus to become marginalized (never trivialized, I don't think).

I think the question of "how much impact should a choice make as impacted by when the choice is made" is interesting, and is reflected differently across systems. But even within D&D, those character generation choices already seem to carry more weight than most later-made choices. Class is massive, arguably the biggest build choice there is for most characters (all?). Sure, race doesn't evolve like class, but I think it reasonable for race to be a momentous decision as well. Maybe this just argues for more evolution in the traits and racial trait choices down the road too?

- M

[Dr.Samurai]

Hardly universal, and even for stories it does describe it's still so reductive it might as well be wrong.
I was replying specifically to what you said, of course not all stories are about good vs evil.

However I'm surprised that you'd accuse anything of being reductive when you're reducing stories to "good races vs bad races".

How a story chooses to characterize "the evil forces" matters a lot, actually.
Not really, no. I think some people are struggling to divorce their own interests from things that matter more broadly. If it's orcs, it means we can expect aggressive physical enemies, some Eyes of Gruumsh, etc. If it's gnolls, we can expect big hyenas, some Flinds maybe, some demonic forces, etc. So yeah, it will change stuff. But it doesn't matter in the way you've been saying unless those things already matter to you as a person. I don't have the same concerns that you do, so they don't matter to me.

The most common argument I've seen in favour of evil races is that it simplifies the morality of your fantasy action story, no handwringing about "do these enemy combatants deserve death". So yes, I would absolutely say the point of always evil orcs is a dehumanized other that can exist as a target of righteous violence from our heroes.
If this is how you want to frame it it would be true of any villain. As an example, the oft lauded Eberron has a villainous organization called the Emerald Claw that is designed specifically to signal to the players that villainy is afoot, and the point of them is that the players don't have to think about it and can attack them on sight in full confidence that they are doing bad things. They are analogous to a certain group of bad guys from a certain world war. This is word of god on the matter.

You can reduce that to say "the Emerald Claw only exists as a target of righteous violence from our heroes" and I would still shrug my shoulders at the accusation. Lex Luthor only exists to foil Superman. Yeah, okay. Guilty as charged.

My objection to your comment is that I feel like all of the focuses in this conversation are backwards. So it's not that the knights of Cormyr are good because they are brave and noble and defend others. They are "good" because the orcs are ugly and brutish and subhuman. And the reason the orcs are ugly brutish and subhuman is so that the knights of Cormyr can be good. I don't think that's the right way to look at it, and it's why I've struggled to agree with virtually anything I've read on this so far.

Well, I'm sorry you're confused, but fantasy stories exist in parallel to the real world.
Again, I can only shrug my shoulders. You can imagine of course that somewhere there is a game running with orcs being depicted as in Volo's, and the DM does not go out of their way to impose any of the moral quandaries mentioned in this thread, and the game is successful, everyone has fun, and no problems arise in the real world from it. It's happening right now as we type and read. I have faith that orcs can be an evil culture/race in D&D without grave consequences leaping from behind the DM screen into the real world. But then again, I appear to have a much more positive and hopeful view of humanity than others in this thread, so there's that hurdle to overcome as well.


The issue that Fantasy Races usually bring is that they tend to turn Situational and Definitional Enemies into Inherent ones in the name of creating a world of Black and White morality. Rather than creating a situation where our Heroes might justifiably do battle with Orcs, they just say "Yeah, Orcs are inherently evil. Some types of people in this world are just evil by nature and you can wipe them out without guilt". An Orc is a shorthand for "Somebody it's okay to kill", the narrative role of an enemy soldier with the moral certainty of a rabid dog. This is a problem because now you've introduced into your world the following fact:"There's a certain type of person that is just inherently evil and it is morally correct to kill them simply for living". This is something that is UNTRUE in the real world, but which plenty of people throughout history have felt is very true, and you have just created a world where they are objectively correct. Fantasy races tend to be allegorical for different cultural groups, but within the fiction of the universe they are also distinct biological groups. An Orc is born an Orc, a dwarf is born a dwarf.
Sorry BRC, I missed your post earlier. I think your definitions are helpful.

I am just quoting this bit because I think it's the biggest point of contention. As everyone's surmised by this point I'm sure, I don't have any particular qualms about orcs or other creatures being presented as (mostly) inherently evil. I think we've come A LONG way from any association to allegory, and I play D&D regularly throughout the week every week and this type of stuff just has never come up and I suspect never will come up for my games (with one exception actually... an old greyhawk game back on the WotC forums where a player rage quit because we killed a cambion instead of taking them hostage). So one game in decades of playing that I can remember.

Even as mostly inherently evil beings, I don't think I run into many scenarios where we kill orcs on sight without cause. Usually we already know that they're evil and are committing bad acts. Further, elves and dwarves and halflings and gnomes are all presented as mostly good. And we don't question about whether it's inherent or not because we don't really care. They are mostly good and that's great. And the ones that aren't are clearly identifiable and clearly separate.

And despite the fact that dwarves and elves and others are mostly good or neutral, we still know that evil ones exist. Not every shield dwarf is a lawful neutral/good devotee of Moradin. Some may be evil.

That's always been true. It's always been true of orcs as well; not all are evil, some are good. D&D has beholder innkeepers and all sorts of other wacky things. It's always been true that even when it comes to aberrations they aren't always evil. I played Descent into Avernus and on two occasions we ran into a demon that didn't want to engage in violence.

This is all much ado about nothing in my opinion. It matters as much as anyone goes out of their way to make it matter.

[Jophiel]

Why do you think it's better to make the core version of something specific to one setting then include a bunch of "except except except" caveats in every splat, than it is to simply focus on what's actually core in the core version and then expand on it via splat?
Because this way people who aren't buying splats have expanded lore instead of the barebones minimum and because most settings honestly don't change things enough for "except except except" to be a regular and realistic issue.

The intent of the game was that it's playable entirely from the PHB if you wanted, with the MM being obviously helpful, the DMG being pretty optional and everything else being "If you think you're interested". I'm all for giving PHB owners a complete race, not one stripped down to the bare minimum with the expectation that they buy additional settings to get any meat on the bones.

[Psyren]

Respectfully disagree.

Okay.



Yes, and?

There are an array of games, with different power curves and design styles, granted, where starting characters get things other characters don't get until much later in their progression. I don't feel "because someone gets it at first level" is necessary and sufficient for why it couldn't be more powerful than currently envisioned. Agree of course on what "higher level" things could be acceptable will vary with design goals etc. Flatter progression games (systems?) obviously have more wiggle room in this regard than D&D.

I'm not sure where we go from here either then. The current slate of racials in 5e (FToD and later) are fine to me, and seem reasonably consistent in terms of power.


Again, I am approaching things is a less-5e centric fashion, and thinking back to both previous editions and other games. For example, at what level do +1 or +2 skill bonuses become trivialized, particularly in a standard mixed party? And then how much later for a +1 save bonus to become marginalized (never trivialized, I don't think).

That depends on the skill system of the game in general. A 5e race granting an extra proficiency means that proficiency scales throughout the character's entire progression, while a 3.5e race granting a +2 to a skill means that bonus becomes less and less meaningful as the character goes up. You're right that those two are very different, but I would see that as a flaw with the latter approach rather than the former.


I think the question of "how much impact should a choice make as impacted by when the choice is made" is interesting, and is reflected differently across systems. But even within D&D, those character generation choices already seem to carry more weight than most later-made choices. Class is massive, arguably the biggest build choice there is for most characters (all?). Sure, race doesn't evolve like class, but I think it reasonable for race to be a momentous decision as well. Maybe this just argues for more evolution in the traits and racial trait choices down the road too?

- M

You say you're not talking about the current edition of D&D but then you throw out conclusions like "arguing for more evolution in racial traits." Yeah, they agree with you, which is why they changed how those kinds of bonuses work in the current game. I know you said you haven't played it, but maybe give it a try then? It's hard to discuss "evolution" if you're stuck on outdated content.


Because this way people who aren't buying splats have expanded lore instead of the barebones minimum and because most settings honestly don't change things enough for "except except except" to be a regular and realistic issue.

"If you want setting lore, buy setting splats" is also a reasonable expectation. Especially since there's plenty of setting lore available completely for free too.


The intent of the game was that it's playable entirely from the PHB if you wanted, with the MM being obviously helpful, the DMG being pretty optional and everything else being "If you think you're interested". I'm all for giving PHB owners a complete race, not one stripped down to the bare minimum with the expectation that they buy additional settings to get any meat on the bones.

The game is playable entirely with Basic, never mind the PHB, so that intent has been achieved. You can legally play a 1-20 campaign without spending a dime.

[Jophiel]

"If you want setting lore, buy setting splats" is also a reasonable expectation. Especially since there's plenty of setting lore available completely for free too.
I happen to think it's inferior to providing a complete race in the book and the supposed downsides to having a complete race in the book strike me as non-issues. YMMV and all that.

[Metastachydium]

3) They don't (repeated for emphasis). Higher level species could have been included. Their omission is a choice by WotC rather than a restriction on what WotC could have done. They have done it before (3E). This is one area where Psyren with insist on the status quo while I will critique WotC's unforced omission.
4) They do. WotC made a decision to have the power curve of PCs be an irregular mess. They wanted big irregular spikes at 5th, 11th, 17th and that makes everything, including higher level species, harder to design around. Multiclassing runs into friction around those levels. A higher level species is like multiclassing into a monster class (Troll 3 / Cleric 2 as a 5th level character).

Yup. Have I mentioned that the Midgard Dwarf discussed to death earlier is perfectly competitive with an Artificer (a strong, but annoying to use class in 3.5) of the same ECL?


Again, I am approaching things is a less-5e centric fashion, and thinking back to both previous editions and other games. For example, at what level do +1 or +2 skill bonuses become trivialized, particularly in a standard mixed party? And then how much later for a +1 save bonus to become marginalized (never trivialized, I don't think).

That depends on the skill system of the game in general. A 5e race granting an extra proficiency means that proficiency scales throughout the character's entire progression, while a 3.5e race granting a +2 to a skill means that bonus becomes less and less meaningful as the character goes up.

Interestingly enough, that's not actually true. It depends on the skill and build in question. 3.5 skill modifiers go higher than 5e "special purpose ability check" modifiers because while 5e ones might sometimes scale better on their own and automatically, 3.5 has an impossible amount of ways to add just another +1-to-Big Number to skill checks – racial bonuses being a source that stacks with all other bonuses.

[OldTrees1]

My hope would be for *all* the races to have ballpark-balanced power to their racial traits. No character level adjustment muck, all intended for play from the start, but either with something that under current paradigms would be OP for starting characters (but would be the norm in a system designed to accommodate) or evolves to remain valuable at 10th level too. That does mean no "full monster version" Troll as a player character, perhaps...but doesn't mean an evolving DR trait couldn't be included.

- M

When I play a "monster" interesting higher level species, I don't want the "pale imitation" version of the interesting species. (Especially since that usually means removing the interesting bits).

So I want a system that can balance characters with an imbalance between the power each gets from their species. This would involve the PC with the stronger species paying for that strength with other character build resources (feats, levels*, ...).
* Monster classes seem to work better than Racial Hit Dice (RHD) which worked better than Level Adjustment (LA). It also means you can utilize the level by level multiclassing rules if they are functional enough.

Ideally this would be designed so each character could start from 1st level together.

I think this would be compatible with what you want. Most species would be roughly comparable and thus use the main system.

[Mordar]

You say you're not talking about the current edition of D&D but then you throw out conclusions like "arguing for more evolution in racial traits." Yeah, they agree with you, which is why they changed how those kinds of bonuses work in the current game. I know you said you haven't played it, but maybe give it a try then? It's hard to discuss "evolution" if you're stuck on outdated content.

Sorry, I used evolution as a replacement for "scales up as the character levels". Which, as you pointed out, you endorse and already happens in some segments of 5e.


When I play a "monster" interesting higher level species, I don't want the "pale imitation" version of the interesting species. (Especially since that usually means removing the interesting bits).

So I want a system that can balance characters with an imbalance between the power each gets from their species. This would involve the PC with the stronger species paying for that strength with other character build resources (feats, levels*, ...).
* Monster classes seem to work better than Racial Hit Dice (RHD) which worked better than Level Adjustment (LA). It also means you can utilize the level by level multiclassing rules if they are functional enough.

Ideally this would be designed so each character could start from 1st level together.

Yes, that makes sense. Troll, not trollkin. What kind of offsets lets your Troll play with my Dwarf? Has to be more than just deferred advancement, right? Like you said with LA, Savage Species, IIRC, really kind of needed starting level for the party to be 4 or 5 before most of the monsters were available, and I think we'd need Character Level 6 for the Troll/Dwarf combo to play in 3x. So a level development table specific to Trolls? Mandatory feat selections? Things like that?

- M

[Witty Username]

Because expecting material from books labeled as core to the game actually be core to the game is reasonable? WotC themselves set that expectation, so following through on it makes more sense than the reverse.

It does have consequences though. Like why does every setting need 3 kinds of elves and one of those elves is 'Dark Elves' which are universally reviled with one exception?
(Check your PHB, its in there)

Now you could say that such shouldn't be core, but that could apply to all sorts of things we have personal frustration with.

And we are talking about Homogeneity, not just product quality. Everything needing the same species, classes, gods and monsters does contribute to that.

And every setting book has caviots to ensure this,
Just want to ignore Eberron's planar cosmology, here's how.
Remember that you actually want to play Spelljammer, just have the ork warboss crash on Dragonlance, it will be fine and be the same experience.
Except Ravnica, that one has no such sidebars or sections, which given mtg is actually kinda weird all things considered.

[Errorname]

My objection to your comment is that I feel like all of the focuses in this conversation are backwards. So it's not that the knights of Cormyr are good because they are brave and noble and defend others. They are "good" because the orcs are ugly and brutish and subhuman. And the reason the orcs are ugly brutish and subhuman is so that the knights of Cormyr can be good. I don't think that's the right way to look at it, and it's why I've struggled to agree with virtually anything I've read on this so far.

The presence of brave and noble defenders of 'civilization' from the barbarous other is a necessary part of this whole equation, it's present in all the real dehumanizing narratives that make the fantasy version so unpalatable to me.


Yes, that makes sense. Troll, not trollkin. What kind of offsets lets your Troll play with my Dwarf? Has to be more than just deferred advancement, right?

Large size has it's own potential drawbacks that can be implemented. If your Dwarf only takes up a 1x1 square while my Troll needs 2x2 squares, that extra size means passages that the Dwarf can easily navigate become impassable for the Troll. Depending on how you design your game that could be really punishing, from what I've heard the 2x2 units in the new Rogue Trader CRPG are pretty underwhelming because of gear and movement restrictions.

[Psyren]

It does have conequenes though. Like why does every setting need 3 kinds of elves and one of those elves is 'Dark Elves' which are universally reviled with one exception?
(Check your PHB, its in there)

...That's literally what I'm taking issue with? Thanks?

"X playable race is universally reviled," to the extent such a thing should even exist in the printed game at all, should be highly setting-specific (and preferably contextualized by a specific timeframe or period in that setting.)


Now you could say that such shouldn't be core, but that could apply to all sorts of things we have personal frustration with.

Yes, and? There are indeed a bunch of things I think should and shouldn't be in core, but race is the subject of the thread (dwarves specifically, and the design principles in their orbit.)


I happen to think it's inferior to providing a complete race in the book and the supposed downsides to having a complete race in the book strike me as non-issues. YMMV and all that.

Our diverging definitions of "complete race" appear to be the issue then.



Interestingly enough, that's not actually true. It depends on the skill and build in question. 3.5 skill modifiers go higher than 5e "special purpose ability check" modifiers because while 5e ones might sometimes scale better on their own and automatically, 3.5 has an impossible amount of ways to add just another +1-to-Big Number to skill checks – racial bonuses being a source that stacks with all other bonuses.

The racial bonuses themselves tend to be a tiny component of that Jenga tower of bonuses from the other sources though - +1 to +2 in most cases. That's all I was saying.


Sorry, I used evolution as a replacement for "scales up as the character levels". Which, as you pointed out, you endorse and already happens in some segments of 5e.

- M

Ah - then yes. And even the stuff that doesn't scale tends to be useful at multiple levels, such as being able to Hide / Disengage as a bonus action, or having extra base reach and speed.

[Dr.Samurai]

The presence of brave and noble defenders of 'civilization' from the barbarous other is a necessary part of this whole equation, it's present in all the real dehumanizing narratives that make the fantasy version so unpalatable to me.
So to understand you clearly, wouldn't you object to any enemies being depicted as barbarous? It seems to me that you don't think anyone is "barbarous" and that depictions of that nature are somehow unjust and shouldn't be done. Is that correct? It seems to go beyond "an entire race is being depicted this way" and more like "no one is really like this, so these depictions are inappropriate on their face".

If I am understanding you correctly... I definitely disagree.

[JusticeZero]

Personally, I go to great effort to make sure that the enemies I populate my world with are morally black and white. I don't typically have people fighting bandits, or even enemy soldiers. It has happened a few times. However, a list of things that I can remember them fighting include:
* Expansionist hive mind animated fungi
* Soul trapped conscripts who they watched die instantly when they tried to surrender or flee — I wanted them upset at the controller and sickened at the need to fight
* Demon analogues who took the time to thank them when killed and thus desummoned back to their home plane
* Summoned enraged beasts
* Literal pieces of the ground rising up against them
* Sentient disease clouds known for possessing the bodies of those they killed, and which they've yet to permanently destroy any of
* Peasants in a place where they literally can't be killed permanently in any way that matters (Regeneration 3 and respawn at HP negative max as a planar property)
* A rogue construct left over in an abandoned facility

I just... I see too much hate already, I don't want to put it in my games. I don't have racism in my game world. I don't see it as necessary, and people who claim it is seem to be suffering from a failure of imagination, and possibly a suspicious desire for such things.

[Errorname]

So to understand you clearly, wouldn't you object to any enemies being depicted as barbarous? It seems to me that you don't think anyone is "barbarous" and that depictions of that nature are somehow unjust and shouldn't be done. Is that correct? It seems to go beyond "an entire race is being depicted this way" and more like "no one is really like this, so these depictions are inappropriate on their face".

I have no illusions about any innate goodness of humanity, people can be brutal and vicious on a truly staggering scale. But the thing is that "this entire race of people are evil savages who are an existential threat to our civilization so we have to kill them" is historically the sort of lie that gets broken out to in order to justify horrific atrocities. So yes, the fact that it is specifically an entire race being depicted that way is a major part of it, it's replicating the exact sort of narrative that gets used to justify actual crimes against humanity except in a story that accepts that framing as completely accurate.

[Dr.Samurai]

I have no illusions about any innate goodness of humanity, people can be brutal and vicious on a truly staggering scale. But the thing is that "this entire race of people are evil savages who are an existential threat to our civilization so we have to kill them" is historically the sort of lie that gets broken out to in order to justify horrific atrocities. So yes, the fact that it is specifically an entire race being depicted that way is a major part of it, it's replicating the exact sort of narrative that gets used to justify actual crimes against humanity except in a story that accepts that framing as completely accurate.
I think the devil is in the details here and saying that it's the "exact sort of narrative" and "completely accurate" is really just glossing over all of the fantasy elements to try and create a 1 to 1 parallel to the real world. There are enough differences, and I'm far removed from any moment in time when this was done, that focusing on it doesn't make sense to me.

Also, every time I speak of this, it's reactive, and every time you speak of it, it's proactive, so that's another point of contention we're not really addressing. You are framing this as "the good guys have given themselves a reason to go out and hunt these people in cold blood", where my framing is more like "these creatures have come to kill and pillage, so the good guys have to rally against them and fend them off".

Anyways, I think we're clearly at an impasse so, thanks for the conversation :smallsmile:.

On the topic of dwarves, but still not exactly on topic, I wouldn't mind seeing an expansion of racial traits at various levels, so it's not just at level 1 where you gain racial features. Maybe a group of racial feats for each race, and you get a free racial feat at level 5 or something like that. Though I know WotC currently subscribes to the "less is more" school of publishing, so this is just a pipe dream.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, that makes sense. Troll, not trollkin. What kind of offsets lets your Troll play with my Dwarf? Has to be more than just deferred advancement, right? Like you said with LA, Savage Species, IIRC, really kind of needed starting level for the party to be 4 or 5 before most of the monsters were available, and I think we'd need Character Level 6 for the Troll/Dwarf combo to play in 3x. So a level development table specific to Trolls? Mandatory feat selections? Things like that?

- M

Yes level development tables (Savage Species is my favorite book), mandatory feat selections, or something like that.

This forum had a homebrew project to refine the monster classes (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?142724-3-5-Improved-monster-classes-adapting-creatures-for-player-use-taking-requests!) from Savage Species. I am currently running a 3x campaign where one of the PCs is a Green Dragon from there. It also had a Troll 5 / Crusader 1 NPC in the same NPC party as an Orc Sorcerer 6. That level development table was sufficient for starting the characters at 1st level in 3E.

For 5E I think some species could be handled with a mandatory feat. We have one 5E example in a UA that let Dragonborn get their Wings through a feat. For other species I think a 1-5 level class would make sense.

Using 5E and Troll as an example:
Troll might have Regen per round, Large size, Increased Str/Con, Natural armor (probably treated as a replacement AC), and Keen senses.
Base: Regen 1hp per -long time- (time shrinks with prof bonus), Powerful Build, Natural Armor (AC=10+Dex+Con).
Scent could be a feat. Increasing the regen to 1/round would probably cost levels. Same goes for the size increase. Maybe a 5 level class. They would get scent at 2nd, and grow to large at 5th. The other levels would reduce the cooldown on the Regen.

With that rough sketch of 5E Troll, I would expect the player to alternate levels during 1-10 and then continue with their classes from 11-20. This means their large size would be around 9th-10th level. Alternatively they might just level up to Troll 5 and then take a class.

[Psyren]

Personally, I go to great effort to make sure that the enemies I populate my world with are morally black and white. I don't typically have people fighting bandits, or even enemy soldiers. It has happened a few times. However, a list of things that I can remember them fighting include:
* Expansionist hive mind animated fungi
* Soul trapped conscripts who they watched die instantly when they tried to surrender or flee — I wanted them upset at the controller and sickened at the need to fight
* Demon analogues who took the time to thank them when killed and thus desummoned back to their home plane
* Summoned enraged beasts
* Literal pieces of the ground rising up against them
* Sentient disease clouds known for possessing the bodies of those they killed, and which they've yet to permanently destroy any of
* Peasants in a place where they literally can't be killed permanently in any way that matters (Regeneration 3 and respawn at HP negative max as a planar property)
* A rogue construct left over in an abandoned facility

I just... I see too much hate already, I don't want to put it in my games. I don't have racism in my game world. I don't see it as necessary, and people who claim it is seem to be suffering from a failure of imagination, and possibly a suspicious desire for such things.

For the record, I'm fine with enemy bandits and soldiers. Banditry and soldiering are things you do, not things you are.

Where I'm going to raise my eyebrows is if all your evil bandits just happen to be orcs, with nary a single evil dwarf etc in sight.


On the topic of dwarves, but still not exactly on topic, I wouldn't mind seeing an expansion of racial traits at various levels, so it's not just at level 1 where you gain racial features. Maybe a group of racial feats for each race, and you get a free racial feat at level 5 or something like that. Though I know WotC currently subscribes to the "less is more" school of publishing, so this is just a pipe dream.

