For me, I sometimes look at the various races and think about what their archetypal hero looks like. You may have your own mental table, I break it down as follows
Dwarf War Cleric
Elf Spellblade
Forest Gnome Illusionist
Rock Gnome Artificer
Halfling Rogue
Half-Elf Bard
Half-Orc Barbarian
Human Paladin
Tiefling Sorcerer
Most of these are non-human species, they think in fundamentally non-human ways. They construct the world around them in fundamentally non-human ways. So, interspecies tension can be a source of good tension in the party. The challenge is for the player playing a non-human to try to construct a non-human global metanarrative. That is not easy, but can be well worth the challenge in your growth as a role player.
In one of the campaigns that I am in, I've experimented with constructing a Gnomish hero arc. My character started off thinking only of himself and having impulse control issues. but, from the beginning I've had in mind that he would grow into becoming a hero.
What would a gnome hero look like? Well, lets take a closer look at forest gnome culture.
* they tend towards chaos, but it works for them
*they are family-oriented and have huge families
*naming is very important to them
*gems are their basic currency, not gold
*they are nature-oriented, almost as much as druids and have a special relationship with animals, particularly small, burying animals
And, as their archetypal hero is an illusionist
*their racial heroes are known for being tricksters. They are highly adaptable to new situations (as they tend to chaos, they don't depend on plans) and, just when you think you've got them beat, you realize that there is a whole other level below what it seems they are doing and you get trapped and defeated by it. They have a party-oriented strategy (because they grew up with family being so very important) and openly work with anyone or anything, but they are not unifiers, either you jump in and work with them or you don't. They know how to give and take, so they don't expect to be in control of the party, but any strategy someone else will have will end up having certain gnomish traits in its execution
There is no more inter species tension in D&D. It promotes racism from what I understand. No one is good or evil anymore, just shades of neutral. We should not be forcing roll playing on the players.
For me, I sometimes look at the various races and think about what their archetypal hero looks like. You may have your own mental table, I break it down as follows
Dwarf War Cleric
Elf Spellblade
Forest Gnome Illusionist
Rock Gnome Artificer
Halfling Rogue
Half-Elf Bard
Half-Orc Barbarian
Human Paladin
Tiefling Sorcerer
...
I'd say that that d&d and fantasy humans are more suited directly as fighters than classical paladins. Without darkvision d&d humans have a relatively low aptitude for stealth. Regarding "evil", Tolkein had a take that humans also have a weakness to magical control and, in d&d, any race with wisdom bonuses or resistance to magics like charm might be credited to hold on to the "good" for themselves and their fellows. The evil prevalent among, say, the drow can be reasonably explained by influences such as of the gods.
D&D half-orcs have a trait to be menacing and, with this trait in place and getting exposure, societies could naturally mold half-orcs into menacing roles.
Generally, I think the "archetypes" you've presented make sense.
On second thoughts, humans could get into paladinning on the basis of being short-lived and potentially impulsive - but their paladinning might, as their name suggests, suit loyalty to the palace. I'd see many types of paladin as variants of oath of the crown in various Arthurian ways.
To clarify, when I say "archetypal hero," I mean "who is the kind of person whom the race, itself, feels most properly reflects it's cultural values," I'm not using it to refer to "which class do players best think represents the race." This is particularly important in the case of Fighters vs. Paladins. Many fantasy novels involve the simple human hero starting off waking up in his own beer vomit and ends up with him saving the world. But, the culture itself is unlikely to commission a 12-foot, marble sculpture of the hero of the world covered in vomit with alcohol-bleary eyes. It is more likely to rewrite history a bit and make the bust of a flowing haired, clear skinned, full set of teeth, man in a suit of noble armor sans vomit - a Paladin.
Which is not to say that interesting cases of counter-culture where the bust is indeed of the fighter unvarnished can't exist. But part of what makes these cases interesting is that they are going against the grain.
Dwarf: Melee fighter Elf, half-elf and half-orc: ranged fighter (traditionally elf bows and orc strength help them both shoot further) Forest gnome: druid
Do you really believe that Orcish culture would romanticize the ranged fighter over the melee fighter?
Or that the Dwarven culture would idealize the fighter over the war cleric? In the case of the Dwarves. their civilization is built of stone. It is built to last. Ancestors and history would be very important to them. That suggests a focus on tradition and religion.
Traditionally orcs have toyed with their prey and used strength to increase their range with weapons like bows. In other systems or varient systems, all to hit roles could be based on dex and all damage modifiers could be based on str. I don't see a reason why any roving orc, with a potential of exploiting a fallen Boromir, might not carry a hefty bow to take advantage. In Melee orcs can also fit the mold of a cold killer perhaps even more than the raging zealot. I'd see them in the mold of the champion fighter leaning into the armoured, strength-recouping role when the equipment is available. If equipment was availabe they could also have bows which they would readily use when still at range. Orcs as barbarians? Maybe. Traditionally they've been spawn-generated cannon fodder that certainly fit the mold of recklessly throwing themselves into nothing-held-back attack. Otherwise, their strength might be placed in who they are rather than in their emotional overflow. In the LotR movie's killing of Boromir, admitedly, the orcs continued rushing onto his sword while the arrows came in. However, I'd imagine that the pragmatic ranged fighter, even in LotR, might have got some equivalent of a statue.