They do have this sort of thing currently though:

1) As noted, there are some racials that "turn on" (or upgrade) at higher levels. Aasimar get their Celestial Revelation feature at 3rd for instance, and Eladrin unlock the additional effect of their Fey Step at 3rd as well. Similarly, the new Dragonborn will gain the ability to sprout wings at 5th level.

2) If they do go the feats route - the racial feats we've gotten so far (e.g. Elven Accuracy, Dragon Fear etc) have been half-feats, and that was before the feat power creep we've seen recently. While that's not the same as them being free, you can fit them into builds pretty easily. I have little doubt we'll get more of them, especially with core getting newcomers like Goliaths, but that may be after the PHB.

[137beth]

Personally, I go to great effort to make sure that the enemies I populate my world with are morally black and white. I don't typically have people fighting bandits, or even enemy soldiers. It has happened a few times. However, a list of things that I can remember them fighting include:
* Expansionist hive mind animated fungi
* Soul trapped conscripts who they watched die instantly when they tried to surrender or flee — I wanted them upset at the controller and sickened at the need to fight
* Demon analogues who took the time to thank them when killed and thus desummoned back to their home plane
* Summoned enraged beasts
* Literal pieces of the ground rising up against them
* Sentient disease clouds known for possessing the bodies of those they killed, and which they've yet to permanently destroy any of
* Peasants in a place where they literally can't be killed permanently in any way that matters (Regeneration 3 and respawn at HP negative max as a planar property)
* A rogue construct left over in an abandoned facility

I just... I see too much hate already, I don't want to put it in my games. I don't have racism in my game world.

Permission to put this in my extended sig?

I'll also just zero in on one line to say

* Soul trapped conscripts who they watched die instantly when they tried to surrender or flee — I wanted them upset at the controller and sickened at the need to fight
If I were a player in your game I'd probably react the way you intend. The most baffling part of this whole argument to me is when people see the situation you describe: innocent people being mind-controlled into fighting the players, and insist it somehow enables guilt-free killing of the victims of mind-control.

[JusticeZero]

saying that it's the "exact sort of narrative" and "completely accurate" is really just glossing over all of the fantasy elements to try and create a 1 to 1 parallel to the real world. There are enough differences, and I'm far removed from any moment in time when this was done, that focusing on it doesn't make sense to me.
...
You are framing this as "the good guys have given themselves a reason to go out and hunt these people in cold blood", where my framing is more like "these creatures have come to kill and pillage, so the good guys have to rally against them and fend them off"..
Part of the issue is that not everyone at a given table has the luxury of separation that you have. I personally have to deal with trauma from just such a historical thing — regular counseling appointments are a thing for me — and for a while there it was a trend to make the "always evil" enemies look a bit like parts of my family album; I don't want to have to deal with it in my entertainment and so I don't, but I regularly see people defending the necessity of replicating that stuff in various forms.
So in my games, I don't just mindlessly replicate the bad old days, I don't have fantasy racism and I don't have evil sentient races of individuals.
And part of that is that everything has to justify its inclusion — because if I'm having to redact content, I might as well do a full spring cleaning — including stuff like, among other things we haven't actually mentioned in a while, dwarves.

[JusticeZero]

Permission to put this in my extended sig?
I'm not sure if there's a specific part you were looking at, but quote as you will.
The soul trapped conscripts really slam dunked that villain through the moral event horizon, as was intended for someone trying to become a god in the setting.

[Mordar]

I'll also just zero in on one line to say

If I were a player in your game I'd probably react the way you intend. The most baffling part of this whole argument to me is when people see the situation you describe: innocent people being mind-controlled into fighting the players, and insist it somehow enables guilt-free killing of the victims of mind-control.

Way way off topic now, but...assuming the mind-controlled have any degree of efficacy and reasonable options (level of "reasonable" depends very much on how likely they are to make you dead before you can try other options), it should absolutely enable guilt-free defense up to and including death.

Guilt-free doesn't mean you don't feel horrible about the situation though. Grief /= guilt.

Radical topic change.

Q: Why aren't dwarves rampaging, marauding raiders? Is it really that every other race can just calmly walk away from them and they never catch up?

- M

[JusticeZero]

it should absolutely enable guilt-free defense up to and including death.

Guilt-free doesn't mean you don't feel horrible about the situation though. Grief /= guilt.
Just to clarify the situation — the conscripts weren't even mind controlled. They were ordered to kill the party despite being absurdly under level for the task and not having any apparent reason to hate them, then every conscript who objected or tried to run immediately got the graphic headasplode treatment. The party felt like they had just failed by winning, but they had to go through them to get to the ritual site, and it was too late to try to avoid the encounter.
They still feel bad about it, and were very disturbed to learn that the way the world works rewarded them with a mythic level, thus highlighting something about how that setting was set up... Which is another important piece of information to deal with.

[Dr.Samurai]

The most baffling part of this whole argument to me is when people see the situation you describe: innocent people being mind-controlled into fighting the players, and insist it somehow enables guilt-free killing of the victims of mind-control.
I don't think this argument has even delved into mind controlled people until right now, so not sure what you're referring to.

But that said... do you mean to say "guilt" here? Because yeah, I would not feel guilty. I keep saying this but it bears repeating, the way people are speaking in this thread seems like the only way to be "good" is to lay down your arms and allow yourself to be annihilated. I consider that an immoral act. And to go back to my discussion with Lord Raziere, where "escaping" the evil is assumed to be moral, consider that if you are able to deal with an existential crisis and choose instead to run, you may be leaving that existential threat to annihilate others that are more helpless than you are. All in some attempt to remain "pure". Similarly, feeling guilty means you think you did something wrong, and all you did was defend your own life. Eventually we're going to start asking if your own life has value, and to what end should you be morally allowed to defend it, etc.

I mention this just to highlight that it's a mistake to consider any of these things as morally superior.

Part of the issue is that not everyone at a given table has the luxury of separation that you have. I personally have to deal with trauma from just such a historical thing — regular counseling appointments are a thing for me — and for a while there it was a trend to make the "always evil" enemies look a bit like parts of my family album; I don't want to have to deal with it in my entertainment and so I don't...
You should definitely do whatever is appropriate for your table.

but I regularly see people defending the necessity of replicating that stuff in various forms.
I don't know precisely what "stuff" you're referring to, but none of this is necessary, even the game itself. However I find it interesting and fun, and if someone is going to say that it's wrong and shouldn't be in the game, I'll certainly chime in with my two cents on that.

So in my games, I don't just mindlessly replicate the bad old days, I don't have fantasy racism and I don't have evil sentient races of individuals.
And part of that is that everything has to justify its inclusion — because if I'm having to redact content, I might as well do a full spring cleaning — including stuff like, among other things we haven't actually mentioned in a while, dwarves.
Makes sense. I find evil sentient creatures far more interesting than the list you gave earlier.

Way way off topic now, but...assuming the mind-controlled have any degree of efficacy and reasonable options (level of "reasonable" depends very much on how likely they are to make you dead before you can try other options), it should absolutely enable guilt-free defense up to and including death.

Guilt-free doesn't mean you don't feel horrible about the situation though. Grief /= guilt.
Agreed.

And I'll highlight again that for some reason the grief over killing the enemies somehow trumps the grief over the pain caused by the enemies, or that would have been caused by the enemies, to the point where the heroes feel guilty over doing it. It begs the question, were these creatures doing anything wrong, or should the heroes allowed them to live and carry on with their actions?

Radical topic change.

Q: Why aren't dwarves rampaging, marauding raiders? Is it really that every other race can just calmly walk away from them and they never catch up?

- M
Depends on the setting. On Middle Earth, dwarves are natural sprinters; very dangerous over short distances :smallamused:.

[Mordar]

Depends on the setting. On Middle Earth, dwarves are natural sprinters; very dangerous over short distances :smallamused:.

In this thread, of all places, you bring THAT up? No greater harm to dwarfkind than the decision by dwarfhaters to render Gimli, Son of Gloin, the true hero of the saga, a punchline so the pretty boys can look heroic has ever been visited on dwarves than this...at least by humankind I think you might be looking for trouble.

- M

[Errorname]

Where I'm going to raise my eyebrows is if all your evil bandits just happen to be orcs, with nary a single evil dwarf etc in sight.

Yep. I feel like we've been pretty clear that the issue isn't really the presence of characters who do evil, but rather turning that evil behaviour into a racial characteristic. That more than anything is the problematic element.


But that said... do you mean to say "guilt" here? Because yeah, I would not feel guilty.

A better word is probably pity or sympathy, but guilt doesn't seem inappropriate to me. You can take an action that you know is ultimately correct and necessary and still feel guilty about it.


I keep saying this but it bears repeating, the way people are speaking in this thread seems like the only way to be "good" is to lay down your arms and allow yourself to be annihilated.

To be clear I do not think this and have not claimed this.


Why aren't dwarves rampaging, marauding raiders? Is it really that every other race can just calmly walk away from them and they never catch up?

I'd say because that sort of thing is typically left the purview of Orcs and other monsters, but Elf raiders aren't that uncommon. I think it's because Dwarves tend to be played as very sedentary, they live in their mountains and won't come out unless something forces their hand. Raiders need to cover a lot of ground very quickly, it's difficult to imagine Dwarves who don't run very fast, generally aren't depicted as cavaliers and tend to have the naval prowess you'd expect from an extremely landlocked kingdom making effective raiders, whereas Elves can be translated into a nomadic culture very easily.

[Mordar]

I'd say because that sort of thing is typically left the purview of Orcs and other monsters, but Elf raiders aren't that uncommon. I think it's because Dwarves tend to be played as very sedentary, they live in their mountains and won't come out unless something forces their hand. Raiders need to cover a lot of ground very quickly, it's difficult to imagine Dwarves who don't run very fast, generally aren't depicted as cavaliers and tend to have the naval prowess you'd expect from an extremely landlocked kingdom making effective raiders, whereas Elves can be translated into a nomadic culture very easily.

Also because they walk so slowly that everyone runs away...so when the dwarves pick up all the stuff left behind, they aren't raiding or marauding...they're just performing eco-friendly janitorial duties.

Less jokingly, I don't think sedentary is a good adjective. Dwarves are active and generally very physical. I suspect you meant something more like...ponderous? Deliberate? Measured?

I once knew an exceptionally fast dwarf. It only took him an hour to watch "60 Minutes".

- M

[137beth]

I'm not sure if there's a specific part you were looking at, but quote as you will.
The soul trapped conscripts really slam dunked that villain through the moral event horizon, as was intended for someone trying to become a god in the setting.
Thanks!


Way way off topic now, but...assuming the mind-controlled have any degree of efficacy and reasonable options (level of "reasonable" depends very much on how likely they are to make you dead before you can try other options), it should absolutely enable guilt-free defense up to and including death.

Guilt-free doesn't mean you don't feel horrible about the situation though. Grief /= guilt.

Radical topic change.

Q: Why aren't dwarves rampaging, marauding raiders? Is it really that every other race can just calmly walk away from them and they never catch up?

- M

You quoted me, but your post says the quote is originally from OldTrees1. I don't have a response to the substance of your post, I'm just pointing out an editing error.


I don't think this argument has even delved into mind controlled people until right now, so not sure what you're referring to.


Here's just one of many examples from this thread, arguing that "evil races" make sense because they are mind-controlled by evil gods

I don't know about people committed to it because "It says so in the Monster Manual" but I think it's pretty logical that the Deity of Peace, Love & Understanding is going to imbue their people with free will (including the potential to do evil) whereas the Deity of Blood, Slavery & Pain is going to keep their thumb on the scales to oppress their mortal creations. Enough free will to be self-sufficient and have a spark of creativity but not so much (except for the rare individual) that they decide en masse that blood, slavery & pain ain't the yoke they want to be under. Why on earth would an evil deity decide that their creations need a fair shake and display an respectful philosophy regarding self-determination?

"Hey, I'm really into tyranny, slavery, murder and torture but I think it's super important that you find your own way there..."

[Errorname]

Less jokingly, I don't think sedentary is a good adjective. Dwarves are active and generally very physical. I suspect you meant something more like...ponderous? Deliberate? Measured?

In this context sedentary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedentism) is correct, unless you're proposing that Dwarves are actually a nomadic culture.

[Mordar]

In this context sedentary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedentism) is correct, unless you're proposing that Dwarves are actually a nomadic culture.

Ah, a new application...my background heavily biases me towards the "inactive" denotation and makes me think only of the individual. Knowledge expanded!

- M

[Lord Raziere]

@ Dr. Samurai:
when your two main points are "I want evil races I can kill without guilt!" and "I hate redemption stories/sympathetic enemies" its hard to conclude anything OTHER than genocide being the solution being advocated for.

One tells me you don't care about making exceptions and find sparing the civilians of an enemy stronghold bothersome at best, the other tells me you find giving anyone a chance to change their ways too much of a distraction from you being the morally clean one. Combine them and I don't see a heroism or good person being what is advocated for. The sentiments combined may not outright state it, but they do imply it enough that its not a hard conclusion to draw. You say you want a species of people to kill then you want deny any of them the chance of not being evil, that doesn't leave a lot of options to go from there as to solving the problem.

And its a very weird hill to die upon, defending some moral sanctity of....what? some bizarre expanded definition of self-defense that looks lot like rambo going on a rampage? the right to not care about the consequences of winning? I have only talked about or advocated for redeeming any creature ONCE in this thread and that was a side point to my main point of Even If Your Morally Right To Genocide This P-Zombie Super Evil Race, You Still Have To Deal With Humans Taking The Wrong Lessons From That Afterwards Even If It Was Right To Do At The Time.

not because self defense is evil or anything, it isn't, but life goes on after the self-defense is done. If you hurt people, lash out after that self-defense is done because of the trauma you got FROM defending yourself, that is a bad thing! It sucks that something you had to do to survive can influence you to hurt others later, but thats the reality, its not inherently a moral judgment, could be something out of your control and you have to just learn to reign it in, to control it as best you can. Thats just, a plausible story one could have about a veteran of the war against the Evilinians. A child growing up to a teenager bullying someone else because the displace the trauma of losing one of their parents being killed by Evilinians onto someone else and inflicting more harm because they were harmed themselves, is a plausible story. A politician engineering it to look like the Evilinians have returned so they can get into power by deceiving everyone by using the dead Evilinians as plausible scapegoat Because They Really Were That Evil and no is shedding tears about them and becoming an evil tyrant is a plausible story! None of this is grey morality inherently, the bully is just wrong, the tyrant is evil, the traumatized vet shouldn't be hurting people, its that two of these problems can't be solved by killing things. It could be considered grey morality from a certain point of view, but then both kinds of thinking are just points of view.

and the whole "imposing realness" thing just makes me think....um okay? sorry this reality is not to your liking, but this is the only one we know of. Thus the only reality any creative person can draw upon to make anything. Thus the source of any problem, and any thing is drawn from somewhere, by its very nature. This relationship art and entertainment has with reality is inextricable, you can't have DnD without all the things that inspired it, all the things that contributed to it, thats just true for all media. I can't make up a thing that is basically a pen and not claim it has nothing to do with pens in our real world, its clearly a freaking pen and is pen-coded because it works like a pen no matter how much I try to claim its not a pen, it serves the same function. Whether or not I think its a pen explicitly doesn't matter when everyone can clearly see how pen-shaped it is and thus concludes its a pen and thus treats it like a pen. If I want people to not call that thing a pen, I have to do more work to convince people it doesn't work like one, otherwise a pen is just a pen, rose by any other name and all that. And its hard to come up with something that people won't just call a pen, intention doesn't matter, it works like pen therefore pen. and they're right to call it a pen, because clearly it is no matter what fantasy dressing up is made of the pen, nothing is original under the sun, all works are built on what came before them, their ideas, what they teach, how they express their ideas and such and so on. The idea of pen, and thus the idea of fantasy pen doesn't come from the void, it taken from somewhere and remixed.
This is not a moral issue to me, this is simply How It Works. How it has proven to work with numerous works and genres existing because they were inspired by someone and made something like what they were inspired by.

You, Dr. Samurai, seem really really opposed to examining any of this. On a forum of low stakes arguments that won't affect anything. WotC will never look at us and take any of our ideas in the specific. I will never get the chance to make a DnD the way I want. You just seem to want a hollywood plot: good guys defend, bad guys dead, no complexity or consequences, roll credits. Not mcuh to say about that. You seem to devote an awful lot of thought to something that doesn't require much. I have not once said what you want is wrong or bad, or anything. I explored hypotheticals involving black and white morality, but I consider them apt demonstrations on why I don't do such morality, they lack the nuance to assess reasonable responses, what one's actual resources are and so on and so forth, as it prioritizes principles you may not be able to live up to over what you can actually do.

(and again, to all the people saying Black and White morality can have nuance, that doesn't convince me the ways of thinking are distinct enough to MATTER, because again, how many exceptions do you make before the shades start showing? how many good, considerate things does a Grey character do before they're just a saint without calling them that? it makes me think the whole thing is silly and matter of how you label this or that rather than what actual good is done, and thus not particularly useful)

I have in fact, consistently conceded the one thing your claim your arguing FOR: the existence of evil creatures and the saving of the day from them. That is NOT what is being examined or talked about by me! I'm talking about What Happens After! I'm examining it in a context of history that I find interesting and want to talk about and you don't, a context that other people seem to find interesting and agree with. If you don't want to examine it....okay. But we can't do that if your busy going "No I don't want that!" because thats all your point is. You don't want it. Okay. I have nothing to say to that. What can I say? That these things alternatively just don't happen? Restate stock "But in Your Campaign..." script? I don't think I need to. I think your a fellow person who knows how roleplaying games work and doesn't need "of course whatever you want for your table" to be explained to them. I've conceded the point your arguing for in this thread and literally examining everything else the aftermath, yet you still disagree with me for what......

not handling a purely chaotic evil race the way you want me to? what will take for this to be a discussion where it seems your not hurt? I feel like I can't help you because you just want to deny and not have any of what I'm interested in at every turn. I keep explaining and clarifying my position, but it doesn't seem to help and your acting as if this is the first time we're talking when its not. Like.....why did I bother conceding the existence of chaotic evil races which I have been explicitly doing in my points here, when even my treatment of them, which has explicitly not been redeeming or saving them in any way, is still treated as this thing you want to speak out against? Like the whole examination of the consequences of defending people from Evilinians has nothing to do with you who explicitly doesn't want to view the aftermath. I'mma be honest, I don't think I'll ever satisfy you, nor do I ever think I will ever want to satisfy you, my restaurant is just not serving the food you want, sorry thats what I cook here at Lonely Ol' Raziere's, this ol dingy rundown diner, perhaps try seemingly far more popular restaurant over there that agrees with you? And its fine if I can't satisfy you! I was just exploring a hypothetical and the consequences of that hypothetical, perhaps making a point about what this do to people from the context I'm interested in, but MAN is it annoying to explain to you that I'm not catering to you, that it wasn't meant for Your Elfgames, nor does anything we discuss here impact Your Elfgames, and that people being interested in other things than what your interested in exploring will NEVER impact Your Elfgames, and that What You Want, Dr. Samurai is IMMATERIAL to what I'm talking about, other than Stock Regurgitation of "Well, all campaigns are different, do whatever you want at your table!" cause thats all I have to say to you constantly wanting DnD The Action Movie regardless of what I'm talking about, because I. Can't. Do Anything. About. What. You. Want. Or the times we live in, or how other people have hurt you, or what I believe and am interested in, or anything like that!

Thats all I can really say on the matter.

[OldTrees1]

In this context sedentary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedentism) is correct, unless you're proposing that Dwarves are actually a nomadic culture.

I don't know about Dwarves, but now I am picturing a nomadic society that mines tunnels through the earth. Every so often they surface to trade, and then they continue their tunnel.




Q: Why aren't dwarves rampaging, marauding raiders? Is it really that every other race can just calmly walk away from them and they never catch up?

- M

Rampaging, probably not.
Marauding, yes on occasion.
Raiders, in some settings, but usually not.

I see dwarven aggression as more likely to be invading to secure mineral rights. I expect them to use bunkers and literal undermining of fortifications. A bit like Kobolds in that regard.

[Dr.Samurai]

In this thread, of all places, you bring THAT up? No greater harm to dwarfkind than the decision by dwarfhaters to render Gimli, Son of Gloin, the true hero of the saga, a punchline so the pretty boys can look heroic has ever been visited on dwarves than this...at least by humankind I think you might be looking for trouble.

- M
I know, I know. Forgive me!

A better word is probably pity or sympathy, but guilt doesn't seem inappropriate to me. You can take an action that you know is ultimately correct and necessary and still feel guilty about it.
Sure, but I wouldn't assume that anyone would or should, and so doing this specifically to invoke the feeling as a DM seems off.

@ Dr. Samurai:
when your two main points are "I want evil races I can kill without guilt!" and "I hate redemption stories/sympathetic enemies" its hard to conclude anything OTHER than genocide being the solution being advocated for.
No, I don't think it's that hard. I think you and others are hyper-fixated on "logical" consequences to doing things other than the worldview you espouse, and so "genocide" is what quickly comes to mind.

For the record, I like orcs, and I like the lore, and I like playing half-orc characters. It's less that I want evil races to kill without guilt, and more that I object to the reasons given to remove the lore. Similarly, I have stated repeatedly that sympathetic villains can be fun and interesting and I like them. But when you're being mocked for liking straight evil villains, the language changes in kind.

One tells me you don't care about making exceptions and find sparing the civilians of an enemy stronghold bothersome at best, the other tells me you find giving anyone a chance to change their ways too much of a distraction from you being the morally clean one. Combine them and I don't see a heroism or good person being what is advocated for. The sentiments combined may not outright state it, but they do imply it enough that its not a hard conclusion to draw. You say you want a species of people to kill then you want deny any of them the chance of not being evil, that doesn't leave a lot of options to go from there as to solving the problem.
I mean... not much to say if this is how you're interpreting what I've been saying.

I don't see heroism in anything you've explained either. I see abdication of responsibility, cowardice, self-destructive sympathy, etc. But nothing that looks remotely like heroism.

not because self defense is evil or anything, it isn't, but life goes on after the self-defense is done. If you hurt people, lash out after that self-defense is done because of the trauma you got FROM defending yourself, that is a bad thing! It sucks that something you had to do to survive can influence you to hurt others later, but thats the reality, its not inherently a moral judgment, could be something out of your control and you have to just learn to reign it in, to control it as best you can. Thats just, a plausible story one could have about a veteran of the war against the Evilinians. A child growing up to a teenager bullying someone else because the displace the trauma of losing one of their parents being killed by Evilinians onto someone else and inflicting more harm because they were harmed themselves, is a plausible story. A politician engineering it to look like the Evilinians have returned so they can get into power by deceiving everyone by using the dead Evilinians as plausible scapegoat Because They Really Were That Evil and no is shedding tears about them and becoming an evil tyrant is a plausible story! None of this is grey morality inherently, the bully is just wrong, the tyrant is evil, the traumatized vet shouldn't be hurting people, its that two of these problems can't be solved by killing things. It could be considered grey morality from a certain point of view, but then both kinds of thinking are just points of view.
You made a pretty straightforward claim. Mordar asked if killing aliens (he had been referring to xenomorphs previously if I remember correctly) raise uncomfortable questions. And you replied with a very confident and strident and unyielding "Yes. Why the hell would there be any other answer?"

Then there were walls of text explaining why you think that, and I disagreed with all of it. Now, you can say that you're just positing a possibility and it's just one way of looking at things that you are trying to explore, but it sure as hell did not come across that way originally.

and the whole "imposing realness" thing just makes me think....um okay? sorry this reality is not to your liking, but this is the only one we know of.
Um no... this is your (dim) view of reality. As you asserted, again, very confidently, you think that defending yourself against a genocidal alien species is still bad because humans will screw it up in the aftermath because they are stupid and bloodthirsty.

That's not reality. That's just a bad take on reality.


You, Dr. Samurai, seem really really opposed to examining any of this.
Not seem; am. I have said it a couple of times now that I'm not interested in this. There is nothing worthy of exploring here. The sympathetic villain is a well worn trope at this point. We've all read Ender's Game, we know what ruthless brutality in the face of an unknown threat looks like. There's nothing new being said here.

You just seem to want a hollywood plot:
I want to be able to have a hollywood plot, with orcs and drow and gnolls, etc. I don't want these things excised from the game because some people think they see the world in a better way than others and the game needs to reflect that worldview.

good guys defend, bad guys dead, no complexity or consequences, roll credits.
Another assertion without anything to back it up. You have gotten so defensive and have provided very little, despite the walls of text, to substantiate anything you've said.

You can have complexity and consequences without 1. making the bad guys sympathetic, and 2. making the good guys into douchebags.

For all the people making claims about "bad writing", it seems there's a dearth of imagination in this thread.

This attitude, to be absolutely clear, is what I'm arguing against. The notion that in order to have complexity you have to get rid of evil races. That instead of having a straightforward enemy to fight against, there has to be some convoluted blurry enemy to struggle against with a resolution that only asks more questions.

I'm saying the game should allow for both, and keeping evil race lore is a part of that. I'm happy to agree with anyone on this.

You seem to devote an awful lot of thought to something that doesn't require much.
Oh goodness, I see you're really bothered by this. I responded to your points with my opinions. I'm not sure what I said that broke the discussion and requires this sort of sad response but here we are lol.

I have not once said what you want is wrong or bad, or anything. I explored hypotheticals involving black and white morality, but I consider them apt demonstrations on why I don't do such morality, they lack the nuance to assess reasonable responses, what one's actual resources are and so on and so forth, as it prioritizes principles you may not be able to live up to over what you can actually do.
They were not hypotheticals. You asserted a positive claim in response to a question. I disagreed. We can certainly leave it there at this point, since you seem perturbed over all of this.

I have in fact, consistently conceded the one thing your claim your arguing FOR: the existence of evil creatures and the saving of the day from them. That is NOT what is being examined or talked about by me! I'm talking about What Happens After! I'm examining it in a context of history that I find interesting and want to talk about and you don't, a context that other people seem to find interesting and agree with. If you don't want to examine it....okay. But we can't do that if your busy going "No I don't want that!" because thats all your point is. You don't want it. Okay. I have nothing to say to that. What can I say? That these things alternatively just don't happen? Restate stock "But in Your Campaign..." script? I don't think I need to. I think your a fellow person who knows how roleplaying games work and doesn't need "of course whatever you want for your table" to be explained to them. I've conceded the point your arguing for in this thread and literally examining everything else the aftermath, yet you still disagree with me for what......
I agreed with you on the point about having complexity without sympathetic villains, maybe you missed the part where I said that. I just don't agree with your take on humanity, and I suspect that perspective on humanity also informs the desire for sympathetic villains and the tendency for people to judge the heroes more harshly than the villains, all of which we've seen throughout the conversation in this thread.

what will take for this to be a discussion where it seems your not hurt?
I'm not hurt, I thought we were just giving our opinions.

I feel like I can't help you
I don't need help and didn't ask for help. I thought we were just talking about evil creatures trying to kill people and whether the reactions to that were moral or not.

Thats all I can really say on the matter.
No problem.


With regards to dwarven marauders, they don't do it because, as a race, they don't value raiding and pillaging. It's that simple. But since we're changing the lore to "every race does exactly what all the other races do", then we will have dwarven marauders and dwarven slavers (other than the Duergar) and dwarven longbowman and dwarven everything. Each culture and race will look precisely like the next one and everything will be superior for it. To Mordar's point though, dwarf marauders will be poor raiders because they are slow. Begs the question why they would do it but [insert meta reason here].

[pothocboots]

I don't know about Dwarves, but now I am picturing a nomadic society that mines tunnels through the earth. Every so often they surface to trade, and then they continue their tunnel.

I would have them be kobolds.


I see dwarven aggression as more likely to be invading to secure mineral rights. I expect them to use bunkers and literal undermining of fortifications. A bit like Kobolds in that regard.

You can contrast them with what they do once they get those mineral rights. A more stoic society would settle down and mine those minerals for as long as they can sustain a society. Whereas the more fast paced kobolds would strip mine everything easy and then move to the next site.

As for the dwarf marauders if they must be aggressive aboveground, give them mechas/tanks.

[Errorname]

Sure, but I wouldn't assume that anyone would or should, and so doing this specifically to invoke the feeling as a DM seems off.

Why wouldn't you feel bad about that? Being forced to take the life of a victim of the real villain and who has no desire to hurt you isn't exactly a feel-good moment.


Not seem; am. I have said it a couple of times now that I'm not interested in this. There is nothing worthy of exploring here. The sympathetic villain is a well worn trope at this point. We've all read Ender's Game, we know what ruthless brutality in the face of an unknown threat looks like. There's nothing new being said here.

Strange argument to make in defense of the always chaotic evil race. "This race is bad, go kill them" isn't exactly a story that has much to say or explore either, and what it does have to say often isn't worth saying.


This attitude, to be absolutely clear, is what I'm arguing against. The notion that in order to have complexity you have to get rid of evil races. That instead of having a straightforward enemy to fight against, there has to be some convoluted blurry enemy to struggle against with a resolution that only asks more questions.

Nobody is saying that you can't do straightforward stories with simple morality. Do you think that the Evil Empire in Star Wars is some convoluted blurry enemy in a struggle that only asks more questions because it's made up of humans.

[Psyren]

This attitude, to be absolutely clear, is what I'm arguing against. The notion that in order to have complexity you have to get rid of evil races.

There are tons and tons of universally evil races in D&D that I (and I'm willing to bet the rest of the pro-nuance crowd) have no problem with being there. They're just generally not expected to be playable.

Devils are an evil race. Demons are an evil race. Yugoloths are an evil race. Mindflayers are an evil race. Aboleths, Beholders, Hags, Draconians/Chromatic Dragons, and many intelligent undead all exist.

And regarding the "Orc lore" they didn't remove it - they just reframed it as what it was, the narrow perspective of one guy in one setting with an agenda based on his preconceived notions. The errata outright instructs you to use the parts that inspire you and disregard the rest.

[Witty Username]

Yes, and? There are indeed a bunch of things I think should and shouldn't be in core, but race is the subject of the thread (dwarves specifically, and the design principles in their orbit.)


Sorry if I have overstepped, but I took this statement below as an endorsement of core "as it is"


Sure - but we're nowhere near that being an issue. Both the current and new core contain a whopping 9 races, that's a fraction of the overall total and hardly a monumental accommodation for any setting.

And I thought of an example where you would find fault with core as it is currently presented is constraining in an unreasonable way. Since I am on the fence on Core in concept*, but not really in favor of Core in its current form. At least if it is a road map that all official settings are not permitted to deviate from, since that would disqualify I think every official setting we have in 5e except FR and Spelljammer. And in all honesty even FR comes out a bit odd and it is the default setting.

On Species, my big concern is subspecies. I don't think we need more than one elf, dwarf, or whatever in core. A lot of the distinction got cut for fair enough reasons with the Ability score changes, so I am not convinced we need a mountain dwarf and hill dwarf. Put that in Dragonlance where it belongs. And then you can draw more natural lines for other settings.

And then Elf examples because dear god they are like bloody cockroaches, Eberron can complete its shift into elves being entirely cultural (except drow I guess), FR can keep Lolth and Mensoborezen without polluting other settings.


*I have reservations, but not an opinion, many of the game systems I am familiar with suggest a setting, even if they are more flexible than that suggestion. I have a few data points from OSR gaming, but its only a few, and they tend to be rules sets that assume you can find other materials. or are relentlessly light - Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells is one of the reference points I have and its 45 pages. Its class system is 4 pages long. Assuming it has any metric value in relation to D&D feels dubious.

--
The Always Evil thing, I am not sure if that is a thing in D&D, As far back as AD&D there have been good aligned Demons and Devils. and mixed portrayals since. Heck, can't you make Zariel good aligned in that one module? in case your party bard has more Swag than Asmodeus.

As for species connections to alignment, I don't see the issue for making generalizations at the world building layer. Like say, if Star Wars described humans as primarily represented by the Galactic Empire, a ruthless regime founded on the dark reflection of an ancient religion it has effectively eradicated. That tracks. Would Star Wars be better if humans were eradicated? Well yes but that is beside the point.

As for orcs are evil as the end justification , see Genesis of the Daleks for most of my opinion on that, The Doctor explains it better than I could.

[Errorname]

There are tons and tons of universally evil races in D&D that I (and I'm willing to bet the rest of the pro-nuance crowd) have no problem with being there. They're just generally not expected to be playable.

Devils are an evil race. Demons are an evil race. Yugoloths are an evil race. Mindflayers are an evil race. Aboleths, Beholders, Hags, Draconians/Chromatic Dragons, and many intelligent undead all exist.

I think the chromatic/metallic division is a little silly, but if you asked me to cut one I'd say the metallics. I certainly don't have an issue with dragons being functionally always evil.

I do think you can run into these problems with more inhuman species, it's not impossible to stray into uncomfortable territory, but the function of something like an Illithid is inhuman enough that have to be trying a lot harder to get there.

[OldTrees1]

I would have them be kobolds.
That would be a funny sight. A tunnel opens in the city market and kobold traders pop out. "Come buy our rocks!"




You can contrast them with what they do once they get those mineral rights. A more stoic society would settle down and mine those minerals for as long as they can sustain a society. Whereas the more fast paced kobolds would strip mine everything easy and then move to the next site.

As for the dwarf marauders if they must be aggressive aboveground, give them mechas/tanks.

Good ideas. Nomadic kobolds and marauding dwarves both competing over mineral rights.

[Psyren]

Sorry if I have overstepped, but I took this statement below as an endorsement of core "as it is"

...You thought my factual statement on the numerical count of races in the PHB was an endorsement of its legacy-FR-centric take on near-universally evil drow?

I... genuinely don't even know how you could have gotten there from what I said :smallconfused:


And I thought of an example where you would find fault with core as it is currently presented is constraining in an unreasonable way. Since I am on the fence on Core in concept*, but not really in favor of Core in its current form. At least if it is a road map that all official settings are not permitted to deviate from, since that would disqualify I think every official setting we have in 5e except FR and Spelljammer. And in all honesty even FR comes out a bit odd and it is the default setting.

It's not the default setting anymore, that's the point. And the sooner the core books stop pretending it is, the better.


On Species, my big concern is subspecies. I don't think we need more than one elf, dwarf, or whatever in core. A lot of the distinction got cut for fair enough reasons with the Ability score changes, so I am not convinced we need a mountain dwarf and hill dwarf. Put that in Dragonlance where it belongs. And then you can draw more natural lines for other settings.

I agree with you that the Hill Dwarf/Mountain Dwarf distinction no longer needs to be there, because their differences were entirely cultural. One was parochial/nature dwarves that liked hikes and the other was militant/stronghold dwarf that trained with armor. You can, and should, represent such purely cultural distinctions between two members of the same species via their Background.

But elves are better different, because they actually alter their biology depending on their environment; that's been their deal for multiple editions now, and it's why we have so many different flavors across multiple editions and even within 5e itself. Underdark Elves, Wood Elves, High Elves, Sea Elves, Astral Elves, Season Elves, Shadow Elves etc. Relegating that to background would not adequately capture the differences between them (Watsonian), and since people expect elves to flavor themselves by environment they're willing to pay for new varietals (Doylist.) So for both reasons, we get different species and subspecies of elf, including in the new core where they're called "Elf Lineages."


I think the chromatic/metallic division is a little silly, but if you asked me to cut one I'd say the metallics. I certainly don't have an issue with dragons being functionally always evil.

I do think you can run into these problems with more inhuman species, it's not impossible to stray into uncomfortable territory, but the function of something like an Illithid is inhuman enough that have to be trying a lot harder to get there.

I agree that you can run into such trouble with any such species, but with those at least you can much more credibly say they lack free will - because they're not playable. I'd much more readily buy 99.9% of Illithids constantly hearing Ilsensine's voice in their head, or 99.9% of chromatic dragons hearing Tiamat's, than I would with Gruumsh and the orcs; maybe that's how he intended them to work when he made them, but he failed and it just didn't pan out - in the printed game, anyway.

[Jophiel]

Strange argument to make in defense of the always chaotic evil race. "This race is bad, go kill them" isn't exactly a story that has much to say or explore either, and what it does have to say often isn't worth saying.
I don't think that has to be the story just because you included some Evil Orcs. Hopefully your story has tons of other interesting interactions, moments, NPCs, environments, puzzles, other critters, etc that the whole thing doesn't hinge on the alignment of some orcs. Even if the story of the moment is as simple as "Rescue the mayor's cat from the ruined temple", and the temple is full of orcs, I'd hope you have more stuff planned than just philosophical conflicts about the true nature of orc-dom OR a series of rooms with four angry evil orcs each.

From personal experience, I assume most of the people who are cool with Always Evil Orcs have already run the spectrum from "These are evil 'cause the MM says so" to "Man, but what if, to the orcs, WE were the enemy" and all the points in between. There's nothing new under the sun: you had "But, to the goblins..." letters in Dragon back from its early days. Been there, done that. Ain't no one who's been running games for years and not already come up with "I'm gonna make this rich take on [race] life" all on their own. I don't think landing one place on the spectrum is more sophisticated or interesting than the others but I do think that Always Evil Orcs can be played perfectly entertainingly and most other people feeling this way are likely making informed choices based on game experience both ways.

[Errorname]

I agree that you can run into such trouble with any such species, but with those at least you can much more credibly say they lack free will.

See, I was more thinking that you have more distance. Psychic brain eating squids and giant fire breathing lizards are by default inhuman in a way that a humanoid barbarian is not.

[Witty Username]

I agree with you that the Hill Dwarf/Mountain Dwarf distinction no longer needs to be there, because their differences were entirely cultural. One was parochial/nature dwarves that liked hikes and the other was militant/stronghold dwarf that trained with armor. You can, and should, represent such purely cultural distinctions between two members of the same species via their Background.

But elves are better different, because they actually alter their biology depending on their environment; that's been their deal for multiple editions now, and it's why we have so many different flavors across multiple editions and even within 5e itself. Underdark Elves, Wood Elves, High Elves, Sea Elves, Astral Elves, Season Elves, Shadow Elves etc. Relegating that to background would not adequately capture the differences between them (Watsonian), and since people expect elves to flavor themselves by environment they're willing to pay for new varietals (Doylist.) So for both reasons, we get different species and subspecies of elf, including in the new core where they're called "Elf Lineages."



Dwarves in Dragonlance are like that as well, or at least I got that impression. The distinctions between Mountain and Hill Dwarves as I understood it was partially lingering effects of the Cataclysm, and Hill dwarves being forced to live on the surface. Sure the time table on that is complete nonsense (something like 2 generations) but the idea at least was there. And more explicit with Gully dwarves as their stuff is explicitly having been beaten to christ from the worst affected regions of the Cataclysm. And the Deep dwarves that are a bit of a drow equivalent (sunlight sensitivity, evil, unusually high aptitude for magic)

Also, Elves being reduced does have an advantage for basically every MTG setting (If Wotc is going to keep doing those), as elf distinction is much less obvious. the Planeshift line (3rd party? Wotc but the MTG team) and Ravnica have pretty tortured justifications for the PHB elves. And FR elf differences have been are pretty light outside of Drow and the Avariel (did they make the jump to 5e, I haven't seen them outside of the UA). And I suppose Sea Elves but I haven't seen them actually used much.
That and we lost the weapon training and the Wis vs Int, and how much was the movement speed and different list for the cantrip is actually meaningful and biology rather than culture?

[Dr.Samurai]

Why wouldn't you feel bad about that? Being forced to take the life of a victim of the real villain and who has no desire to hurt you isn't exactly a feel-good moment.
Again, there is a differentiation between "feel bad" and "feel guilty". My comment was in response to you saying feeling "guilty" is reasonable, to which I said sure but I as a DM wouldn't expect players to feel guilty as a reliable reaction to this. In other words, if I was trying to make the players feel guilty about something (only Pelor knows why) I wouldn't use this scenario to do it.

That's different to feeling pity or sympathy, as you said.

Strange argument to make in defense of the always chaotic evil race.
It's not an argument in defense of orc lore. It's an explanation for why I'm not interested in "exploring" these concepts. They are not new. The only novel thing here, as far as I can tell, is the idea that lore should not include evil races. But maybe even that isn't new, I don't know. But certainly "maybe we're the bad guys" isn't new by any stretch.

"This race is bad, go kill them"
Again, you're the only one framing it this way. "These people raided this border town", "These people pillaged this port", "These people are kidnapping our own for ritual sacrifice" etc.

If you replace Orc with Thayan, no issue right? That remains the case if you just keep it as orcs. They are doing bad things, so the good guys have to act. Super simple concept.

isn't exactly a story that has much to say or explore either, and what it does have to say often isn't worth saying.
I'm not the one appealing to 1. some standard of writing, 2. the need to say or explore anything, and 3. for that to be worthy of anything.

And I'm not the one claiming that a concept is necessarily all or none of those things.

Nobody is saying that you can't do straightforward stories with simple morality. Do you think that the Evil Empire in Star Wars is some convoluted blurry enemy in a struggle that only asks more questions because it's made up of humans.
Star Wars has races that are good and evil. So does D&D.

It bothers you and others. That's fine. But all of this thread has been an attempt to explain why the game should remove something, with the only parameter being "it bothers me", couched in language like "that's boring" "that lacks complexity" etc.

There are tons and tons of universally evil races in D&D that I (and I'm willing to bet the rest of the pro-nuance crowd) have no problem with being there.
Evil races can't be complex.
Evil races can't be interesting.
Evil races must reflect something in the real world.
If something in the real world is reflected in the game and makes me uncomfortable, it must be removed.
Evil races is bad writing.
The only way the game can be entertaining is if the villains allow you to explore concepts of good and evil.

And the list goes on. This is the opposite of nuance :smallamused:.

Devils are an evil race. Demons are an evil race. Yugoloths are an evil race. Mindflayers are an evil race. Aboleths, Beholders, Hags, Draconians/Chromatic Dragons, and many intelligent undead all exist.
Orcs are an evil race. So are drow.

And if fiends can be redeemed, how can you still call them an evil race? Simple; the same way you can call orcs an evil race despite the fact that not all of them are evil. It's a generalization that happens to apply to most of them.


The Always Evil thing, I am not sure if that is a thing in D&D, As far back as AD&D there have been good aligned Demons and Devils. and mixed portrayals since. Heck, can't you make Zariel good aligned in that one module? in case your party bard has more Swag than Asmodeus.
Exactly. In fact, when we finished Descent into Avernus we redeemed Zariel.

The lines being drawn here are incredibly thin, nearly invisible. Zariel despite being an angel, had enough free will to fall and become an archduke of Avernus. Then she still had enough free will to redeem herself and ascend back into a celestial. What are we even talking about here?

I don't think that has to be the story just because you included some Evil Orcs. Hopefully your story has tons of other interesting interactions, moments, NPCs, environments, puzzles, other critters, etc that the whole thing doesn't hinge on the alignment of some orcs. Even if the story of the moment is as simple as "Rescue the mayor's cat from the ruined temple", and the temple is full of orcs, I'd hope you have more stuff planned than just philosophical conflicts about the true nature of orc-dom OR a series of rooms with four angry evil orcs each.

From personal experience, I assume most of the people who are cool with Always Evil Orcs have already run the spectrum from "These are evil 'cause the MM says so" to "Man, but what if, to the orcs, WE were the enemy" and all the points in between. There's nothing new under the sun: you had "But, to the goblins..." letters in Dragon back from its early days. Been there, done that. Ain't no one who's been running games for years and not already come up with "I'm gonna make this rich take on [race] life" all on their own. I don't think landing one place on the spectrum is more sophisticated or interesting than the others but I do think that Always Evil Orcs can be played perfectly entertainingly and most other people feeling this way are likely making informed choices based on game experience both ways.
Correct. If every time orcs show up in a campaign, they are evil worshipers of Gruumsh, it's okay. Not every encounter needs to be some philosophical reflection on morality. The idea that the interactions are interesting only if some orcs are depicted as good is a lie.

Player: Wow DM, it seems every time we encounter orcs, they are evil.
DM: Yes, the god they worship demands that they raid and pillage and conquer.
Player: So does that mean all orcs are evil?
DM: No, not all. But most orcs comply with their gods' demands, and believe they will be rewarded for their brutality. It is the rare orc that ignores the orcish pantheon, and follows their own way. But an orc that puts their strength and resilience in the service and defense of others, would be a mighty ally and champion for good indeed.

Bam, pretty simple. Not all that complicated.

And as far as experiences go, I mentioned earlier that in our current campaign, there were three instances in which we came across enemy children. The first my character avoided the encounter with a successful Deception check. Despite my character not being good, I thought killing children would be evil if I could avoid the encounter (mind you they are giant children, so roughly like ogres in physical size and strength), and my character is not evil. Second encounter I avoided fighting them despite them being in the melee and focused on the adult giants. Each turn I tried to convince the adults to tell them to leave. They remained and the party took them out. I wound up killing the last one as it was landing attacks on me. DM told us they were more like young adults for what it's worth. Third time, I tried to make a deal with the giant that was guarding the children to not raise an alarm and we would let them escape. He basically delayed us knowing that more giants were coming, and then he ran to take the kids away anyways once the combat ensued.

So in our current game, the giants are evil for all intents and purposes. They are raiding the surrounding valley and killing whole towns and villages. We have discovered that they are in service to the drow. Etc etc. Despite that, the character I am playing is still trying not to kill their children. But that's a choice I am making for roleplay reasons. The other players in my party, as an example, were more than willing to kill the giant children to avoid alarms being raised, or facing them in the future in combat. For the DM's part, they are not emotionally vested in whether we do or do not kill giant children. It's not a test or a gotcha or anything. There's no wrong answer. I think the only consideration which I uncovered through dialogue with my legendary sword is that had I killed one of the children in cold blood, it seems to me that I may have lost attunement to the sword. It wasn't that explicit, but it seems like the sword checks to see if it is being used "properly". In this case, the young giant that was attacking me was seen as a viable target, and this didn't trigger the sword to leave. Apart from that magic item though (which I didn't know about until after the second encounter with young giants), there's no pressure in the game to handle this in any specific way, which means that this intrinsic value that everyone is foisting on scenarios like this doesn't exist. It's only there if you put it there.

[Psyren]

Dwarves in Dragonlance are like that as well, or at least I got that impression. The distinctions between Mountain and Hill Dwarves as I understood it was partially lingering effects of the Cataclysm, and Hill dwarves being forced to live on the surface. Sure the time table on that is complete nonsense (something like 2 generations) but the idea at least was there. And more explicit with Gully dwarves as their stuff is explicitly having been beaten to christ from the worst affected regions of the Cataclysm. And the Deep dwarves that are a bit of a drow equivalent (sunlight sensitivity, evil, unusually high aptitude for magic)

I'm not saying Dwarves can't change from living in a different biome - or Humans for that matter - but my point is they have nothing on what happens to elves in the same situation.