I see the dwarves as hardy and resilient miners and mineral exploiters whose value is in their gold, whose personal trust is slow to build, whose physical trust is their steel and whose rest is in their beer. I agree that dwarves value ancestors but think that this would lead them to emulate their stalwart ideals. Battle Master and even Echo Knight could work well with dwarves as they pragmatically seek self-dependent advantage. Some more emotively driven dwarves might make good, potentially Norse-styled barbarians.
While dwarves rely on resilience, strength and togetherness, gnomes may rely on invention, illusion, investigation, and ingenuity. I'd see the elsewhere-mentioned trope of the risk-taking and experimental gnome as being rooted, if anything, in insecurity rather than recklessness. They have physical disadvantages. With little more than tinkering, small animals and empty apparitions naturally on their side, they could seek any novel means of self-preservation. Gnome druids could be valued for their spells such as to locate animals and plants and locate objects - and for their abilities to scout. Perhaps picture the gnome druid turned into a squirrel and talking to squirrels and other small animals while on patrol.
.. the culture itself is unlikely to commission a 12-foot, marble sculpture of the hero of the world covered in vomit with alcohol-bleary eyes. ....
Yes, maybe this doesn't fit the mold of the sculpted David-type hero, but the "simple human hero starting off waking up in his own beer vomit and ends up with him saving the world" might fit well with the idealised folk hero down the pub. We can also note that the Ancient Greeks made statues of Dionysis and had practices to vomit to enable them to eat and drink more.
I confess that I see the gnome archetypal hero as the druid to be, perhaps, better supported than the illusionist. I do so grudgingly given the long-standing relationship between gnomes and the illusionist class dating all the way back, but I admit that you have a point here. On the other hand, from the PHB, "They gather in hidden communities in sylvan forests, using illusions and trickery to conceal themselves from threats or to mask their escape should they be detected" I believe this fact would influence whom they would see as the Uber-Gnome.
With regard to Orcs and ranged fighters, I believe that the fact that Half-Orcs have a racial ability to do more damage in melee seems like a significant piece of information to consider.
"the "simple human hero starting off waking up in his own beer vomit and ends up with him saving the world" might fit well with the idealised folk hero down the pub." That is a _very_ good point. I can hear my balloon bursting, but I want a little time to figure out how I can save it.
For me, I sometimes look at the various races and think about what their archetypal hero looks like. You may have your own mental table, I break it down as follows
Dwarf War Cleric
Elf Spellblade
Forest Gnome Illusionist
Rock Gnome Artificer
Halfling Rogue
Half-Elf Bard
Half-Orc Barbarian
Human Paladin
Tiefling Sorcerer
Most of these are non-human species, they think in fundamentally non-human ways. They construct the world around them in fundamentally non-human ways. So, interspecies tension can be a source of good tension in the party. The challenge is for the player playing a non-human to try to construct a non-human global metanarrative. That is not easy, but can be well worth the challenge in your growth as a role player.
In one of the campaigns that I am in, I've experimented with constructing a Gnomish hero arc. My character started off thinking only of himself and having impulse control issues. but, from the beginning I've had in mind that he would grow into becoming a hero.
What would a gnome hero look like? Well, lets take a closer look at forest gnome culture.
* they tend towards chaos, but it works for them
*they are family-oriented and have huge families
*naming is very important to them
*gems are their basic currency, not gold
*they are nature-oriented, almost as much as druids and have a special relationship with animals, particularly small, burying animals
And, as their archetypal hero is an illusionist
*their racial heroes are known for being tricksters. They are highly adaptable to new situations (as they tend to chaos, they don't depend on plans) and, just when you think you've got them beat, you realize that there is a whole other level below what it seems they are doing and you get trapped and defeated by it. They have a party-oriented strategy (because they grew up with family being so very important) and openly work with anyone or anything, but they are not unifiers, either you jump in and work with them or you don't. They know how to give and take, so they don't expect to be in control of the party, but any strategy someone else will have will end up having certain gnomish traits in its execution
What do you think?
There is no more inter species tension in D&D. It promotes racism from what I understand.
No one is good or evil anymore, just shades of neutral. We should not be forcing roll playing on the players.
I'd say that that d&d and fantasy humans are more suited directly as fighters than classical paladins. Without darkvision d&d humans have a relatively low aptitude for stealth. Regarding "evil", Tolkein had a take that humans also have a weakness to magical control and, in d&d, any race with wisdom bonuses or resistance to magics like charm might be credited to hold on to the "good" for themselves and their fellows. The evil prevalent among, say, the drow can be reasonably explained by influences such as of the gods.