See, I was more thinking that you have more distance. Psychic brain eating squids and giant fire breathing lizards are by default inhuman in a way that a humanoid barbarian is not.

That too, sure.


Also, Elves being reduced does have an advantage for basically every MTG setting (If Wotc is going to keep doing those), as elf distinction is much less obvious. the Planeshift line (3rd party? Wotc but the MTG team) and Ravnica have pretty tortured justifications for the PHB elves. And FR elf differences have been are pretty light outside of Drow and the Avariel (did they make the jump to 5e, I haven't seen them outside of the UA). And I suppose Sea Elves but I haven't seen them actually used much.

Sea Elves are more of a thing in Krynn IIRC, but they show up in pretty much any of the major settings that have an ocean (i.e. all of them except maybe Ravenloft and I assume Athas.)



Evil races can't be complex.
Evil races can't be interesting.
Evil races must reflect something in the real world.
If something in the real world is reflected in the game and makes me uncomfortable, it must be removed.
Evil races is bad writing.
The only way the game can be entertaining is if the villains allow you to explore concepts of good and evil.

And the list goes on. This is the opposite of nuance :smallamused:.

The evil races I listed tick all these boxes :smalltongue: As usual, good DMs like Larian are pretty instructive here.


Orcs are an evil race. So are drow.

At your table.
To paraphrase something I read: "everyone is entitled to their houserules, stated as printed."


And if fiends can be redeemed, how can you still call them an evil race?

Fiends are made of evil; redeeming them is indeed possible, but causes them to not be fiends anymore. Falling works the same way; when Zariel fell, she stopped being a solar completely and became an archdevil. Orcs don't work that way, they're humanoids.

[Witty Username]

The evil races I listed tick all these boxes :smalltongue: As usual, good DMs like Larian are pretty instructive here.


Too be fair, Larian's weakest point of writing seems to be evil characters. There is like one character I buy as Evil and is also not outright cartoonish. And I still don't actually like Asterion.

[Errorname]

Again, you're the only one framing it this way. "These people raided this border town", "These people pillaged this port", "These people are kidnapping our own for ritual sacrifice" etc.

All of those are perfectly acceptable villainous deeds in my book. The problem comes when the reason why they happen is "because they're from the savage subhuman race, and that's what they do"


It bothers you and others. That's fine. But all of this thread has been an attempt to explain why the game should remove something, with the only parameter being "it bothers me", couched in language like "that's boring" "that lacks complexity" etc.

I am not trying to hide that it bothers me by saying it's boring. It bothers me and it doesn't even have the decency to be interesting.


Evil races can't be complex.
Evil races can't be interesting.

I would say that if you succeed at writing an "always evil race" that's complex and interesting, what you're going to finish with probably won't actually be an "always evil race".


If something in the real world is reflected in the game and makes me uncomfortable, it must be removed.

So here's the thing, I am not against including uncomfortable things in a fantasy story. A writer who is trying to make their audience uncomfortable and explore concepts that are sad or upsetting can write stuff that is very effective and thought provoking.

Generally speaking that's not what's happening with an always evil race. This is not something that comes about when a writer wants to make thoughtful commentary on upsetting real world concepts, it's something that comes about because the writers wants disposable people for their hero to slaughter without having to think about it. It's hack writing that also happens to be extremely uncomfortable despite the entire purpose of the trope being an attempt to avoid that discomfort.


The evil races I listed tick all these boxes :smalltongue: As usual, good DMs like Larian are pretty instructive here.

Honestly BG3 mostly avoids this? It's basically only a problem with their goblins I'd say, with every other race you've got a decent diversity of characters

[Psyren]

Honestly BG3 mostly avoids this? It's basically only a problem with their goblins I'd say, with every other race you've got a decent diversity of characters

No, I don't mean the humanoids. I meant their actual Always Evil races - the devils like Raphael and Mizora, the mindflayers with their Grand Design, and hags like Auntie Ethel. Larian showed how you can write truly vicious and irredeemable antagonists very well.

[JusticeZero]

Orcs are an evil race. So are drow.
Orcs have regularly portrayed as basically people in my family album with weird dental stuff for a long time, so I want to point out that I have been cringing every time I hear a variant on that for the past what, four decades?

If every time orcs show up in a campaign, they are evil worshipers of Gruumsh, it's okay. Not every encounter needs to be some philosophical reflection on morality.
I go to therapy every other week for PTSD because I grew up as a human equivalent of someone whose family was viewed as worshipping a Gruumsh analogue. Because my family was seen as not following the "good" religion, it was acceptable to commit any number of atrocities. I honestly wouldn't have blamed them for picking up a magic greataxe and going raiding.

...in our current campaign, there were three instances in which we came across enemy children.
The first my character avoided the encounter...
Second encounter I avoided fighting them...They remained and the party took them out. I wound up killing the last one as it was landing attacks on me. DM told us they were more like young adults for what it's worth.
So basically your GM, a person who I will assume does not have my particular ethnic history and background, rigged your encounter that the orcs would act in certain awful ways.

Do you not see how this
1) reflects on.... your GM's handling of things, and
2) might be more than a little bit uncomfortable to people who might be at your table who orcs have regularly been created to be stereotypes of?

If I was in an OSR campaign built with the Bad Old Days ideas baked in, me personally as a player would most likely be defined as happily following an Evil god and a member of an Always Evil race. I'm culturally deviant in ways that I have no power to change. And that isn't necessarily obvious to others at the table.
A huge part of the Bad Old Days is creating a fantasy that the Other is Evil, then going out of its way to fulfill and justify that idea.

I'm sick of it.

I'd like to be able to play in a game sometimes without knowing that there's a good chance I will be reminded that I'm an evil monster. But people keep claiming that it's vitally important that these harmful tropes have to be repeated in ways that directly feeds into a power fantasy that some players have experience with being inherently on the wrong end of.

It was never okay. It was always a bad trope. It needs to be taken to the vets office for one last time. I'm sorry that some people miss it and feel attached to it, but y'all literally scare me and my friends and that's not great for the hobby as a whole. And because we're scared of this stuff, we probably won't tell you... we just sneak away and stop playing.

[Grim Portent]

Way way off topic now, but...assuming the mind-controlled have any degree of efficacy and reasonable options (level of "reasonable" depends very much on how likely they are to make you dead before you can try other options), it should absolutely enable guilt-free defense up to and including death.

Guilt-free doesn't mean you don't feel horrible about the situation though. Grief /= guilt.

Radical topic change.

Q: Why aren't dwarves rampaging, marauding raiders? Is it really that every other race can just calmly walk away from them and they never catch up?

- M

Warhammer does have the Chaos Dwarves, capturing travellers, razing cities and carrying off the people as slaves and so on is kind of their thing. They do have the help of the much faster hobgoblins, but refugees can only run so fast anyway and the dawi-zharr can pursue for longer than most people can flee. They don't rampage very often, being more focused on their internal matters, so it's usually just the odd slave raid against the other civilisations, but from time to time they march forth with arcane guns and daemonic cannons and lay waste to all in their path before retreating with the spoils of war.

It wouldn't actually be hard to portray more traditional pseudo-norse dwarves as raiders either. Popping out of tunnels in the night to steal valuables, burn buildings and kidnap people to serve as menial labour akin to a classic bit of longboat viking piracy. In a context where they are the primary underground race the areas within a given distance of their own lands can be riddled with tunnels dug to allow dwarven raiding parties to access isolated settlements with little warning and disappear rapidly, and marching an army to their gates in reprisal could be nearly as hard as sailing to Norway or Denmark to exact revenge upon the norse would have been. Wouldn't even change the visuals much, just have non-dwarf people sweeping floors, shoveling ****, serving food and drink, acting as scribes, farm labourers and other iron-age slavery stuff when you go to a dwarven settlement.

[Lord Raziere]

Orcs have regularly portrayed as basically people in my family album with weird dental stuff for a long time, so I want to point out that I have been cringing every time I hear a variant on that for the past what, four decades?

I go to therapy every other week for PTSD because I grew up as a human equivalent of someone whose family was viewed as worshipping a Gruumsh analogue. Because my family was seen as not following the "good" religion, it was acceptable to commit any number of atrocities. I honestly wouldn't have blamed them for picking up a magic greataxe and going raiding.

So basically your GM, a person who I will assume does not have my particular ethnic history and background, rigged your encounter that the orcs would act in certain awful ways.

Do you not see how this
1) reflects on.... your GM's handling of things, and
2) might be more than a little bit uncomfortable to people who might be at your table who orcs have regularly been created to be stereotypes of?

If I was in an OSR campaign built with the Bad Old Days ideas baked in, me personally as a player would most likely be defined as happily following an Evil god and a member of an Always Evil race. I'm culturally deviant in ways that I have no power to change. And that isn't necessarily obvious to others at the table.
A huge part of the Bad Old Days is creating a fantasy that the Other is Evil, then going out of its way to fulfill and justify that idea.

I'm sick of it.

I'd like to be able to play in a game sometimes without knowing that there's a good chance I will be reminded that I'm an evil monster. But people keep claiming that it's vitally important that these harmful tropes have to be repeated in ways that directly feeds into a power fantasy that some players have experience with being inherently on the wrong end of.

It was never okay. It was always a bad trope. It needs to be taken to the vets office for one last time. I'm sorry that some people miss it and feel attached to it, but y'all literally scare me and my friends and that's not great for the hobby as a whole. And because we're scared of this stuff, we probably won't tell you... we just sneak away and stop playing.

I do not have your background. My own troubles with being the Other is ways less physical or obvious than that.

But I agree with you. I have seen too much, and know too much to see it any differently. and due to how my mind works, what was I raised on, I cannot look at this trope as something positive. If people are being scared away because of such a trope....is this not proof enough? Its all fun and games until someone sees themselves in something being demonized. That, and valuing a fictional trope's existence over actual people and how its affecting them isn't a good set of priorities to me.

[Psyren]

The fact is that orcs' history, i.e. what Tolkien had in mind when he invented them and what Gygax had in mind when he brought them into D&D, makes it impossible for a company as large as WotC to completely divorce them from their problematic roots. You can declare your intent to do so over hill and dale, and an individual DM can certainly reduce them to being nothing but mindless malefactors devoid of allegory or choice at their table, but WotC was and is right to recognize their greater responsibility in this regard and take action.

Dwarves and Elves had a similarly clear, but far more flattering/benign, inspiration - one that conveniently positioned them to be heroes by default for decades.

[Dr.Samurai]

At your table.
To paraphrase something I read: "everyone is entitled to their houserules, stated as printed."
Ah, so you concede the lore has changed. That's a good start.

Fiends are made of evil; redeeming them is indeed possible, but causes them to not be fiends anymore. Falling works the same way; when Zariel fell, she stopped being a solar completely and became an archdevil. Orcs don't work that way, they're humanoids.
Forgive me, I thought earlier you made "free will" the sticking point. I see now that it's "made of evil" that is what matters. So I guess orcs were never an evil race after all.

All of those are perfectly acceptable villainous deeds in my book. The problem comes when the reason why they happen is "because they're from the savage subhuman race, and that's what they do"
What should it look like when a creator deity is an embodiment of rage, violence, and conquest? Do you think that the reason elves and dwarves are the way they are has nothing to do with how Corellon and Moradin are? What should Gruumsh look like in this post-evil orc world, and who are his followers?

Secondly, what in the world do you mean by "subhuman"? You keep using this term like a bludgeon and I'm not sure what it is meant to mean. Are you saying that any race depicted as living in clans or tribes, outside of walls or fortifications are "subhuman"? Is it any creature that doesn't show the trappings of medieval europeans that is "subhuman"? Orcs have culture, language, religion, values, hierarchy, taboos, etc. Orcs can be found in cities and towns, etc. and are generally treated as other people, if maybe not distrusted given how orcs are elsewhere. Where exactly are they being treated as "subhuman"?


I would say that if you succeed at writing an "always evil race" that's complex and interesting, what you're going to finish with probably won't actually be an "always evil race".
I don't see many arguments for an always evil race that is evil across the board, to every single representative, or that is evil due to mind control, so I don't know why we keep talking about this.

Secondly, we keep hopping back and forth between the story can't be complex and interesting, and the villain isn't complex and interesting. Difficult to respond when we keep switching back and forth.

So here's the thing, I am not against including uncomfortable things in a fantasy story. A writer who is trying to make their audience uncomfortable and explore concepts that are sad or upsetting can write stuff that is very effective and thought provoking.

Generally speaking that's not what's happening with an always evil race. This is not something that comes about when a writer wants to make thoughtful commentary on upsetting real world concepts, it's something that comes about because the writers wants disposable people for their hero to slaughter without having to think about it. It's hack writing that also happens to be extremely uncomfortable despite the entire purpose of the trope being an attempt to avoid that discomfort.
I disagree with most of this; the idea that the DM is a writer, and is trying to make the audience uncomfortable and explore concepts/give thoughtful commentary, etc. It's a game, and I keep coming back to that.

But more to the point, what would be an example of an enemy that isn't "uncomfortable"?

So basically your GM, a person who I will assume does not have my particular ethnic history and background, rigged your encounter that the orcs would act in certain awful ways.
I have no clue what your ethnicity is, or my DM's for that matter, and I don't see how it's relevant. I don't think the DM rigged anything. They were giants. They're evil. They acted like evil giants would. Why should I as a player expect anything different?

Do you not see how this
1) reflects on.... your GM's handling of things, and
2) might be more than a little bit uncomfortable to people who might be at your table who orcs have regularly been created to be stereotypes of?
Have you reflected on your own handling of these things?

I have been told that orcs are a caricature of me and people like me. I don't care. I don't agree, and I don't need it to be true. There are much more important things to worry over in life than to squint at something hard enough for it to offend me.

I'm sorry that some people miss it and feel attached to it, but y'all literally scare me and my friends and that's not great for the hobby as a whole.
Forgive me as I laugh at the irony of you "othering" the people that disagree with you over orcs lol. Now we're scary?

It's my opinion that morphing the game to accommodate people this easily scared is not great for the hobby as a whole. So we're at an impasse.

And because we're scared of this stuff, we probably won't tell you... we just sneak away and stop playing.
So you say. It seems you probably recognize that there are better ways to handle this though, right?

[Witty Username]

Because this will dramatically change my opinion on the subject, does this concern apply to evil religions as well?
Because that hits on a couple coping mechanisms I have and would like to keep.

[BRC]

Because this will dramatically change my opinion on the subject, does this concern apply to evil religions as well?
Because that hits on a couple coping mechanisms I have and would like to keep.

To use my terms, evil religions are Definitional enemies. A member of an evil religion can stop being evil by stopping following that religion. A religion is a form of ideology, and I don't think anybody will object to the idea of evil ideologies in their fantasy action adventure game.


Like, I think you DO need to be careful to not just use "Evil religion" as a bare fig leaf over "Evil People". "The Drow All worship the evil goddess Lolth" is pretty close to "The Drow are just Evil", where Lolth is the "Evil Drow Goddess that the Drow all worship".


Edit:
Personally, my go-to rule is to just try to avoid having the fantasy races all perfectly match to the in-universe cultures, especially if you're going to make some of those cultures "Evil" or "Savage"/Uncivilized.

Like, let's say I want a culture of Evil Barbarians that regularly raid the civilized peoples and are often recruited into the armies of the Dark Lord with promises of wealth and power.

Okay, that's pretty cliche, and probably not great, but the least I can do is not have all the Barbarians be the same race.

The "Barbarian Lands" have Orcs in them, sure, but they've also got Humans and Ogres and Elves and Dwarves, and I've got Orcs and Humans and Ogres and Elves and Dwarves elsewhere in the setting as well, and don't call the Barbarian ones "Dark Elves" and "Dark Dwarves". They're Elves and Dwarves from the barbarian lands.

The whole "Evil Religion" thing can help the same way. If Grumsh is the Evil God Of Orcs Worshipped by Orcs, then that's pretty close to "all orcs are evil and belong to the evil religion". If Karabog is the God worshiped by the Barbarians, that's different.

[Mordar]

So...the why aren't dwarves raiders and marauders was really just a joke about movement speed.

But with all of the other conversation in the thread going towards broad accusations and counter-accusations, projections and assumptions, and all of that other, I put forth this:

Dwarves could be an interesting and complex "always evil" race.

If we approach this from a D&D adjacent standard, and say the following actions map to evil (I find it likely to be a consensus): Disregard for life; Disregard for property rights of others; Rule via strength of arms; Fierce territoriality. This is not an isolated city, or one faction of this race in this setting. It is all of them, perhaps spread across a smaller range than other races might have. Communities can communicate with one another. They can trade with one another. And of course, they can war with one another.

No Evulz, no puppy-kicking or kitten-eating. No bad God on high saying "stab down upon the elf with vindictive stabbings". A reasonable, though likely not desirable, pathway to a cultural mindset that blankets the entire race in such a way that standard "high fantasy" worlds would view as definitely evil. Individually the dwarves might not be "bad", but their world places an indelible stamp on them that the rightness of "murder" (as defined by the high-fantasy world norms), theft, depraved indifference, "oppressive regime" (again as defined by the high fantasy terms), and even forms of cannibalism are valued cultural truths. We avoid at least two very common Evil Tropes here, and hold to those exclusions, because they are hamfisted and crappy in game, and [redacted] out of game.

Now, of course it is the nature of our stories that in time evolution will occur and this race will likely either assimilate other cultural truths - over many generations - or be pushed into extinction (or reduced so far as to be effectively extinct). But for the centuries-wide window of this RPG world, dwarves = "always evil".

Scarcity and isolation are heavy drivers of the story, stagnation propagating and uploading the established "tradition". Intense drive to protect dwarfkind. Intrusion of others "exploring" new areas. Decisions all predicated on survival of the species, all leading to an "always evil" race that would be a playable faction as well as a hated in-world threat. Dangerous raiders and killers all.

This takes much of dwarfiness that appeals to me, maintains it, but puts a significantly different spin on those same hallmarks. Survivors. Traditionalists. Artisans. They don't care about the outsiders' perspectives on their culture. They don't care what the Orc/Human/Elf/Gnome High Priest Dingleberry says the Gods say about their actions. They will survive.

Can you imagine the conditions that would lead to such a culture, and find it a reasonable exploration of the [human] condition, if such things are important to you?

Can you agree that such a culture, while clearly savage and immoral by modern standards (you know, within the last few millennia), could be internally consistent, give rise to interesting and potentially heroic characters, and hold a valuable place in an RPG (or fantasy fiction) setting?

Or is it just me?

- M

[Grim Portent]

So...the why aren't dwarves raiders and marauders was really just a joke about movement speed.

But with all of the other conversation in the thread going towards broad accusations and counter-accusations, projections and assumptions, and all of that other, I put forth this:

Dwarves could be an interesting and complex "always evil" race.

If we approach this from a D&D adjacent standard, and say the following actions map to evil (I find it likely to be a consensus): Disregard for life; Disregard for property rights of others; Rule via strength of arms; Fierce territoriality. This is not an isolated city, or one faction of this race in this setting. It is all of them, perhaps spread across a smaller range than other races might have. Communities can communicate with one another. They can trade with one another. And of course, they can war with one another.

No Evulz, no puppy-kicking or kitten-eating. No bad God on high saying "stab down upon the elf with vindictive stabbings". A reasonable, though likely not desirable, pathway to a cultural mindset that blankets the entire race in such a way that standard "high fantasy" worlds would view as definitely evil. Individually the dwarves might not be "bad", but their world places an indelible stamp on them that the rightness of "murder" (as defined by the high-fantasy world norms), theft, depraved indifference, "oppressive regime" (again as defined by the high fantasy terms), and even forms of cannibalism are valued cultural truths. We avoid at least two very common Evil Tropes here, and hold to those exclusions, because they are hamfisted and crappy in game, and [redacted] out of game.

Now, of course it is the nature of our stories that in time evolution will occur and this race will likely either assimilate other cultural truths - over many generations - or be pushed into extinction (or reduced so far as to be effectively extinct). But for the centuries-wide window of this RPG world, dwarves = "always evil".

Scarcity and isolation are heavy drivers of the story, stagnation propagating and uploading the established "tradition". Intense drive to protect dwarfkind. Intrusion of others "exploring" new areas. Decisions all predicated on survival of the species, all leading to an "always evil" race that would be a playable faction as well as a hated in-world threat. Dangerous raiders and killers all.

This takes much of dwarfiness that appeals to me, maintains it, but puts a significantly different spin on those same hallmarks. Survivors. Traditionalists. Artisans. They don't care about the outsiders' perspectives on their culture. They don't care what the Orc/Human/Elf/Gnome High Priest Dingleberry says the Gods say about their actions. They will survive.

Can you imagine the conditions that would lead to such a culture, and find it a reasonable exploration of the [human] condition, if such things are important to you?

Can you agree that such a culture, while clearly savage and immoral by modern standards (you know, within the last few millennia), could be internally consistent, give rise to interesting and potentially heroic characters, and hold a valuable place in an RPG (or fantasy fiction) setting?

Or is it just me?

- M

Yeah, they could work. There's a wealth of evil stuff to be done with dwarves. Industry run rampant, oppressive traditions, disregard for individuality, nationalism, so on and so forth.

Personally my preferred angle for evil dwarves leans heavily on the idea that only dwarves matter. Or more precisely only Clans matter, and non-dwarves don't have Clans (that the dwarves recognise) and as such have only what significance a dwarf is willing to give them. All dwarves have a Clan, made up of extended family, all dwarves obey their clan head or are exiled from the family, all disputes within a clan are settled by the clan head, all disputes between clans are settled by the noble the clan swears fealty to, disputes between nobles by their lieges and so on. Humans, elves, orcs and so on don't have clans, and so have no legal standing. They are outlaws, non-persons. A dwarf can do whatever they want to a clanless being because there is no one to advocate on its behalf.

If a dwarf decides they like a non-dwarf they might adopt them, either as property or as an honorary dwarf. In either case they are now part of the holdings of the adopters clan. This is basically the same as being a slave from a legal perspective, it's just that the owner is being nice about it. Dwarves don't necessarily screw over everyone they meet, but only because it's not profitable to do so, traders stop coming if you always break deals or rob them, but deciding to break deals with clanless or enslave them, or even hunt them for sport is not considered morally or criminally wrong among the dwarves, because legality is morality to them, and legality is determined by having a clan advocate.

Similarly, a clan dwarf in foreign lands does not respect the laws and traditions of those lands, because there is still no clan to speak with. They don't break the law willy nilly or anything, but they don't see breaking human laws as bad because to them humans don't have laws to break.

[Errorname]

Are you saying that any race depicted as living in clans or tribes, outside of walls or fortifications are "subhuman"? Is it any creature that doesn't show the trappings of medieval europeans that is "subhuman"?

No. In case it is not clear, the frequent tendency of fantasy stories to use sloppily drawn caricatures of real human cultures as monsters to be slain rather than people in their own right is a huge part of the problem.


I disagree with most of this; the idea that the DM is a writer, and is trying to make the audience uncomfortable and explore concepts/give thoughtful commentary, etc. It's a game, and I keep coming back to that.

For what it's worth, I've been talking in terms of the fantasy genre in general and not specifically within the context of D&D, I just don't feel a need to draw a hard distinction between writers making fiction and DMs running games. There's a lot of overlap there, a lot of fantasy fiction started out as somebody's D&D game.

[Psyren]

Ah, so you concede the lore has changed. That's a good start.

"Concede" implies I was saying otherwise; I've been pretty clear that Tolkien-era lore is something they're moving away from, which would necessitate change, so this shouldn't exactly be a groundbreaking revelation.


Forgive me, I thought earlier you made "free will" the sticking point. I see now that it's "made of evil" that is what matters. So I guess orcs were never an evil race after all.

You appear to be implying there's some kind of contradiction here, but these two go hand in hand. Orcs have free will because they're not made of evil, nor do they have alien/aberrant brains - Gruumsh's wishes notwithstanding.


What should it look like when a creator deity is an embodiment of rage, violence, and conquest? Do you think that the reason elves and dwarves are the way they are has nothing to do with how Corellon and Moradin are? What should Gruumsh look like in this post-evil orc world, and who are his followers?

Gruumsh would be just like Lolth, Maglubiyet, Kurtulmak etc - an evil deity trying to dominate the destinies of as many of his creations as possible, and increasingly failing to do so as more and more of them slip through his fingers and find their own way across the multiverse. In some settings he will be more successful, in some less, but it will never* be 100% or 0%.

*focusing on printed settings. Obviously, your own table can have him be totally successful or unsuccessful at this, just like you can make Lolth etc be.

[BRC]

So...the why aren't dwarves raiders and marauders was really just a joke about movement speed.

But with all of the other conversation in the thread going towards broad accusations and counter-accusations, projections and assumptions, and all of that other, I put forth this:

Dwarves could be an interesting and complex "always evil" race.

If we approach this from a D&D adjacent standard, and say the following actions map to evil (I find it likely to be a consensus): Disregard for life; Disregard for property rights of others; Rule via strength of arms; Fierce territoriality. This is not an isolated city, or one faction of this race in this setting. It is all of them, perhaps spread across a smaller range than other races might have. Communities can communicate with one another. They can trade with one another. And of course, they can war with one another.

No Evulz, no puppy-kicking or kitten-eating. No bad God on high saying "stab down upon the elf with vindictive stabbings". A reasonable, though likely not desirable, pathway to a cultural mindset that blankets the entire race in such a way that standard "high fantasy" worlds would view as definitely evil. Individually the dwarves might not be "bad", but their world places an indelible stamp on them that the rightness of "murder" (as defined by the high-fantasy world norms), theft, depraved indifference, "oppressive regime" (again as defined by the high fantasy terms), and even forms of cannibalism are valued cultural truths. We avoid at least two very common Evil Tropes here, and hold to those exclusions, because they are hamfisted and crappy in game, and [redacted] out of game.

Now, of course it is the nature of our stories that in time evolution will occur and this race will likely either assimilate other cultural truths - over many generations - or be pushed into extinction (or reduced so far as to be effectively extinct). But for the centuries-wide window of this RPG world, dwarves = "always evil".

Scarcity and isolation are heavy drivers of the story, stagnation propagating and uploading the established "tradition". Intense drive to protect dwarfkind. Intrusion of others "exploring" new areas. Decisions all predicated on survival of the species, all leading to an "always evil" race that would be a playable faction as well as a hated in-world threat. Dangerous raiders and killers all.

This takes much of dwarfiness that appeals to me, maintains it, but puts a significantly different spin on those same hallmarks. Survivors. Traditionalists. Artisans. They don't care about the outsiders' perspectives on their culture. They don't care what the Orc/Human/Elf/Gnome High Priest Dingleberry says the Gods say about their actions. They will survive.

Can you imagine the conditions that would lead to such a culture, and find it a reasonable exploration of the [human] condition, if such things are important to you?

Can you agree that such a culture, while clearly savage and immoral by modern standards (you know, within the last few millennia), could be internally consistent, give rise to interesting and potentially heroic characters, and hold a valuable place in an RPG (or fantasy fiction) setting?

Or is it just me?

- M

Hrmm, I'd be tempted to mix in some notes from Discworld Dwarves, or at least the Deep Downers.

Spiritually, culturally, the Dwarves view reality as something that occurs below the surface. The Sky is ever-changing, but the Stone remembers. The ultimate truth is that which is etched in the stone of a dwarf-hold. Anything less than that is questionable, is rumor. If the Truth is not recorded, then history stops, and in a metaphorical, but very real way, the world ends. If all you can trust is that which is etched in stone, then a gap in the record, in the chain of cause and effect, will unmoor you from the past. Even if the Record resumes, it cannot be trusted because that gap could contain crucial context.


So, the histories must be recorded. They must specifically be etched in the great slabs of the Dwarf-Holds (the only thing that can be trusted to remain intact. Anything less is an unacceptable risk). Which means the Dwarf-holds must be occupied. Dwarves must live there to record the history, which means they must be defended, which means the warriors must be armed, which means the forges must be fed, which means the Mines must be worked. Or else, they risk the End of History.

And all of those Dwarves must be fed.

Anything above ground isn't recorded, and therefore isn't real to the Dwarves. Dwarves don't like spending time above ground. The more of their life spent under the transient sky, the less real that Dwarf is. Dwarves can and do trade for food, but culturally speaking, large-scale mercantile commerce isn't especially common. You trade away real things, the crafts of the dwarf-holds, to the dreams and figments of the surface world. Besides, if you are reliant on trade for survival, you're vulnerable to the whims of surface dwellers, who, see above, are not real.


So the Dwarves become a slaver-empire. The people of the surface are not real, nothing up there matters. Dwarven warriors raid and pillage freely (it doesn't matter. The people they're taking from could lose everything to some other threat tomorrow, and are not in the records anyway. Life aboveground is so unstable that it's not worth respecting). They take slaves to work their fields, to feed the dwarf-holds (that's the only way to ensure History Does not End while subjecting the minimum number of Dwarves to a disgraceful life above ground). Crimes they commit are forgotten, but any trespass that has effect on life in the dwarf-holds is recorded and eternally remembered.


If you speak to a Dwarf, they do not revel in Cruelty. They care about protecting their people and traditions. If you didn't know what they do, then their obsession with keeping the records would come across as an interesting cultural quirk. "Dwarves view the records not being kept as an Apocalyptic scenario, huh, isn't that funny". But they commit numerous atrocities in the name of that goal.

[Mordar]

So the Dwarves become a slaver-empire. The people of the surface are not real, nothing up there matters. Dwarven warriors raid and pillage freely (it doesn't matter. The people they're taking from could lose everything to some other threat tomorrow, and are not in the records anyway. Life aboveground is so unstable that it's not worth respecting). They take slaves to work their fields, to feed the dwarf-holds (that's the only way to ensure History Does not End while subjecting the minimum number of Dwarves to a disgraceful life above ground). Crimes they commit are forgotten, but any trespass that has effect on life in the dwarf-holds is recorded and eternally remembered.

I was by design and intent not offering this option. The scarcity element precludes it for my initial foray. Cannibalism might be an opening though...


If you speak to a Dwarf, they do not revel in Cruelty. They care about protecting their people and traditions. If you didn't know what they do, then their obsession with keeping the records would come across as an interesting cultural quirk. "Dwarves view the records not being kept as an Apocalyptic scenario, huh, isn't that funny". But they commit numerous atrocities in the name of that goal.

This is the crux of the idea for me.

- M

[OldTrees1]

So...the why aren't dwarves raiders and marauders was really just a joke about movement speed.
Indeed, but it is interesting to think about.


But with all of the other conversation in the thread going towards broad accusations and counter-accusations, projections and assumptions, and all of that other, I put forth this:

Dwarves could be an interesting and complex "always evil" race.
That would be a challenge for 2 reasons. 1 is being discussed in the other conversation. The other is how difficult it is to get to the figurative "always".


No Evulz, no puppy-kicking or kitten-eating. No bad God on high saying "stab down upon the elf with vindictive stabbings". A reasonable, though likely not desirable, pathway to a cultural mindset that blankets the entire race in such a way that standard "high fantasy" worlds would view as definitely evil. Individually the dwarves might not be "bad", but their world places an indelible stamp on them that the rightness of "murder" (as defined by the high-fantasy world norms), theft, depraved indifference, "oppressive regime" (again as defined by the high fantasy terms), and even forms of cannibalism are valued cultural truths. We avoid at least two very common Evil Tropes here, and hold to those exclusions, because they are hamfisted and crappy in game, and [redacted] out of game.

Now, of course it is the nature of our stories that in time evolution will occur and this race will likely either assimilate other cultural truths - over many generations - or be pushed into extinction (or reduced so far as to be effectively extinct). But for the centuries-wide window of this RPG world, dwarves = "always evil".

I expect, even in the limited time window, that this would be at most "usually" evil or maybe only "often" evil instead of a figuratively always evil population. The society might promote and make excuses for survivalist self interest through direct harm to others, however I expect the individuals to vary in their opportunities and practice of the society's ideals.


Can you imagine the conditions that would lead to such a culture, and find it a reasonable exploration of the [human] condition, if such things are important to you?

Can you agree that such a culture, while clearly savage and immoral by modern standards (you know, within the last few millennia), could be internally consistent, give rise to interesting and potentially heroic characters, and hold a valuable place in an RPG (or fantasy fiction) setting?

Or is it just me?

- M
I can imagine conditions that rise to such a culture and it is a reasonable exploration (if such a thing is important to you). I think wasteland survival would work as a contributing factor.

I would not label it as savage, but yes it would be an evil society that would be internally consistent. I see it having potential for interesting heroic characters.

I don't see it reaching the figurative "always". It would probably be similar to Thay in its distribution.

[Dr.Samurai]

@Mordar: How would these dwarves be different from the Duergar? I don't think the Duergar are evil because of their deity.

[BRC]

I was by design and intent not offering this option. The scarcity element precludes it for my initial foray. Cannibalism might be an opening though...

I guess that's the other way to do it.


Dwarves will raid and pillage others when desperate. But their chosen lifestyle, living in underground cities and spending as little time above ground as possible, is incompatible with large-scale agriculture, which in turn makes it incompatible with the scale of civilization that Dwarven culture specifically says is the "Correct" way to live. Asking dwarves to spend their lives farming the surface is asking them to commit spiritual suicide.


As a result, Dwarves are perpetually on the edge of famine. They're constantly desperate. They're loath to trade their own treasures on the surface (The surface world isn't real after all. Sending a crafted good to the surface is an insult to the crafter), but anything taken from the surface can be freely and gladly traded for food. So, raiding for food or treasure is their response to the threat of famine. It's only when they're desperate, but they're frequently desperate. Even the most stable dwarf-hold is only a mold outbreak in the storeroom or a slight price increase from their trade partners away from becoming "Desperate" enough to turn to raiding and pillaging.

[JusticeZero]

But more to the point, what would be an example of an enemy that isn't "uncomfortable"?I gave a bunch of them and I have others.
I have no clue what your ethnicity is, or my DM's for that matter, and I don't see how it's relevant. I don't think the DM rigged anything. They were giants. They're evil. They acted like evil giants would. Why should I as a player expect anything different?There is a whole cycle to real world hate. "Group X is inherently defective. Evidence 1: Group X follows a culture that is antithetical to Us Good People. Evidence 2: Group X fights us Good People. Therefore, we can feel good about fighting them." And all of the pieces support each other, so it looks like it makes sense. Except that the response to having a bunch of strange-to-you people show up and attack you tends to be to cling to your perfectly reasonable and not at all terrible cultural icons and fight back.
You're right: You don't know my ethnicity, and you don't need to. It's the cycle that is going on here that's at issue.

Forgive me as I laugh at the irony of you "othering" the people that disagree with you over orcs lol. Now we're scary?Someone brought up the definitions of "Definitionally Evil". As I recall, you scoffed that there is no definitional evil in the world you deal with.
However. A troublingly large segment of the dominant culture I have no choice but to live in is Definitionally Evil toward me. I leave it as an exercise to you to figure out how, because the specifics don't matter.
That's not "othering" or cruelty, that's a statement of fact. There are entire groups of people who hold public power and who are accepted as "Good" who, if I cross them in the wrong circumstances, I will be made to lose my ability to breathe and circulate blood, for reasons I realistically can't do anything about. And your mode of play is generally one which they use to indoctrinate more people. It tells us things about your GM that should be unacceptable in modern society.

It's my opinion that morphing the game to accommodate people this easily scared is not great for the hobby as a whole.
And I'm concerned about having to share a hobby with people who literally want to definitionally kill me and who have succeeded with people I know who are empowered by Bad Old Days tropes.
I don't consider myself easily scared, but you know, I don't like going to funerals.

People who defend the Bad Old Days trope of "Always Evil Sentient Races" are a warning flag for a reason.

[OldTrees1]

the frequent tendency of fantasy stories to use sloppily drawn caricatures of real human cultures as monsters to be slain rather than people in their own right is a huge part of the problem.

This is a problem.
Having a story with monsters to be slain is not necessarily a problem.
Having a story with something that was inspired by or comparable to a real human culture is not necessarily a problem.
Having a story saying this real human culture is to be slain is a problem.

Orcs have been portrayed separately as each of these 3 with a tendency towards the last.

[Mordar]

@Mordar: How would these dwarves be different from the Duergar? I don't think the Duergar are evil because of their deity.

Handful of ways - up to the reader to determine if they are sufficient.


Not exiles rejecting another version of their kind;
Not bleak, joyless or pessimistic;
They do not suffer the curse of gold;
Not Vulcans;
Definitely not bitter (bares repeating) or cruel for cruelties' sake


In shot (no pun intended) I think Duergar can be distilled down to being disaffected dwarves piling on to a "no true dwarf" mentality, and delighting in gold, power and cruelty.

The proposed evil dwarf race lacks the elements of spite, greed and cruelty (as defined by intentional infliction of harm for purposes of bringing the inflictor pleasure). The broader cultural norms that would define their killing, looting, etc as evil are not rejected in favor of a different path...this simply are not considered or valued. Importantly, they can love, and care, and protect, and be happy. They can also kill others for a slight, for the goods they carry, or for sustenance.

This is outside my field, but is it maybe that Duergar are immoral while the PEDR are ammoral? At least in selected areas. Maybe that gets down the road a bit. Or more likely, immoral vs differently moraled.

OldTrees1: For my standard, "always evil" is something like 95% follow the dictates/behaviors/whatever. Either by commission or omission, 95% go along and receive benefit. 5% actively think or do otherwise. In this group, probably like many others, most of them get weeded out, though in this case probably not by active intent on the part of the weeders.

- M

[Psyren]

I know it's difficult with this line of discussion but we should definitely try to avoid "real world hate" or the thread will be locked.

And I find the "we shouldn't accommodate sensitive / easily-scared people" argument to be specious. No one is asking you to accommodate them; WotC is making a business decision with their IP. Your individual tables can be as edgy/dark/brutal/etc as you want them to be, with every orc on the planet having the same moral outlook, if that's what floats your boat.



Having a story with monsters to be slain is not necessarily a problem.


Orcs don't need to be that monster, is the point. Given that they cannot, ever, be divorced from their roots, wouldn't using something else actually designed to be "monsters to be slain" do a better job of avoiding these issues?

[Jophiel]

No one is asking you to accommodate them; WotC is making a business decision with their IP.
That's not really meaningful in the context of this thread. It's not a thread about 5e, it's a thread about TTRPGs and many of the posters have said they don't/rarely play 5e. Trying to limit discussion to WOTC or treating their corp decisions as the final word defeats the points of this being in the general RPG forum.

[BRC]

I know it's difficult with this line of discussion but we should definitely try to avoid "real world hate" or the thread will be locked.

And I find the "we shouldn't accommodate sensitive / easily-scared people" argument to be specious. No one is asking you to accommodate them; WotC is making a business decision with their IP. Your individual tables can be as edgy/dark/brutal/etc as you want them to be, with every orc on the planet having the same moral outlook, if that's what floats your boat.

This is a point I want to expound upon. There's a solid reason to publish content with a more nuanced take on fantasy races.


Classic fantasy orcs are easy. Pretty much everything you could need to know about them exists either in pre-published lore or in the greater sphere. If you want to run a setting where Orcs are always-evil soulless automotons that live to pillage and burn and do bad things to the innocent good people, you can. You have everything you could possibly need to do that, and the image of Orc as "Acceptable Target" is standing tall in the pop-cultural mindset that if somebody questions it, you can just say "Yeah, these are pretty simple, classic fantasy orcs" and people will know what you mean.


Nuance however takes work. If you want to build fantasy cultures that are respectful and nuanced, that's worldbuilding effort you need to go through.

The goal of published materials is to provide setting details and effort so each table doesn't need to re-invent the wheel.

Publishing content with "Orcs are evil raiders that will attack without provocation and are okay to kill" provides no value. Tables that want to do that anyway already know what Orcs are, and tables that find the idea uncomfortable will need to rework all of those details anyway.

Publishing content where Orcs are another sentient species in the world, treated with as much nuance and dignity as any other. Well, if your table wants some orcs to guiltlessly kill, they can do so. But if your table isn't comfortable with the classic portrayal they will get value out of the lore provided.

[Jophiel]

Publishing content with "Orcs are evil raiders that will attack without provocation and are okay to kill" provides no value.
Why would you stop there though? Talk about their religion, their art, their culture, how they interact with one another and with other orc tribes, how they select leaders, how they select partners, how they raise their young, what keeps their chaotic evil society intact as a society of potentially hundreds if not thousands, how they migrate, if they migrate, what sort of architecture they create if they don't migrate, do they domesticate beasts, do they farm, if they don't farm how do they eat when the raiding isn't working out, how do they get along with other 'evil' humanoid races...

...if all you can think to type is "Orcs are evil raiders and will bite you! Kill on sight" because you decided that they're evil then that's a total failure of the author, not the concept of orcs being evil. Heck, Dragon used to kick out 3-4 page articles on the Ecology Of things like constructs, slimes and oozes, but people can't work past "They evil and mean" for evil humanoids so they must be "boring"?

[OldTrees1]

OldTrees1: For my standard, "always evil" is something like 95% follow the dictates/behaviors/whatever. Either by commission or omission, 95% go along and receive benefit. 5% actively think or do otherwise. In this group, probably like many others, most of them get weeded out, though in this case probably not by active intent on the part of the weeders.

- M

I think you would have something closer to at most 60% evil, 30% neutral, and 10% good. However if you are measuring supporting:bystander:resistance then supporting+bystander:resistance might be close to 95:5.

[BRC]

Why would you stop there though? Talk about their religion, their art, their culture, how they interact with one another and with other orc tribes, how they select leaders, how they select partners, how they raise their young, what keeps their chaotic evil society intact as a society of potentially hundreds if not thousands, how they migrate, if they migrate, what sort of architecture they create if they don't migrate, do they domesticate beasts, do they farm, if they don't farm how do they eat when the raiding isn't working out, how do they get along with other 'evil' humanoid races...

...if all you can think to type is "Orcs are evil raiders and will bite you! Kill on sight" because you decided that they're evil then that's a total failure of the author, not the concept of orcs being evil.

If you're going to go through the trouble of building out a proper Orcish culture for your setting, you might as well also go through the trouble of making them not just Acceptable Targets. If you want orcs to represent an enemy, give them a reason to be opposed to the PCs, and throw in enough non-evil orcs (And non-orc evils) to make it clear that while, yes, you are fighting orcs, Orcs don't just exist to be something for you to fight.

If you want to spend the ink and sweat to write out an elaborate description of Orcish Culture and Society, only to have the end point thesis be "Orcs are evil raiders and will bite you. Kill on sight", then you and I have very different approaches to worldbuilding.

[Errorname]

Why would you stop there though? Talk about their religion, their art, their culture, how they interact with one another and with other orc tribes, how they select leaders, how they select partners, how they raise their young, what keeps their chaotic evil society intact as a society of potentially hundreds if not thousands, how they migrate, if they migrate, what sort of architecture they create if they don't migrate, do they domesticate beasts, do they farm, if they don't farm how do they eat when the raiding isn't working out, how do they get along with other 'evil' humanoid races...

Well, the thing is that as a fictional race gets that sort of development it almost always trends away from being straightforwardly 'always chaotic evil'. Like that's why I think this trope is boring (in addition to being in generally poor taste). It's keeping the entire concept in an underdeveloped state because the writers think that painting an entire race as one-note evil makes killing them morally frictionless.

[Jophiel]

If you want to spend the ink and sweat to write out an elaborate description of Orcish Culture and Society, only to have the end point thesis be "Orcs are evil raiders and will bite you. Kill on sight", then you and I have very different approaches to worldbuilding.
If that's all you can think to do with it, I agree.

Well, the thing is that as a fictional race gets that sort of development it almost always trends away from being straightforwardly 'always chaotic evil'. Like that's why I think this trope is boring (in addition to being in generally poor taste).
Again, that honestly strikes me as a failure on the world builder's part. Personally, I think the idea of building a full functional and dynamic culture within those guardrails is an excellent way to flex some creativity. Resorting to "They're just like us?" is what feels like giving up and going back to vanilla.

[BRC]

If that's all you can think to do with it, I agree.

I think you CAN do more with it, but I question why you would.


In my mind, the sole benefit of declaring a group "always evil acceptable targets" is that it's a simple way to use them as enemies in your action-adventure game without delving into concepts of morality. Not every story needs to deal with the moral questions around the use of violence.

If you are going through the effort to write about their culture, their internal politics, their lifestyles and religion and art, you can write a reason why they are your enemies that isn't "They are inherently evil by nature", and you might as well, because "They are inherently evil by nature" is a pretty boring answer to "Why is it okay to fight these people"?

[Dr.Samurai]

You're right: You don't know my ethnicity, and you don't need to.
And I also didn't bring it up; you did.

Someone brought up the definitions of "Definitionally Evil". As I recall, you scoffed that there is no definitional evil in the world you deal with.
I recall I thanked BRC for the definitions and said they were helpful...


That's not "othering" or cruelty, that's a statement of fact.
No, it's "othering". You are lumping in people with an opinion on orcs, with some other group of people that probably have never and will never play D&D, and making them into scary bogeymen.

You are doing the very thing you claim to be impacted by. I am not surprised in the least.

And your mode of play is generally one which they use to indoctrinate more people. It tells us things about your GM that should be unacceptable in modern society.
No, it really doesn't. But your reaction and assertions certainly tells us a lot about you.

My DM is probably one of the sweetest guys I know, and would likely align with a lot of your concerns. My description of an encounter he ran is simply not enough of a data point for you to judge him by, especially on such serious matters. You are being unreasonable.

And I'm concerned about having to share a hobby with people who literally want to definitionally kill me and who have succeeded with people I know who are empowered by Bad Old Days tropes.
D&D players don't want to kill you. And I don't see continued conversation between us to be fruitful at all. With all sincerity, best of luck to you!

Handful of ways - up to the reader to determine if they are sufficient.


Not exiles rejecting another version of their kind;
Not bleak, joyless or pessimistic;
They do not suffer the curse of gold;
Not Vulcans;
Definitely not bitter (bares repeating) or cruel for cruelties' sake


In shot (no pun intended) I think Duergar can be distilled down to being disaffected dwarves piling on to a "no true dwarf" mentality, and delighting in gold, power and cruelty.

The proposed evil dwarf race lacks the elements of spite, greed and cruelty (as defined by intentional infliction of harm for purposes of bringing the inflictor pleasure). The broader cultural norms that would define their killing, looting, etc as evil are not rejected in favor of a different path...this simply are not considered or valued. Importantly, they can love, and care, and protect, and be happy. They can also kill others for a slight, for the goods they carry, or for sustenance.