D&D half-orcs have a trait to be menacing and, with this trait in place and getting exposure, societies could naturally mold half-orcs into menacing roles.
Generally, I think the "archetypes" you've presented make sense.
On second thoughts, humans could get into paladinning on the basis of being short-lived and potentially impulsive - but their paladinning might, as their name suggests, suit loyalty to the palace. I'd see many types of paladin as variants of oath of the crown in various Arthurian ways.
To clarify, when I say "archetypal hero," I mean "who is the kind of person whom the race, itself, feels most properly reflects it's cultural values," I'm not using it to refer to "which class do players best think represents the race." This is particularly important in the case of Fighters vs. Paladins. Many fantasy novels involve the simple human hero starting off waking up in his own beer vomit and ends up with him saving the world. But, the culture itself is unlikely to commission a 12-foot, marble sculpture of the hero of the world covered in vomit with alcohol-bleary eyes. It is more likely to rewrite history a bit and make the bust of a flowing haired, clear skinned, full set of teeth, man in a suit of noble armor sans vomit - a Paladin.
Which is not to say that interesting cases of counter-culture where the bust is indeed of the fighter unvarnished can't exist. But part of what makes these cases interesting is that they are going against the grain.
Cool, in addition to your list I'd also say:
Dwarf: Melee fighter
Elf, half-elf and half-orc: ranged fighter (traditionally elf bows and orc strength help them both shoot further)
Forest gnome: druid
Do you really believe that Orcish culture would romanticize the ranged fighter over the melee fighter?
Or that the Dwarven culture would idealize the fighter over the war cleric? In the case of the Dwarves. their civilization is built of stone. It is built to last. Ancestors and history would be very important to them. That suggests a focus on tradition and religion.
Traditionally orcs have toyed with their prey and used strength to increase their range with weapons like bows. In other systems or varient systems, all to hit roles could be based on dex and all damage modifiers could be based on str. I don't see a reason why any roving orc, with a potential of exploiting a fallen Boromir, might not carry a hefty bow to take advantage. In Melee orcs can also fit the mold of a cold killer perhaps even more than the raging zealot. I'd see them in the mold of the champion fighter leaning into the armoured, strength-recouping role when the equipment is available. If equipment was availabe they could also have bows which they would readily use when still at range. Orcs as barbarians? Maybe. Traditionally they've been spawn-generated cannon fodder that certainly fit the mold of recklessly throwing themselves into nothing-held-back attack. Otherwise, their strength might be placed in who they are rather than in their emotional overflow. In the LotR movie's killing of Boromir, admitedly, the orcs continued rushing onto his sword while the arrows came in. However, I'd imagine that the pragmatic ranged fighter, even in LotR, might have got some equivalent of a statue.
I see the dwarves as hardy and resilient miners and mineral exploiters whose value is in their gold, whose personal trust is slow to build, whose physical trust is their steel and whose rest is in their beer. I agree that dwarves value ancestors but think that this would lead them to emulate their stalwart ideals. Battle Master and even Echo Knight could work well with dwarves as they pragmatically seek self-dependent advantage. Some more emotively driven dwarves might make good, potentially Norse-styled barbarians.
While dwarves rely on resilience, strength and togetherness, gnomes may rely on invention, illusion, investigation, and ingenuity. I'd see the elsewhere-mentioned trope of the risk-taking and experimental gnome as being rooted, if anything, in insecurity rather than recklessness. They have physical disadvantages. With little more than tinkering, small animals and empty apparitions naturally on their side, they could seek any novel means of self-preservation. Gnome druids could be valued for their spells such as to locate animals and plants and locate objects - and for their abilities to scout. Perhaps picture the gnome druid turned into a squirrel and talking to squirrels and other small animals while on patrol.
Yes, maybe this doesn't fit the mold of the sculpted David-type hero, but the "simple human hero starting off waking up in his own beer vomit and ends up with him saving the world" might fit well with the idealised folk hero down the pub. We can also note that the Ancient Greeks made statues of Dionysis and had practices to vomit to enable them to eat and drink more.
I confess that I see the gnome archetypal hero as the druid to be, perhaps, better supported than the illusionist. I do so grudgingly given the long-standing relationship between gnomes and the illusionist class dating all the way back, but I admit that you have a point here. On the other hand, from the PHB, "They gather in hidden communities in sylvan forests, using illusions and trickery to conceal themselves from threats or to mask their escape should they be detected" I believe this fact would influence whom they would see as the Uber-Gnome.
With regard to Orcs and ranged fighters, I believe that the fact that Half-Orcs have a racial ability to do more damage in melee seems like a significant piece of information to consider.
"the "simple human hero starting off waking up in his own beer vomit and ends up with him saving the world" might fit well with the idealised folk hero down the pub." That is a _very_ good point. I can hear my balloon bursting, but I want a little time to figure out how I can save it.