This is outside my field, but is it maybe that Duergar are immoral while the PEDR are ammoral? At least in selected areas. Maybe that gets down the road a bit. Or more likely, immoral vs differently moraled.

OldTrees1: For my standard, "always evil" is something like 95% follow the dictates/behaviors/whatever. Either by commission or omission, 95% go along and receive benefit. 5% actively think or do otherwise. In this group, probably like many others, most of them get weeded out, though in this case probably not by active intent on the part of the weeders.

- M
Helpful. I certainly think this can be done. I'd need to read more thoroughly through your parameters, sort of glancing right now at work.

And I find the "we shouldn't accommodate sensitive / easily-scared people" argument to be specious.
Yeah, I've found a lot of the arguments so far to be specious. Like "we're not accommodating people, we're just changing the lore to better suit their desires".

Orcs don't need to be that monster, is the point. Given that they cannot, ever, be divorced from their roots, wouldn't using something else actually designed to be "monsters to be slain" do a better job of avoiding these issues?
So if they can never be divorced from their roots, they will always reflect real world people? So I'd be accurate to always draw parallels to real world people no matter how orcs are depicted right? It will always be a commentary on others?

Why would you stop there though? Talk about their religion, their art, their culture, how they interact with one another and with other orc tribes, how they select leaders, how they select partners, how they raise their young, what keeps their chaotic evil society intact as a society of potentially hundreds if not thousands, how they migrate, if they migrate, what sort of architecture they create if they don't migrate, do they domesticate beasts, do they farm, if they don't farm how do they eat when the raiding isn't working out, how do they get along with other 'evil' humanoid races...

...if all you can think to type is "Orcs are evil raiders and will bite you! Kill on sight" because you decided that they're evil then that's a total failure of the author, not the concept of orcs being evil. Heck, Dragon used to kick out 3-4 page articles on the Ecology Of things like constructs, slimes and oozes, but people can't work past "They evil and mean" for evil humanoids so they must be "boring"?
1000%

As I said, there appears to be a dearth of imagination in this thread, maybe just to prove a point.

[Jophiel]

If you are going through the effort to write about their culture, their internal politics, their lifestyles and religion and art, you can write a reason why they are your enemies that isn't "They are inherently evil by nature", and you might as well, because "They are inherently evil by nature" is a pretty boring answer to "Why is it okay to fight these people"?
It is a boring answer. Hopefully someone can do more with it: How they're "evil", how it's impacting the area, etc. Also what non-evil stuff they do. Maybe orcs are great leatherworkers but trying to separate them from their wares is a tricky bit of negotiation. They can be great leatherworkers AND still be evil (see the legendary drow armors even during their Always Evil days). So what motivates them? What would be lost if you just killed every last orc? Do you care? Why do your orcs just immediately bite everyone? Evil doesn't mean "feral and stupid" and a society that doesn't care if the orcs are slavers or cannibals or whatever could still find ways of working with them.

[Psyren]

That's not really meaningful in the context of this thread. It's not a thread about 5e, it's a thread about TTRPGs and many of the posters have said they don't/rarely play 5e. Trying to limit discussion to WOTC or treating their corp decisions as the final word defeats the points of this being in the general RPG forum.

1) I never said it was only WotC who have come to this realization about Orc roots, they're just the most prominent. Other major IP holders making orc fantasy content like Paizo, Shadowrun, Blizzard, and Bethesda made a conscious effort to distance themselves from Tolkien's portrayals too.

2) If it's not about WotC then why do you care so much about what their printed game does? If you're talking about your homebrew campaigns or some other random publisher making all their Orcs be metaphysically evil then that's totally fine, go nuts. I sincerely wish them all success in capturing the edge demo.


Why would you stop there though? Talk about their religion, their art, their culture, how they interact with one another and with other orc tribes, how they select leaders, how they select partners, how they raise their young, what keeps their chaotic evil society intact as a society of potentially hundreds if not thousands, how they migrate, if they migrate, what sort of architecture they create if they don't migrate, do they domesticate beasts, do they farm, if they don't farm how do they eat when the raiding isn't working out, how do they get along with other 'evil' humanoid races...

...if all you can think to type is "Orcs are evil raiders and will bite you! Kill on sight" because you decided that they're evil then that's a total failure of the author, not the concept of orcs being evil. Heck, Dragon used to kick out 3-4 page articles on the Ecology Of things like constructs, slimes and oozes, but people can't work past "They evil and mean" for evil humanoids so they must be "boring"?

Can you explain what is lost by making the chaotic evil orcs, if they must exist, be a specific tribe or nation rather than universal biological destiny?



Yeah, I've found a lot of the arguments so far to be specious. Like "we're not accommodating people, we're just changing the lore to better suit their desires".

Yet again, I never said they're not changing lore nor did I say they're not accommodating people. I said they have every right to do both.


So if they can never be divorced from their roots, they will always reflect real world people? So I'd be accurate to always draw parallels to real world people no matter how orcs are depicted right? It will always be a commentary on others?

If you're starting from Tolkien then yes, obviously. Because that's where he started from. This is well-documented, including by the man himself.

[Jophiel]

Can you explain what is lost by making the chaotic evil orcs, if they must exist, be a specific tribe or nation rather than universal biological destiny?
Depends, are you planning on meeting the Friendly Orcs of North Orkton, a million miles away? If not, then I guess nothing is lost just like nothing is lost by letting you know that, in North Orkton, they all have purple wings and flowers grow from their tusks and they plant gummi bear trees.

If yes, then it's changing the world setting if you've decided that, in this world, orcs be evil. Also, nothing much is gained for it since you probably already have a bunch of races Just Like Us aside from making orcs more boring by adding them to the Just Like Us slurry.

[BRC]

It is a boring answer. Hopefully someone can do more with it: How they're "evil", how it's impacting the area, etc. Also what non-evil stuff they do. Maybe orcs are great leatherworkers but trying to separate them from their wares is a tricky bit of negotiation. They can be great leatherworkers AND still be evil (see the legendary drow armors even during their Always Evil days). So what motivates them? What would be lost if you just killed every last orc? Do you care? Why do your orcs just immediately bite everyone? Evil doesn't mean "feral and stupid" and a society that doesn't care if the orcs are slavers or cannibals or whatever could still find ways of working with them.

If you answer the bolded questions in any way besides "They are inherently evil by nature", congratulations, you are doing a more nuanced take.


Even if you want to describe an Evil society, and explore the ways they are evil, you can do so easily without the implication that the members of that society are inherently predisposed to being evil.


Look at the Proposed Always Evil Dwarves we were discussing before. That's an evil society, one that does evil stuff and should be resisted and stopped. However, the description of it doesn't require each individual dwarf to be inherently cruel and wicked. The evil is an outgrowth of their society, their society isn't a reflection of their evil natures.

Why do the PAE Dwarves raid and pillage? Because that's how they support their cultural lifestyle, and they value preserving that lifestyle over the survival and wellbeing of their neighbors. Boom. Done.

Like lets say you want to do the starting point of Orcs viking-style raiders who set sail to launch raids pillaging nearby peoples. Why do they do this?

The lazy answer is to say that Orcs are inherently predisposed towards being greedy and violent, and pillaging allows them to express both those traits, satisfying their greed and giving them the thrill of violence.

Or you could say that Orcish society is based around a network of clan-patronage and gift-giving, one where political power and social esteem is achieved via gifts given to other influential figures and valor is proved with great deeds. As a result, while an ambitious orc COULD ascend through society by accumulating wealth peacefully and demonstrating valor in other manners, the most efficient way for an ambitious Orc to ascend through society is to gather and lead a raiding party, using their deeds during the raids as proof of valor, and using the spoils from the raids as gifts to gain favor with the influential figures in Orcish society. Because raiding other orcs is a good way to make enemies and invite retaliation, most orcs choose to raid elsewhere, trusting that the people they attacked are unlikely to bother traveling far to seek revenge (And trusting that if that DOES happen, they're more likely to have allies that come to their defense). From this, it follows that a lot of Orcish leaders must be at least okay with the practice of raiding, since they either came to power that way, or are hooked into a network of patronage with people who did. Refusing to raid makes it far more difficult to achieve positions of power, and refusing to accept the results of raids makes it difficult to establish the relationships that represent power in this society.


Cool, we've now established a reason why Orcs might go on raids that isn't "Orcs are inherently more greedy and violent than humans."


I guess if you're really interested in exploring the specific hypothetical of "Okay, but what would a society built like a group that WAS inheriently predisposed towards evil look like" you can do that? I don't consider that an especially interesting question.

[Jophiel]

Even if you want to describe an Evil society, and explore the ways they are evil, you can do so easily without the implication that the members of that society are inherently predisposed to being evil.
But, more to the point, being inherently evil doesn't prevent you from making a nuanced take on their society and motivations. There's a lot of flavors of "evil" and orcs probably aren't doing every single evil thing you can think of in a day.

So, I say again, the only thing making Always Evil Orcs boring is uncreative world setting creators.

I guess if you're really interested in exploring the specific hypothetical of "Okay, but what would a society built like a group that WAS inheriently predisposed towards evil look like" you can do that? I don't consider that an especially interesting question.
That's okay, since I do find it interesting (and a refreshing departure from the They're Just Like Us mindset) and a good way to build better than "Orcs bite stuff and evil! So boring!" that so many people can't think past.

[Dr.Samurai]

Ok so then it seems we're agreed that evil races/cultures can be interesting and made compelling. Great. Now what do we talk about? :smalltongue:


What do people think of combining racial features with something like themes from 4E? So as you gain levels you gain other features, and could maybe choose to focus on certain aspects of a race.

So for dwarves, you could gain features related to crafting, or martial combat, or rune magic, something like that. It would make racial choice matter more, and would add depth to dwarves without having to change them drastically from what they are now.

[Psyren]

Depends, are you planning on meeting the Friendly Orcs of North Orkton, a million miles away? If not, then I guess nothing is lost just like nothing is lost by letting you know that, in North Orkton, they all have purple wings and flowers grow from their tusks and they plant gummi bear trees.

If yes, then it's changing the world setting if you've decided that, in this world, orcs be evil. Also, nothing much is gained for it since you probably already have a bunch of races Just Like Us aside from making orcs more boring by adding them to the Just Like Us slurry.

Does that mean you'd be okay with the South Orkton orcs being mostly evil (say, much like Menzoberranzan's Lothite Drow, Gruumsh's faith was very successful in South Orkton), and those South Orkton orcs who don't wish to participate in raiding and pillaging needing to flee that society for the North or other nations, then?

[Jophiel]

Does that mean you'd be okay with the South Orkton orcs being mostly evil (say, much like Menzoberranzan's Lothite Drow, Gruumsh's faith was very successful in South Orkton), and those South Orkton orcs who don't wish to participate in raiding and pillaging needing to flee that society for the North or other nations, then?
Nope, I already gave them North Orkton. Any other non-evil orcs are immediately eaten by the Dire Otyugh under their cribs and removes them from the Biological Evil Gene Pool.

[BRC]

But, more to the point, being inherently evil doesn't prevent you from making a nuanced take on their society and motivations. There's a lot of flavors of "evil" and orcs probably aren't doing every single evil thing you can think of in a day.

So, I say again, the only thing making Always Evil Orcs boring is uncreative world setting creators.

That's okay, since I do find it interesting (and a refreshing departure from the They're Just Like Us mindset) and a good way to build better than "Orcs bite stuff and evil! So boring!" that so many people can't think past.

I think that if you want to give people predisposed traits and explore how that might affect their society, you should get a LOT Weirder with it than "What if they were all Bad Meanies that wanted to bite people?".

[Jophiel]

I think that if you want to give people predisposed traits and explore how that might affect their society, you should get a LOT Weirder with it than "What if they were all Bad Meanies that wanted to bite people?".
Good thing I've repeatedly said that your evil dudes should have more going on that "Meanies who bite". But, yes, if that's all you can get from Always Evil, it's best avoided by you.

[Psyren]

Ok so then it seems we're agreed that evil races/cultures can be interesting and made compelling. Great. Now what do we talk about? :smalltongue:

Evil cultures, nobody ever disagreed on.
Evil races, ideally you need a metaphysical justification (such as e.g. fiends, hags, and aberrations have) and non-Tolkien orcs don't.


What do people think of combining racial features with something like themes from 4E? So as you gain levels you gain other features, and could maybe choose to focus on certain aspects of a race.

So for dwarves, you could gain features related to crafting, or martial combat, or rune magic, something like that. It would make racial choice matter more, and would add depth to dwarves without having to change them drastically from what they are now.

(Does this mean we are talking about D&D, contrary to Jophiel's belief?)

I'm not opposed to some form of race-based progression in 5e, but in general PF2 seems a better fit for that. In 5e, the bulk of your progression after 1st level comes from class, feats, and items. Not saying it couldn't be done but it would probably need to take the form of a secondary track like Boons or Dark Gifts.


Nope, I already gave them North Orkton. Any other non-evil orcs are immediately eaten by the Dire Otyugh under their cribs and removes them from the Biological Evil Gene Pool.

Oh I never said they'd be successful at escaping South Orkton, just that they would perish if they didn't try. It's even possible, along the lines of what you state, that Gruumsh or Luthic or whoever perfectly identifies every troublesome free-willed orc in South Orkton during childhood and snuffs them out.

[Witty Username]

*focusing on printed settings. Obviously, your own table can have him be totally successful or unsuccessful at this, just like you can make Lolth etc be.

Spelljammer and Ravenloft are pretty good homes for these ideas officially.

Ravenloft already is essentially microsettings shaped by singular dark lords, so the worst possible outcomes are somewhat given.

Spelljammer also works reasonably due to shear size, vampire king that destroyed an entire solar system pales in comparison to the vastness of the Astral.

A vast world where Maglubiyet has claimed all and everyone is goblin could be the framework of a cool module.*

*and for those still uncomfortable, everyone is goblin could mean instead of always evil goblins, a world where elves, dwarves and humans have been Anexed. All are goblin in the eyes of the great one.

[Mordar]

(Does this mean we are talking about D&D, contrary to Jophiel's belief?)

To be fair, *my* point was "we're not talking about just D&D, particularly 5e" and Jophiel's point seems to be adjacent.


I'm not opposed to some form of race-based progression in 5e, but in general PF2 seems a better fit for that. In 5e, the bulk of your progression after 1st level comes from class, feats, and items. Not saying it couldn't be done but it would probably need to take the form of a secondary track like Boons or Dark Gifts.


What do people think of combining racial features with something like themes from 4E? So as you gain levels you gain other features, and could maybe choose to focus on certain aspects of a race.

So for dwarves, you could gain features related to crafting, or martial combat, or rune magic, something like that. It would make racial choice matter more, and would add depth to dwarves without having to change them drastically from what they are now.

I'm becoming more and more enamored of this kind of idea. Not just an ability that scales with levels, but perhaps some trees that evolve with levels. Maybe a progression chart for the races that layers with Class so as you level in one you level in the other. In effect, you become a 5th level Dwarf Cleric, not a 5th level Cleric that happens to be a Dwarf, if you will. But how to do that in an interesting fashion (and not just a table of +1s to things)?

Yup, I can see it being bookkeepy, but I love(d) Rolemaster, so that holds no fear for me!

- M

[OldTrees1]

If you answer the bolded questions in any way besides "They are inherently evil by nature", congratulations, you are doing a more nuanced take.
I had been presuming all the takes were this kind of more nuanced take. Even the well critiqued Volo's take went further.


I guess if you're really interested in exploring the specific hypothetical of "Okay, but what would a society built like a group that WAS inheriently predisposed towards evil look like" you can do that? I don't consider that an especially interesting question.

There is a trope of a species that is inherently faced with the challenge of "kill or die". Stories keep coming back to this species trope due to fear and respect of the question "what if my survival required me to kill?". Obviously the living members of such a species are predisposed to kill because most of the others are dead. (I hope it is obvious that I am not talking about Orcs)

There are many species that come out of this trope. They also vary depending on what exactly is meant by "kill" in the ultimate they face. For some variation of "kill" (for example, perhaps, those that must "murder sapients or die") we might describe the surviving members of that species as being predisposed to evil.

Oddly enough I do consider this particular question, in some of its various forms, as an interesting one. I even played a campaign as an Illithid.

[BRC]

There is a trope of a species that is inherently faced with the challenge of "kill or die". Stories keep coming back to this species trope due to fear and respect of the question "what if my survival required me to kill?". Obviously the living members of such a species are predisposed to kill because most of the others are dead. (I hope it is obvious that I am not talking about Orcs)

There are many species that come out of this trope. They also vary depending on what exactly is meant by "kill" in the ultimate they face. For some variation of "kill" (for example, perhaps, those that must "murder sapients or die") we might describe the surviving members of that species as being predisposed to evil.

Oddly enough I do consider this particular question, in some of its various forms, as an interesting one. I even played a campaign as an Illithid.

I consider that a different question.


The classic Fantasy Orc is basically, "What if there was a type of person that was just Some Specific Guy, and that Specific Guy happened to be a cruel, mean brute". There's nothing central about the classic orc that isn't either cosmetic (Green/grey skin, tusks ect) or something can can describe a human.

They're Dehumanized, but they're not Inhuman. The green skin and tusks basically serves the same function as a label on a human saying "You can assume this person is cruel, dumb, and violent".



Vampires and Illithids are Inhuman. There are no humans that must drink the blood of fellow humans to survive. While a vampire can certainly be an Allegory for a type of human, the nature of a Vampire makes it, at least in-universe, literally distinct from a human. You could have a human that is in all ways except literal an Orc. You can't have a human that is in all ways except literal a Vampire, because humans don't need to drink human blood to survive.


"What if there was a type of person whose literal survival required doing harm to other people" is a different question from "What if there was a type of person that was just inherently evil".


Edit: I guess my thesis is, if your fantasy race could be replaced with a bunch of humans who happen to share some similar traits (Classic Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, ect), you should treat them with the same respect that you would treat a group of humans you are writing about.

If your fantasy race is deliberately Inhuman, then that inhumanity should be central to how you explore them.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm becoming more and more enamored of this kind of idea. Not just an ability that scales with levels, but perhaps some trees that evolve with levels. Maybe a progression chart for the races that layers with Class so as you level in one you level in the other. In effect, you become a 5th level Dwarf Cleric, not a 5th level Cleric that happens to be a Dwarf, if you will. But how to do that in an interesting fashion (and not just a table of +1s to things)?

Yup, I can see it being bookkeepy, but I love(d) Rolemaster, so that holds no fear for me!

- M
The book-keeping will be a big point of pushback from some people. I don't mind it myself either, especially if some of these are passive.

Combat Tree - Might include offensive/defensive/toughness options to choose from. Offensive could be improvements to specific weapon use (traditionally axes and hammers, can include crossbows?), proficiency with a unique weapon like the Urgrosh, and/or eventually a combat technique like battleraging. Defensive could include improvements to armor/shield use, unlocking unique armors like Mountain Armor (3rd edition), techniques like Dwarven Defender stance. Toughness could be things like improving poison resistance, disease immunity, canceling forced movement/prone conditions, etc.

Crafting Tree - Additional tool proficiencies, maybe unique uses of these tool proficiencies, able to craft unique arms and armors, eventually crafting magic items even without spells, bring brack Dwarvencraft quality, etc.

Rune Tree - This could interact with magic somehow; maybe by functioning like scrolls, or very specific types of metamagic by reading a rune during casting? Learn unique runes (maybe pull from Earth dreamer dwarf in 3.5). Inscribe runes on items for benefit of others.

Anyways, that's off the top of my head. Maybe these aren't exclusive to each other and you can pick and choose from each as you gain levels. I play 5th now so I'm using 5E terms, but also inspired by 3rd and 4th.

[awa]

The book-keeping will be a big point of pushback from some people. I don't mind it myself either, especially if some of these are passive.

Combat Tree - Might include offensive/defensive/toughness options to choose from. Offensive could be improvements to specific weapon use (traditionally axes and hammers, can include crossbows?), proficiency with a unique weapon like the Urgrosh, and/or eventually a combat technique like battleraging. Defensive could include improvements to armor/shield use, unlocking unique armors like Mountain Armor (3rd edition), techniques like Dwarven Defender stance. Toughness could be things like improving poison resistance, disease immunity, canceling forced movement/prone conditions, etc.

Crafting Tree - Additional tool proficiencies, maybe unique uses of these tool proficiencies, able to craft unique arms and armors, eventually crafting magic items even without spells, bring brack Dwarvencraft quality, etc.

Rune Tree - This could interact with magic somehow; maybe by functioning like scrolls, or very specific types of metamagic by reading a rune during casting? Learn unique runes (maybe pull from Earth dreamer dwarf in 3.5). Inscribe runes on items for benefit of others.

two more ideas
Anyways, that's off the top of my head. Maybe these aren't exclusive to each other and you can pick and choose from each as you gain levels. I play 5th now so I'm using 5E terms, but also inspired by 3rd and 4th.

Maybe allow the dwarf to sharpen a weapon really good increasing its damage for 1 encounter.
If its linked to class maybe allow them to use just a straight +5 (or whatever for balance) instead of dex for thief skills a dwarf would logically be great at, I'm thinking stuff like lock picking and disabling traps.

[Psyren]

Spelljammer and Ravenloft are pretty good homes for these ideas officially.

Ravenloft already is essentially microsettings shaped by singular dark lords, so the worst possible outcomes are somewhat given.

Spelljammer also works reasonably due to shear size, vampire king that destroyed an entire solar system pales in comparison to the vastness of the Astral.

A vast world where Maglubiyet has claimed all and everyone is goblin could be the framework of a cool module.*

*and for those still uncomfortable, everyone is goblin could mean instead of always evil goblins, a world where elves, dwarves and humans have been Anexed. All are goblin in the eyes of the great one.

I'd have no problem with a Planet of Evil Orcs or Demiplane of Evil Orcs way over there somewhere. But there's no need to wait for WotC to make such a thing either, they have way more important books to work on. Moreover, I don't see why you couldn't do Planet of Evil Dwarves or Demiplane of Evil Halflings either.



I'm becoming more and more enamored of this kind of idea. Not just an ability that scales with levels, but perhaps some trees that evolve with levels. Maybe a progression chart for the races that layers with Class so as you level in one you level in the other. In effect, you become a 5th level Dwarf Cleric, not a 5th level Cleric that happens to be a Dwarf, if you will. But how to do that in an interesting fashion (and not just a table of +1s to things)?

Yup, I can see it being bookkeepy, but I love(d) Rolemaster, so that holds no fear for me!

I definitely recommend you give PF2 a try then, it has more of the race-based progression you seem to want to try. I think PF2 took a lot of 4e's design principles and refined them. Again, not saying you couldn't bolt/kludge something like that onto 5e, but 5e races aren't really designed for that kind of lifelong progression; at most, they either have features that are evergreen or that scale at particular thresholds, but you're not actually making build choices related to your race.

[gbaji]

Mostly don't want to touch this with a 10' pole, but this one bit stuck out for me:


Group X fights us Good People. Therefore, we can feel good about fighting them." And all of the pieces support each other, so it looks like it makes sense. Except that the response to having a bunch of strange-to-you people show up and attack you tends to be to cling to your perfectly reasonable and not at all terrible cultural icons and fight back.

I think there's a huge amount of projective labeling and motivation assuming going on here. At the end of the day, when we strip that stuff out, we're left with this:

"The response to a bunch of people show(ing) up and attack(ing) you tends to be to fight back".

I think that most reasonable people would find that statement to be a reasonable one, and the response to be reasonable as well.

Whether the people attacking you are "strange to you" or not is irrelevant.

Whether our cultural icons are terrible or not, or whether we cling to them or not is also irrelevant.

What matters the most, when considering whether actions are good or evil is not who is doing them, but what they are doing. I would even go futher and suggest that actions can be good or evil, and alignments can be good or evil (in games), but those are not always, er... "aligned" either. It's entirely possible for folks who have good alignment to be in a war with other folks who also have good alignment, and thus one is "attacking the other", and the "response" mentioned previously is perfectly acceptable as a result.


I think that games can have "mostly evil" or even "always evil" races, which have specific meaning within the context of those games. The latter is generally reserved for various actually created beings that are actually inate embodiments of those attributes themselves (like demons and devils and whatnot). The former is more about cultural/deity issues, and certainly becomes a bit more tricky.

But, again, it's not tricky at all if/when a group of people (of whatever race) are attacking you. You are allowed to fight back. Period. Doesn't matter if it's a pillaging group of Orcs, or a group of knights following the lawful orders of their liege. Does. Not. Matter. And while I can absolutely accept a game setting in which Orcs are really just misunderstood creatures, and get a bad rap or something, that doesn't mean I should pause to consider this ethical question when a group of them show up at my door and try to kill me and my family. The fact that some orcs may not be evil, and may even be good, simply doesn't matter at that point in time.

Where it does matter, and where some previous examples showed this, was the whole "you find an orc nusery, what do you do?". That's a perfectly valid moral and ethical question for a game world/setting to contemplate. I guess I just don't understand the value of the point you are trying to make here, nor the examples you are using. At the end of the day, as harsh as this may be for the Orc that's breaking down my door to kill me and my familiy, I'm not actually responsible for whatever historical issues occurred which brought that particular Orc to my door on this particular day. I can only react to the direct threat that Orc represents.


Now. If my players really want to, we can certainly play out a campaign where they investigate why the Orcs are engaged in so much raiding and pillaging, and work out some social interactions and activities to change things, and help the Orcs become more friendly neighbors or something. And there could even be value to doing that. Maybe, over time, we can bridge the gap between the humans living here, and the Orcs living there, and find common ground, and trade with each other, share bread together and become fast friends or something. There's nothing at all wrong with that, and I've actually played out scenarios similar to that in my games.


But in the moment at hand? RPG games tend to revolve around some kind of conflict. And assuming the players prefer to play "good guys", that means that the GM has to come up with "bad guys" for them to conflict with. Those bad guys could be a local merchant who engaged in the slave/drug trade on the side. It could be some evil priest of <whatever> plotting and scheming to use sentient sacrifices to raise some evil demon/whatever to do <something evil and nasty>. And yeah. Sometimes, it's going to be "enemy culture/kingdom/whatever over there trying to do things to our culture/kingdom over here". Whether we label them "evil" or not, kinda misses the point. Whether they are human, or dwarven, or elven, or trolls, or orcs, or whatever, also doesn't really matter. And whether their actions are in line or out of line with some broader cultural "norm" for those people in general is also not super relevant (though it could be in terms of how the PCs deal with them). At the end of the day, someone is doing something that causes us harm, so we deal with it.

Um... This is also why I'm not a super fan of alignment systems in general. A whole lot of the time, these "evil acts" have nothing at all to do with whether someone is actually "evil", and even less to do with what race they are. It's about what they are doing, and whether what they are doing represents significant threat of harm to others that matters.

In the game setting I've been playing for a long time, there are no racial differences among different groups of dwarves (seriously. They're just dwarves and have different starting stats). However, there are serious differences between them based on culture. Some are incredibly isolationist and nearly xenophobic. Others are active in making and trading things, but are notoriously greedly and will take whatever advantage they can get. Still others are very freindly and willing to share what they have, and help out their friends.

Same deal with Elves in our game. Some are friendly and work closely with other cultures near them. Others are somewhat aloof, and stick to their forests, but will trade if needed. Some are super isolationist, and will basically just kill anyone who isn't an elf who enters their forests without invitation. One group is famous for using poisoned arrows, and allowing trade along one road through their forest (with a tax collection box along the way), but if you devitate from the road, light a single fire (and you'd better not collect any wood to do so), or fail to place an appropriate tax payment in the box, you'll likely never be seen again.


Which kinda loops back to my earlier comments about dwarves (and races/sub-races in general). I find it much much more interesting to make the differences not be physical or magical, but about culture and maybe religion instead. More or less just as differences in humans in most game settings are. But that's just the way I play and prefer to run things. It does have the positive that it removes the direct connection between race and "good/evil" or "enemy/friend". It's never about just that. It's about other things.


I think where many game setting developers go wrong is that they spend a huge amount of time creating a bunch of different cultures and religions and environments for humans, but then go "Elves live in the forest and worship <Elven god> and love nature and living things and are good at magic and healing arts"; "Dwarves live underground and worship <Dwarf god> and love stone and metal and are good at tunnelling and making armor/weapons"; "Orcs live in small villages in the hills and moutains, and worship <Orc god> and love pillaging and killing and are good at fighting". As a result, those races seem very one dimensional. They have one culture. One religion. One environment. And then, when faced with this one dimensionality, instead of saying "well, <race> can actually live in any of a number of different environments, and worship any of a number of different gods, and have any of a number of different cultural norms", they instead go "well, here's <subraceA>, and here's the list of ways they are different from <normal race>, now buy my supplement so you can include this variety of <race> in your game".

And yeah, to the point being made, this can lend towards people making "good/evil" associations about the races themselves.

[OldTrees1]

I consider that a different question.

-snip-

"What if there was a type of person whose literal survival required doing harm to other people" is a different question from "What if there was a type of person that was predisposed to evil".
I think worldbuilding questions can lead to other worldbuilding questions. I found the former question interesting. Some partial answers to the former question also raise the latter question. Others don't. When the latter question is an emergent question (rather than some metagame need) then I find it can remain interesting.

However you are right this example I gave was about inhuman/nonhuman people. I am glad I successfully communicated it was not about Orcs.


Edit: I guess my thesis is, if your fantasy race could be replaced with a bunch of humans who happen to share some similar traits (Classic Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, ect), you should treat them with the same respect that you would treat a group of humans you are writing about.

If your fantasy race is deliberately Inhuman, then that inhumanity should be central to how you explore them.

You thesis sounds good, but I should check. What do you mean by "a bunch of humans who happen to share some similar traits"?
Are you talking about the species that are basically just humans? No nonhuman traits of significance? For example Elves trance in contrast to a Plasmoid or a Warforged*? You had been talking about species being distinct vs indistinct from human, so I assume this is what you meant.
*Assuming no sapient robots IRL at the time of the reply.

I don't have a formal thesis, but it would be similar to yours but would mention both humans and inhumans/nonhumans are people, and people are not bound by the limitations of humanity.

[Jophiel]

To be fair, *my* point was "we're not talking about just D&D, particularly 5e" and Jophiel's point seems to be adjacent.
Exactly, thanks. We have people discussing "defunct" D&D versions from 1e to 4e, some talk of 5e, some talk of other RPGs, a whole lot of just theoretical talk that could apply to any rule set, etc. Trying to say "Well WOTC is making [race] like this in their next version of 5e, so there" misses a huge part (probably a majority) of the thread content.

[BRC]

You thesis sounds good, but I should check. What do you mean by "a bunch of humans who happen to share some similar traits"?
Are you talking about the species that are basically just humans? No nonhuman traits of significance? For example Elves trance in contrast to a Plasmoid or a Warforged*? You had been talking about species being distinct vs indistinct from human, so I assume this is what you meant.

That would be correct.


Most Fantasy Dwarves could be replaced with humans who happen to grow big beards, enjoy drinking, mining, and smithing. They're short and stout, but besides the obvious architectural implications, there is rarely much built out about them that couldn't be used to describe a human culture that lives underground and values good craftsmanship.

An elves Trance is an Inhuman trait, but I rarely see it explored in a way beyond "Elves sleep a bit differently I guess", I don't think I've ever seen anything that has Elven trance be relevant in a way that, say, a human that's a light sleeper couldn't be. Some stories really get into the idea of Elves having long lives and how that separates them from humanity, but often an 80 year old elf is just written as a 20 year old human with pointy ears.

If you had a bunch of humans who loved nature, thought they were better than everybody else, were light sleepers, and claimed to be four times older than they were, then you're pretty close to a lot of fantasy Elves.

[LibraryOgre]

Does that mean you'd be okay with the South Orkton orcs being mostly evil (say, much like Menzoberranzan's Lothite Drow, Gruumsh's faith was very successful in South Orkton), and those South Orkton orcs who don't wish to participate in raiding and pillaging needing to flee that society for the North or other nations, then?

Actually, this plays into some of my thoughts on these (I think I mentioned them earlier, but this is a long thread).

In a society that is predominantly evil, you are less likely to see good outliers than a society that is primarily good is going to see evil outliers... because good people are less likely to just murder others. So, those good orcs born in South Orkton often just die. They're killed for being weak, or being in the way, or for not being able to defend themselves adequately.

Now, a CN or NE person in a CE society can probably get along; they're not quite vicious enough, or a bit too regimented, but they can make it work. They may even thrive; that NE guy might be able to create a locus of power around himself, and use that to get a leg up.

As an additional layer, though, there is the size of a society. If alignment tends to get expressed statistically... 1% of this Mostly Chaotic Evil race is LG... then that 1% when there's 100 people is one guy. Easy to dump in a gutter somewhere. When there are 10,000 people, it's 100 guys. And they may be able to carve out a niche for themsevles, or they may go on to form North Orkton.

[Psyren]

Most Fantasy Dwarves could be replaced with humans who happen to grow big beards, enjoy drinking, mining, and smithing. They're short and stout, but besides the obvious architectural implications, there is rarely much built out about them that couldn't be used to describe a human culture that lives underground and values good craftsmanship.

I think this is where more metaphysical differentiators like darkvision, poison resistance, magic resistance or tremorsense will come in handy to better distinguish dwarves from short subterranean humans. Being a dwarf should feel like the stone itself is part of you, or helping you.


An elves Trance is an Inhuman trait, but I rarely see it explored in a way beyond "Elves sleep a bit differently I guess", I don't think I've ever seen anything that has Elven trance be relevant in a way that, say, a human that's a light sleeper couldn't be. Some stories really get into the idea of Elves having long lives and how that separates them from humanity, but often an 80 year old elf is just written as a 20 year old human with pointy ears.

If you had a bunch of humans who loved nature, thought they were better than everybody else, were light sleepers, and claimed to be four times older than they were, then you're pretty close to a lot of fantasy Elves.

In prior D&D editions you'd be right, elven trance was primarily a flavor thing. In fact, if you were a caster you barely got any benefit, because even if you could get your actual 'sleeping' done in less than 8 hours you'd still be forced into inactivity for the remaining time (4+4 typically) to get your spells back. An elf spellcaster wouldn't even get extra time on watch since they were forbidden from skill use while inactive - you weren't much use on watch if you couldn't roll Spot or Listen.

In 5e however trance is a lot stronger, particularly the updated version we got in MPMM (see Eladrin, Sea Elf etc) which is also going to show up in the new PHB. You get the full benefit of a Long Rest after just 4 hours regardless of your class, and you remain fully conscious the entire time - this means you can keep watch over your sleeping allies while 'sleeping' yourself. In addition, if your DM is the type who likes to interrupt a long rest with an ambush, not only do you have a good chance of avoiding being surprised as mentioned, you also have a decent chance of having gotten your resources back before the attack. Lastly, because you don't lose consciousness, you never actually become incapacitated, which means elves can potentially maintain concentration through a long rest. While these benefits can be a little campaign-dependent, there's a pretty decent chance at least one of them will come up, making an elf party member (or eladrin, shadar-kai etc) fairly handy to have around.

There aren't too many spells that last long enough to benefit from the concentration-through-sleep thing, but as an example, an Elf Druid helping the party track down an objective with Find The Path being able to cast it before bed, get their 6th-level spell slot back, and pick up the trail in the morning without casting it a second time could be a pretty nice racial benefit.

[JusticeZero]

I don't have an issue with conflict, I have an issue with bad conflict.
"The Snorgs raid our villages because they are enthralled by a monster that demands it, and we don't know how to cure them of their enthrallment." Okay, there's a threat, we have lots of fights and some actionable plans to deal with it.
"The Blorgs raid our villages because they gain in social class through battlefield feats, so the generals are trying to earn favor through success." Understandable. They're not inherently evil, but their society is set up in a way that we're going to have issues. Again, there's actions we can take to make this better.
"The Noddas raid our villages because the Noddas God is a god of raiding and cruelty and slaughter. They're always evil savages that dress like this real world culture." We're way deep in problem land here. This is lazy and bad writing, and it is applied to real world cultures far too often.
There's multiple points here that make me go "Wait, that looks like something somebody who makes money off of cruelty to the Noddas would tell people..." And while that might make an interesting story, the "Grar, paladins must slaughter all Noddas" angle is really disturbing. Because real people are tired of being treated as always evil bags of XP for paladins in their real life.

[Psyren]

Actually, this plays into some of my thoughts on these (I think I mentioned them earlier, but this is a long thread).

In a society that is predominantly evil, you are less likely to see good outliers than a society that is primarily good is going to see evil outliers... because good people are less likely to just murder others. So, those good orcs born in South Orkton often just die. They're killed for being weak, or being in the way, or for not being able to defend themselves adequately.

Now, a CN or NE person in a CE society can probably get along; they're not quite vicious enough, or a bit too regimented, but they can make it work. They may even thrive; that NE guy might be able to create a locus of power around himself, and use that to get a leg up.

As an additional layer, though, there is the size of a society. If alignment tends to get expressed statistically... 1% of this Mostly Chaotic Evil race is LG... then that 1% when there's 100 people is one guy. Easy to dump in a gutter somewhere. When there are 10,000 people, it's 100 guys. And they may be able to carve out a niche for themsevles, or they may go on to form North Orkton.

Indeed, this was exactly my point. South Orkton is full of evil orcs (comprising 95%, 99%, or hell even 100% of the adult orcs there at any given time) - not because "good orcs" are a biological or metaphysical impossibility, but because South Orkton is a brutally efficient society that stamps them out anytime they're suspected. This is exactly how Menzoberranzan works.

But for me, the interesting part of stories about South Orkton wouldn't be the 99% maintaining the status quo, it would be the 1% or 0.1% of successful escapees.

[Jophiel]

In a society that is predominantly evil, you are less likely to see good outliers than a society that is primarily good is going to see evil outliers... because good people are less likely to just murder others. So, those good orcs born in South Orkton often just die. They're killed for being weak, or being in the way, or for not being able to defend themselves adequately.
Yeah, basically. Weird "biologically evil" remarks aside, I've said before (and other people have also said repeatedly) that "Always Evil" ain't literally always evil or else you couldn't get your Orc-Drizzt or whoever. But it does likely mean 99.X% evil because the scant ones who'd fail to live up to society wouldn't last long (and probably not past childhood depending on how they're raised).

If anything, you're more likely to have some adult have a "moment" and shift mindsets, unlikely as that is, than you are to have an orc kid who tries to help caterpillars cross puddles and survives into adulthood.

[JusticeZero]

...it does likely mean 99.X% evil because the scant ones who'd fail to live up to society wouldn't last long ...
If anything, you're more likely to have some adult have a "moment" and shift mindsets, unlikely as that is, than you are to have an orc kid who tries to help caterpillars cross puddles and survives into adulthood.
...People you'd consider "Evil" can't help caterpillars cross puddles and whatever...?
This is dipping into a thing that I find incredibly weird about D&D-derivative culture, where concepts of good and evil are treated as physical properties of matter or some such. If a thing is Good it is Good for everybody, and always Good. If a thing is Evil it is Evil for and to everyone, and in both cases you can measure the Good and Evil with scientific instruments.
It's a truly strange and alien worldview if you think about it, and I'm happy no longer to be in the gaming ecosystem where that philosophy makes any sense whatsoever.

[OldTrees1]

...People you'd consider "Evil" can't help caterpillars cross puddles and whatever...?
This is dipping into a thing that I find incredibly weird about D&D-derivative culture, where concepts of good and evil are treated as physical properties of matter or some such. If a thing is Good it is Good for everybody, and always Good. If a thing is Evil it is Evil for and to everyone, and in both cases you can measure the Good and Evil with scientific instruments.
It's a truly strange and alien worldview if you think about it, and I'm happy no longer to be in the gaming ecosystem where that philosophy makes any sense whatsoever.
I am assuming they were using that single example act as a flag post to reduce word count, rather than claim "Evil" can't help caterpillars. If I am wrong, then thank you for correcting them about that.


However that is not why I replied. From your post I am unsure how much of it is unfamiliarity with the Ethics branches of Philosophy and how much it is a critique of when players conflate those branches. Just in case you find it useful, here are some helpful links from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Philosophy Primers on the 3 dominant ethical theories:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

Apologies for the interruption. I expect you know all this already.

[JusticeZero]

From your post I am unsure how much of it is unfamiliarity with the Ethics branches of Philosophy and how much it is a critique of when players conflate those branches.
I'm aware of various theories of ethics.

None of them are relevant to D&D and its derivatives, where evil and good are treated as chemical properties of matter subject to continual measurement and gradual change, and in which an individual or object that is Evil will tend to perform Evil acts to anyone around them, independent of any ethical framework or lack thereof, and in which any benevolent acts toward anything for any reason will tend toward causing problems for an Evil object in an Evil society.

That's.... a very specific set of tropes, all tending to the absurd when applied seriously.

[MonochromeTiger]

Not getting into the other arguments on the last few pages because not only are they a minefield but they're a minefield that is very hard to say anything on without potentially offending all sides involved for different reasons. But the whole objective alignment point I actually feel like commenting on because I'm opinionated and something that occasionally comes up on the matter always bothered me.

The example most old and new players seem to agree on is that Outsiders, things like Angels and Devils and so on, are made of "Good" or "Evil" and as a result are always going to be good or evil. The problem is its never actually been universally true even in game. D&D itself is fully willing to pull out a fallen Angel character which flat out disproves that "being made of Good" means you're objectively good, then on the other side of things there's plenty of cases of fiendish characters doing things against their supposedly objectively evil nature whenever the writers want to show things are really bad and even the "objectively evil" don't want to see what happens if it gets even worse.

Two extremely popular CRPGs, both based on existing systems and one based on an official adventure for its system, even have redeemed Demons; Planescape Torment has Fall-from-Grace and Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous has Arueshalae. Both are Succubi and there are some common comments on why the Demon that gets the most redemption stories seems to be the one that looks like a conventionally attractive Woman but despite that they still prove a point. The things that even many detractors of always-evil think should always be evil can still be good, or at the very least neutral.

Part of that issue loops back to the oft repeated point, if something has free will it can technically choose to hold whatever moral view it wants, even with any number of pressures applied to it from cultural to some nebulous claim of "they're made of X so it affects them." If they don't have free will then they can't truly be good or evil, they have no say in things and it would be like saying a building's support beam is good for holding up a building, it's just doing what it was literally made to do and has no say in the matter.

[Witty Username]

But for me, the interesting part of stories about South Orkton wouldn't be the 99% maintaining the status quo, it would be the 1% or 0.1% of successful escapees.

I actually agree with this, but that story doesn't work if there is no status quo.

And does it being localized make the issue better? It seems like we are at just wipe out Menzoborenzen, plot solved, but I am not confident that actually solves anyones problems with the whole encouraging wholesale destruction.

[OldTrees1]

That's.... a very specific set of tropes, all tending to the absurd when applied seriously.

Thank you for clarifying and my apologies again for interrupting.

[Dr.Samurai]

Seems to me what Jophiel was pointing out is simple; dominant cultures tend to reinforce themselves. A child that shows sympathy in a traditionally brutal and ruthless culture will be ostracized or worse. In this way, the number of orcs, as an example, that don't tow the traditional Gruumsh line, will remain tiny. It is more likely that an adult orc has a change of heart due to some experience or circumstances, because had the orc been good since a child, they would not have made it to adulthood in all likelihood.

This is seen in the Drizz't books, in which Drizz't is suspected and targeted by rival drow and has to inflict non-lethal violence on an innocent elf and pretend to have killed her to avoid suspicion. Because otherwise he will be called out and targeted.

It's an explanation for why a race of creatures with an origin story that stems from a creator deity might perpetuate the evil culture over many generations and give the appearance of an evil "race" when in reality it's a culture that happens to map over the race of creatures in which it originated, and it perpetuates itself as an dominant culture does.

This is also why dwarves are mostly lawful that lean good, and elves are mostly chaotic, etc etc etc. Because they were from the beginning, are influenced by their deities, and the culture perpetuates itself.

[Jophiel]

...People you'd consider "Evil" can't help caterpillars cross puddles and whatever...?
It was a joke. Or, more accurately as OldTrees1 pointed out, a (tongue in cheek) flag for "good" behavior.

[Psyren]

I actually agree with this, but that story doesn't work if there is no status quo.

And does it being localized make the issue better? It seems like we are at just wipe out Menzoborenzen, plot solved, but I am not confident that actually solves anyones problems with the whole encouraging wholesale destruction.

It being localized is better because it solves two problems:



The people who are demanding that their immersion hinges on evil gods not being impotent, have a concrete example of their influence in the world. Lolth can't corrupt every Drow on the planet, never mind the multiverse - but sure, she can oppress a large city. Same with Gruumsh and a cluster of tribes.
Being localized reinforces the idea that there isn't something innate or intrinsic to these races that makes them worthy of distrust. I would be suspicious of a drow from Menzoberranzan, sure, because chances are if they came from that culture and survived it's because they're part of the 99% that reinforced it. I would be suspicious of, say, a Githyanki kith'rak for the same reason, because being that far up in Vlaakith's hierarchy suggests they were pretty ruthless to get that far. But there's always that small chance they're from somewhere else, or they're in that smaller percentage that didn't internalize that culture or seek redemption from it, as well.


As for "wiping out Menzoberranzan" - I totally agree you shouldn't do that, because then you're wiping out the innocents (however few) that are trapped in that society, as well as the ones with the capacity for reform. So what you do instead is undermine their leaders, and build an underground railroad.

And lastly, if you encounter a drow or orc on the street, of course you defend yourself if they attack - but that's what you should do if a dwarf or a human attacked you too.

[Witty Username]

The people who are demanding that their immersion hinges on evil gods not being impotent, have a concrete example of their influence in the world.

Wouldn't that run afoul of being allowed to include them in official settings though?

Since either they are reduced to inconsequential and therefore not worthy of mention, or promenent and therefore problematic?

[Dr.Samurai]

Shouldn't then good dwarves be localized too? So shouldn't there be evil dwarf strongholds alongside the goodly Mithral Hall and Gauntelgrym? We're trying to avoid any inkling of bio-determinism right? Seems kind of weird that all the dwarf settlements are generally good. We should probably mix that up to avoid any implications that they don't have free will or something...

On a similar note, should we have more evil human nations other than Thay? Can we count up all of the evil nations in FR? What's the percentage between good/neutral human settlements, and straight up evil ones? I think we may be behind on our evil ones and need to have more.

As far as wiping Menzo off the map... nice work. Now you just have to contend with the other hundreds/thousands of evil drow cities in the Underdark lol.

[Errorname]

Seems kind of weird that all the dwarf settlements are generally good. We should probably mix that up to avoid any implications that they don't have free will or something...

I don't think that "there's a good dwarf settlement and a bad dwarf settlement" is a very interesting way to mix it up, but a species that is just one-note good isn't any more interesting than a species that's one-note evil.

[Satinavian]

Shouldn't then good dwarves be localized too? Sure. I don't need always good races any more than always evil races. But i do have the feeling that evil orc or elves are already pretty common, mostly because as PCs those had individual alignment since basically forever.


On a similar note, should we have more evil human nations other than Thay? Can we count up all of the evil nations in FR? What's the percentage between good/neutral human settlements, and straight up evil ones? I think we may be behind on our evil ones and need to have more.Well, yes. Humans aren't even a "good" race. Of course they should produce a lot of evil societies as well.
However humans are generally too common so instead of increasing the numbers of evil human nations one would probably better reduce the number of good ones.

Or even better : Don't use FR and its decades of baggage in the first place. If you really want official settings, there is Eberron with some more modern handling of alignments and generally deeper cultures. Or make your own thing.



Of course some people say that evil is so selfdestructive that it harder to make any society work with it so evil societies regardless of race should be rarer than good or neutral ones. But i am not so sure about it. There are many ways to build societies that are stable with some really nasty elements in it.

However many evil societies actually described in fantasy do read as if they should have collapsed in a month with all the backstabbing, random violence, infighting, friction, lack of trust, paranoia and disregard for anything that actually benefits the society as a whole or the survival of its members. Again over-the-top evulnezz for the lullz does not make a good setting.

[Psyren]

We're trying to avoid any inkling of bio-determinism right?

For playable or otherwise free-willed species - correct, that's precisely the objective.


Shouldn't then good dwarves be localized too? So shouldn't there be evil dwarf strongholds alongside the goodly Mithral Hall and Gauntelgrym?
...
Seems kind of weird that all the dwarf settlements are generally good. We should probably mix that up to avoid any implications that they don't have free will or something...

The hallmark of a Good civilization/culture is that it would encourage diversity/inclusivity, so an isolationist monospecies Good society is an oxymoron. Even in a crapsack world that is predominantly evil - which none of the current published settings are (even Ravenloft is mostly neutral) - an enclave of Good would by definition be willing to take in anyone who isn't actively a problem.


As far as wiping Menzo off the map

You mean the thing I said not to do?
Taking away the exact opposite of what I wrote is going to make this a challenging conversation :smalltongue:


Wouldn't that run afoul of being allowed to include them in official settings though?

...No? Why do you say that? Menzoberranzan is official.


Since either they are reduced to inconsequential and therefore not worthy of mention, or promenent and therefore problematic?

I disagree with this framing entirely. No setting detail is inconsequential, you can make a story or campaign about anything. And prominent cities/cultures are not problematic; as Samurai elegantly put it, the goal is to avoid bio-determinism.

[OldTrees1]

For playable or otherwise free-willed species - correct, that's precisely the objective.
Is this compatible with the playable Myconoids, Trolls, Ghouls, Illithids, and Fiends? (They already have free will and are playable species in various RPGs/editions)
Or does this necessitate limiting playable species to the human adjacent species (Elf, Dwarf, Orc, Halfling, ...)?

I am mostly trying to gauge whether inhuman biological features (physical:troll's regen, mental:illithid's psionic minds) are permitted.

[Mordar]

...People you'd consider "Evil" can't help caterpillars cross puddles and whatever...?
This is dipping into a thing that I find incredibly weird about D&D-derivative culture, where concepts of good and evil are treated as physical properties of matter or some such. If a thing is Good it is Good for everybody, and always Good. If a thing is Evil it is Evil for and to everyone, and in both cases you can measure the Good and Evil with scientific instruments.
It's a truly strange and alien worldview if you think about it, and I'm happy no longer to be in the gaming ecosystem where that philosophy makes any sense whatsoever.

This sits near the core of my idea for the Proposed Evil Dwarf Race (PEDR). They actively promote, participate and encourage X number of "generally viewed as Evil activities" based on an efficacious, but limited, rationale. They do not participate, tolerate or allow Y number of "generally viewed as Evil activities" for similar reasons. I can tolerate the quantifiable Good/Evil (or Law/Chaos, with Neutrals thrown in on all sides), and believe the measurement can be accurate and consistent...but the validity is an interesting question. Is it really measuring what whomever thinks it is? Part of why I try to always use Good/Evil versus good/evil.


The example most old and new players seem to agree on is that Outsiders, things like Angels and Devils and so on, are made of "Good" or "Evil" and as a result are always going to be good or evil. The problem is its never actually been universally true even in game. D&D itself is fully willing to pull out a fallen Angel character which flat out disproves that "being made of Good" means you're objectively good, then on the other side of things there's plenty of cases of fiendish characters doing things against their supposedly objectively evil nature whenever the writers want to show things are really bad and even the "objectively evil" don't want to see what happens if it gets even worse.
[SNIP]
Part of that issue loops back to the oft repeated point, if something has free will it can technically choose to hold whatever moral view it wants, even with any number of pressures applied to it from cultural to some nebulous claim of "they're made of X so it affects them." If they don't have free will then they can't truly be good or evil, they have no say in things and it would be like saying a building's support beam is good for holding up a building, it's just doing what it was literally made to do and has no say in the matter.


For playable or otherwise free-willed species - correct, that's precisely the objective.

I wasn't aware of the idea that beings formed of/by pure Law/Chaos/Good/Evil lacked free will. That doesn't seem to track for me, any more than saying "since I can't leap over tall buildings in a single bound I do not have free will".


The hallmark of a Good civilization/culture is that it would encourage diversity/inclusivity, so an isolationist monospecies Good society is an oxymoron. Even in a crapsack world that is predominantly evil - which none of the current published settings are (even Ravenloft is mostly neutral) - an enclave of Good would by definition be willing to take in anyone who isn't actively a problem.

This does not track for me either. While there might be some "qualities" that are sufficient for determining that a culture/society/race (in the RPG context) is Evil if they express even one, I don't think the same applies to Good, and if there is a necessary list, I don't think that would be on it either.

- M

[Psyren]

Is this compatible with the playable Myconoids, Trolls, Ghouls, Illithids, and Fiends? (They already have free will and are playable species in various RPGs/editions)

That depends in part on how those editions and games handle alignment. But in general, yes, I would expect that if the designers of those games make something playable, they're making sure that thing's morality isn't biologically determined, including playable Ghouls and Illithids.


Or does this necessitate limiting playable species to the human adjacent species (Elf, Dwarf, Orc, Halfling, ...)?

You don't need to limit playable species to Tolkien's miniscule slate, you just have to put the work in. 5e for example created a Haglike playable race with the Hexblood, and an undead-like playable race with the Reborn. They did this rather than make Hags and Wights playable so that the latter's universal evil could remain justified in the fiction. If you would rather have actually playable Hags and Wights, that's fine, just make it so they're not universally evil anymore.


I am mostly trying to gauge whether inhuman biological features (physical:troll's regen, mental:illithid's psionic minds) are permitted.

Not sure if I understand this, but - a troll's regeneration has nothing to do with alignment/morality. An illithid's brain might, but we ultimately don't know exactly why they're evil from birth, nor similarly alien aberrations like Aboleths. There may be a divine component (e.g. Ilsensine) outside interference from their Elder Brain while they were in the tadpole stage, some alien component of their psychology, or any number of other factors; all we have are theories.



I wasn't aware of the idea that beings formed of/by pure Law/Chaos/Good/Evil lacked free will. That doesn't seem to track for me, any more than saying "since I can't leap over tall buildings in a single bound I do not have free will".

It's shorthand; fiends aren't automatons, no, but they don't choose to be evil in the same way mortals do either - any more than a Modron can choose to be Chaotic. Some extraordinary specimens can, but doing so physically changes them and they stop being whatever they were (see Zariel). A good drow like Drizz't meanwhile doesn't stop being a drow.



This does not track for me either. While there might be some "qualities" that are sufficient for determining that a culture/society/race (in the RPG context) is Evil if they express even one, I don't think the same applies to Good, and if there is a necessary list, I don't think that would be on it either.

"Nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal I can do much with beyond disagree.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't think that "there's a good dwarf settlement and a bad dwarf settlement" is a very interesting way to mix it up, but a species that is just one-note good isn't any more interesting than a species that's one-note evil.
We'll continue to agree to disagree on what is "interesting" and "not interesting" necessarily. I have LotR, RA Salvatore, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and countless other classics on my side of the equation but... let's just move beyond that.

With regards to how to "mix it up"... what do you guys propose? Right now, in Forgotten Realms, the Underdark is home to a continent spanning evil drow empire. Countless cities of evil drow exist in caverns all throughout.

We also have this little Lorendrow community, and this Aevendrow community. And the scragglers like Drizz't that escape the Underdark.

Is this enough? An entire continent of evil drow, and then a couple of good drow communities? Is that an okay mix?

Sure. I don't need always good races any more than always evil races. But i do have the feeling that evil orc or elves are already pretty common, mostly because as PCs those had individual alignment since basically forever.
Since the 80s you could play as drow, despite the fact that they were evil, and you'd be considered an outcast. So... this has always been the case.


Or even better : Don't use FR and its decades of baggage in the first place. If you really want official settings, there is Eberron with some more modern handling of alignments and generally deeper cultures. Or make your own thing.

Of course some people say that evil is so selfdestructive that it harder to make any society work with it so evil societies regardless of race should be rarer than good or neutral ones. But i am not so sure about it. There are many ways to build societies that are stable with some really nasty elements in it.

However many evil societies actually described in fantasy do read as if they should have collapsed in a month with all the backstabbing, random violence, infighting, friction, lack of trust, paranoia and disregard for anything that actually benefits the society as a whole or the survival of its members. Again over-the-top evulnezz for the lullz does not make a good setting.
I do love the idea of looking back at all the originals, on which the success of this game rests, and saying "you guys were doing it wrong all along, despite the tremendous success".

For playable or otherwise free-willed species - correct, that's precisely the objective.
An arbitrary distinction that I don't think anyone has supported or substantiated.

The hallmark of a Good civilization/culture is that it would encourage diversity/inclusivity, so an isolationist monospecies Good society is an oxymoron.
Psyren... this is an untenable position. There's no way you actually believe this.

Diversity/Inclusion is a superficial metric. In fact, all of you are arguing for diverse/inclusive EVIL societies, instead of ones made up purely of orcs or drow. It's extremely easy to imagine that the Hill Giant Steading is instead the Raider's Steading, and is filled with elves and dwarves and halflings and trolls and giants that all want to equal raid and pillage and conquer. Their diverse nature doesn't make them good.

Even in a crapsack world that is predominantly evil - which none of the current published settings are (even Ravenloft is mostly neutral) - an enclave of Good would by definition be willing to take in anyone who isn't actively a problem.
That doesn't matter. Because if we allow these peoples to maintain their culture and lore (gasp! I know, but bear with me) then maybe others won't want to live there! So if dwarves are taciturn dark-dwellers toiling away at their crafts and mining and drinking lots of beer etc... and elves don't particularly take to that culture and lifestyle then it makes sense that we wouldn't see a bunch of elves living among the dwarves. That doesn't make the dwarves "not good", it makes them distinct.

If you wash away all the stuff that makes the races what they are, which we all know is the accusation levied against WotC at the moment, then MAYBE you can expect that all the races would be mingled in together amongst each other.

Traditionally that's been the purview of human nations, where the other races can come together.

What you guys want is that instead of PC adventurers representing the people that buck trends or break free of cultural norms, you want EVERY MEMBER of EVERY RACE to buck trends and break free of cultural norms.

You mean the thing I said not to do?
Taking away the exact opposite of what I wrote is going to make this a challenging conversation :smalltongue:

Witty Username mentioned it, not you, and my reply to that idea is that Menzo is one of MANY evil drow city-states, and by focusing on that we're pretending that the drow really aren't an evil race spread all throughout the Underdark, and that something like the Lorendrow can counteract the reality that they are, for most intents and purposes, an evil race.

[KorvinStarmast]

And they may be able to carve out a niche for themsevles, or they may go on to form North Orkton. We used to play against Oakton High School in football, basketball, soccer, etc.
They will now and forever be referred to as Orkton high school when the old gang gets together. (And yes, we are old).

That's.... a very specific set of tropes, all tending to the absurd when applied seriously. Correct. This site considered it too far removed from philosophy (https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/144) to even entertain the question. Later in life, they entertained a sub set of the question. (https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/72881) Interesting exposition here (https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/76270).

Seems to me what Jophiel was pointing out is simple; dominant cultures tend to reinforce themselves. It's on the marches and borders the change often takes place.

This is seen in the Drizz't books, in which Drizz't is suspected and targeted by rival drow and has to inflict non-lethal violence on an innocent elf and pretend to have killed her to avoid suspicion. Because otherwise he will be called out and targeted. Not gonna do my usual eye roll at Drizz't shenanigans.

The point of TTRPG 'races/origins' being based on a creator deity from a pantheon of many deities presents a lot of variations that don't map to standard human ethics/morality. I'll stop there.

... but a species that is just one-note good isn't any more interesting than a species that's one-note evil. Which once again is a point toward "get the 5e PHB halflings out of the game" :smallyuk:

[Brookshw]

The hallmark of a Good civilization/culture is that it would encourage diversity/inclusivity, so an isolationist monospecies Good society is an oxymoron.

That sounds strange, I'm not seeing why you can't be good but want to generally be left alone. Or, in other words, I knew those introverts weren't up to any good.

[KorvinStarmast]

That sounds strange, I'm not seeing why you can't be good but want to generally be left alone. Or, in other words, I knew those introverts weren't up to any good. Apparently, Psyren would find Medieval Japan to be evil.

[Dr.Samurai]

Or even modern Japan, for that matter.

[Brookshw]

Apparently, Psyren would find Medieval Japan to be evil.

Let's not go into RW countries/cultures please.

[Mordar]

This does not track for me either. While there might be some "qualities" that are sufficient for determining that a culture/society/race (in the RPG context) is Evil if they express even one, I don't think the same applies to Good, and if there is a necessary list, I don't think that would be on it either.


"Nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal I can do much with beyond disagree.

I do not believe diversity/inclusion to be a necessary (but presumably not sufficient?) characteristic for a culture/society/race to be good. I believe there are individual characteristics sufficient to make a society under current game definitions Evil. I believe there are characteristics that are necessary to be Good (respect for life being paramount), but I do not think I believe there are any characteristics that are sufficient on their own.

Diversity/inclusion requires an array of preconditions, and stating that it is a hallmark and a good society cannot exist without it seems to ignore those preconditions. Opportunity. Resources. Bilateral intention. As such, I do not believe it to be necessary.

On the other end of the map from my PEDR sits a small chain of islands, separated from the main continent by a maelstrom. Populated by blue goblins. These are the only blue goblins in the world. The settlements have democratically elected leadership, venerate and respect elders, protect young, adult and old alike, have codified laws, share in effort and reward, practice pragmatic and ethical altruism. The settlements share resources and work together, especially in times of strife. They form a council that acts to the benefit of all member settlements. They cannot be Good?


That sounds strange, I'm not seeing why you can't be good but want to generally be left alone. Or, in other words, I knew those introverts weren't up to any good.

Or if you don't have sufficient resources to accommodate expansion, so you will rescue the person lost in the desert, nurse them back to health and then deliver them safely to their destination...but your narrow band of arable land and small stream-fed pond fish population can only support your settlement of 100 or so gnomes. Or even if you do, the Gnolls Next Door want to retain their hereditary constitutional monarchy while your Kobold Enclave maintains its theocratic government driven by the Divinity of Compassionate Kobold Paladinhood.

Or...your community of Deep Gnomes knows that if you let the Duergar integrate into the community you'll be working the spice mines in no time, and if the Menzo Drow say they want to diversify your town, what they mean is they want to incorporate more spiders and a lot fewer gnomes through an innovative but non-optional career and lifestyle redevelopment initiative.

- M

[KorvinStarmast]

Let's not go into RW countries/cultures please. Sorry, good catch on your part.

[Psyren]

Apparently, Psyren would find Medieval Japan to be evil.

We definitely can't discuss that here and I think you know that.
Moreover - all owls are birds, not all birds are owls.



An arbitrary distinction that I don't think anyone has supported or substantiated.

It's not arbitrary at all. Volition has always been a component of morality; it's the reason why we don't call viruses immoral, or why the actions of dominated creatures are judged differently.


Psyren... this is an untenable position. There's no way you actually believe this.

What's untenable about it?


Diversity/Inclusion is a superficial metric. In fact, all of you are arguing for diverse/inclusive EVIL societies, instead of ones made up purely of orcs or drow. It's extremely easy to imagine that the Hill Giant Steading is instead the Raider's Steading, and is filled with elves and dwarves and halflings and trolls and giants that all want to equal raid and pillage and conquer. Their diverse nature doesn't make them good.

That doesn't matter. Because if we allow these peoples to maintain their culture and lore (gasp! I know, but bear with me) then maybe others won't want to live there! So if dwarves are taciturn dark-dwellers toiling away at their crafts and mining and drinking lots of beer etc... and elves don't particularly take to that culture and lifestyle then it makes sense that we wouldn't see a bunch of elves living among the dwarves. That doesn't make the dwarves "not good", it makes them distinct.

If you wash away all the stuff that makes the races what they are, which we all know is the accusation levied against WotC at the moment, then MAYBE you can expect that all the races would be mingled in together amongst each other.

Traditionally that's been the purview of human nations, where the other races can come together.

What you guys want is that instead of PC adventurers representing the people that buck trends or break free of cultural norms, you want EVERY MEMBER of EVERY RACE to buck trends and break free of cultural norms.

If you think diversity and inclusion are superficial then that's going to make it very hard for us to see eye to eye.

And the only monocultures I'm advocating for are a compromise to meet you halfway. Lolth is a goddess, she should have the capability to oppress a city or three. That allows you to have loci of evil drow without it being biodeterminism. Both sides get what they want, or at least I thought.

[JusticeZero]

I can tolerate the quantifiable Good/Evil (or Law/Chaos, with Neutrals thrown in on all sides), and believe the measurement can be accurate and consistent...but the validity is an interesting question. Is it really measuring what whomever thinks it is?
Careful, whenever I raise this point, the reaction is quite dismissive and focused on ethical theories which arguably don't apply in the trope set of D&D and descendants thereof, because those theories do not create the sort of non-nuanced, absolute results that the tropes require in order to create the absolute and impartially measurable results that the system requires.
Indeed, if you look at the discussions in this thread, "Good" and "Evil" are being discussed as absolute properties independent of relative relationships between agents.

I wasn't aware of the idea that beings formed of/by pure Law/Chaos/Good/Evil lacked free will.
Free will is an issue, but honestly a separate one. In this case though, an absolute alignment has some consequences, relative to the Problem Of Evil.

If an agent is validly and measurably Absolute Good, they must perform Good acts at every point of choice, and cannot have free will.
If an agent is measurably Absolute Good and in possession of free will — and therefore prone to making some non-Good choices — then the validity of the measurement is in question.

I have found that the validity of the test is beyond questioning; any suggestion that the test can be gamed or falsified into giving spurious results has been met with disbelief, incredulity, and hostility.


While there might be some "qualities" that are sufficient for determining that a culture/society/race (in the RPG context) is Evil if they express even one..
And here we see an example, if a small one, of asserting alignment as a material property.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's not arbitrary at all. Volition has always been a component of morality; it's the reason why we don't call viruses immoral, or why the actions of dominated creatures are judged differently.
I am referring to the playable/nonplayable distinction you keep insisting on.

What's untenable about it?
I think I demonstrated that in the post you're quoting. What is unclear?

If you think diversity and inclusion are superficial then that's going to make it very hard for us to see eye to eye.
A superficial metric to determine morality. Someone isn't good by virtue of wanting diversity and inclusion.

And the only monocultures I'm advocating for are a compromise to meet you halfway. Lolth is a goddess, she should have the capability to oppress a city or three. That allows you to have loci of evil drow without it being biodeterminism. Both sides get what they want, or at least I thought.
There are far more than "three" evil drow cities in the Underdark. The loci are the goodly drow.

And this hasn't been biodeterministic since its inception, because again, you've been able to play renegade drow for almost 50 years. One was included in the first module to feature them. And they've been included since. Etc.

[Psyren]

I am referring to the playable/nonplayable distinction you keep insisting on.

Those go hand in hand. A species can't be both playable and lack volition, otherwise how is the player roleplaying their decision-making process? Are they following a prewritten script that you hand them during session zero?


I think I demonstrated that in the post you're quoting. What is unclear?

I don't see what's untenable about the idea that Good cultures value tolerance and inclusivity. That's table-stakes.


A superficial metric to determine morality. Someone isn't good by virtue of wanting diversity and inclusion.

That's not the only Good quality they should have, sure - but lacking that quality is a pretty big indicator that you're not dealing with a Good culture.


There are far more than "three" evil drow cities in the Underdark. The loci are the goodly drow.

How many there are in the Underdark is irrelevant; they are sufficient evidence of Lolth's power without needing a crutch of biodeterminism across all Drow on the planet or in the multiverse.


And this hasn't been biodeterministic since its inception, because again, you've been able to play renegade drow for almost 50 years. One was included in the first module to feature them. And they've been included since. Etc.

So after 50 years IRL or centuries in-universe, none of these renegade drow have been able to establish or integrate themselves into non-evil communities or cultures?

[Brookshw]

That's not the only Good quality they should have, sure - but lacking that quality is a pretty big indicator that you're not dealing with a Good culture.


Still feels kind of extreme. We can pass each other a million times without saying a word to each other and yet and if I see you get in a car accident on the highway I can immediately pull over, grab my first aid kit, and help; that doesn't mean if I see you pulled over on the side of the highway taking a piss I need to stop and chat, right? I think the thing that's often lost in the discussion is that some want to see inclusiveness held up as the shining light,where as for others the bar is set at not being exclusive, and they are indeed different things.

[Dr.Samurai]

Those go hand in hand. A species can't be both playable and lack volition, otherwise how is the player roleplaying their decision-making process? Are they following a prewritten script that you hand them during session zero?
Who, apart from constructs, lacks volition in D&D?

I don't see what's untenable about the idea that Good cultures value tolerance and inclusivity. That's table-stakes.
Psyren, let's try and avoid word games. Dwarves can be tolerant and inclusive and still live in mostly homogenous communities. You are placing a physical requirement on being "good", which is that communities have some number of diverse peoples in them.

I can't imagine that anyone would agree with this standard.

That's not the only Good quality they should have, sure - but lacking that quality is a pretty big indicator that you're not dealing with a Good culture.
So you say, but I'd like to see you address our specific rebuttals to this, such as Mordar's, Brookshw's, and my own.

How many there are in the Underdark is irrelevant;
It's not irrelevant. It's always been the case that there are good drow, it just wasn't ENOUGH for you and others. You want more good, less evil. So the numbers are indeed absolutely relevant.

they are sufficient evidence of Lolth's power without needing a crutch of biodeterminism across all Drow on the planet or in the multiverse.
Drow were never biodeterministic. Nor were orcs.

So after 50 years IRL or centuries in-universe, none of these renegade drow have been able to establish or integrate themselves into non-evil communities or cultures?
I thought they did. I thought there was that good drow deity. I am not sure what this would do for you; the drow are renegades from... evil drow culture.