The examples you give are all author, director and actor defined not based on science.
Applying science to D&D races is... not a good idea. First of all, if they're actually different species, crossbreeds are either impossible, or are mules that are almost always sterile and don't breed true for the extremely rare non-sterile variant. Secondly, you simply aren't going to get the diversity of types you have in D&D anyway, because evolution just doesn't work that way.
I do not agree that you will not and or cannot get a diversity of types. Also as I stated above there can be rules for home brew races vs a general rule for every race can produce offspring with any other race.
I also remember a large number of strange species combos from D&D 3e and in general how it brought up laughter and negatively affected the game among people I knew and people I played MtG with at various game stores.
Science: I have found that unless your game is based in comedy then you should try and stick to science, even if your science is defined by making magic real...then defining the game world based on those facts.
Side Question: Are not the racial children rules the same as in a past document? I seem to remember these exact same discussions here on D&DB about the same thing and the same issues being raised about 2+ years ago.
I don't want to come across as insensitive, so please stop me if I'm being so, as this is my take coming from a biology background: between what is pretty much different species, hybrid probably shouldn't be a loaded word: real humans HAVE hybrid ancestry; non-African populations have Neaderthal genes incorporated into our genome, and some Asian (and perhaps Australian natives and/or Polynesian people? Unsure) have Denisovan genes. Hybridation is not something that, in my opinion, should be understood as derogatory, but descriptive. "Mule", "mutt", "halfbreed" and such are sluresque, but, hybrid is a technical term, and one that is often applied at our entire species: this academic paper for example.
And, no, interspecies crosses AREN'T mostly sterile or malformed; the Mayr definition of species is not that solid. Fertile hybrids are quite common, but the most popular examples (horse and donkey; tiger and lion) don't work that well. But then we have domestic chickens being the result of hybridizating the red and grey junglefowl (to the point a single red junglefowl population in the world lacks any grey junglefowl ancestry, due to crossbreeding between domestic chicken and wild red junglefowl), llamas and alpacas having an extensive history of interbreeding among themselves and wild guanacos and vicuñas to get to their present states, the entire mess of interfertility the genus Canis is (every living coyote has wolf ancestry, every grey wolf in North America has coyote ancestry, and then we have the red wolf having ancestry of both while working as a separate ecological species), savannah and Bengal cats being fully fertile cat breeds that are hybrids (and, for a savannah, a serval is not at all the same species as a housecat)... the list goes on, as we learned that hybridization is a highly important factor in population dynamics, but, pedigree thinking and "pure bloodlines" were stuff deeply ingrained in the minds of the first naturalists... Oh well, sorry for the ramble, I teach this stuff. '^^
Anyway, I'd mostly take one of the parent species to act as the basis, and swap a few attributes. I'd mostly focus on giving intrinsic ones; for example, the kid of an elf would have fey ancestry anyway, while that of a dwarf would have dwarven resilience; they get that from their physiology.
Taking a look at the mixed parentage options in 5e (half-elf, half-orc, and sorta stout halfling), those would be relatively easy to do:
-(Human) Half elves starting from an elven base, and swapping Trance for an extra language and having Skillful as an alternative to Elven Lineage would be done; maybe changing Trance for Resourceful instead?
-Stout halflings are quite easy; halfling base, Naturally Stealthy gets swapped for Dwarven resilience and presto. Use Fey ancestry instead and you get a tallfellow with elf parentage, or Skillfull for one with human parentage.
-Half orcs don't really feel that different from orcs in 5e; as of MotM, orcs feel like a subrace of them; regular orcs have adrenaline rush and powerful build, while half-orcs had menacing and savage attacks... Keeping the orc base, and changing Powerful Build for a trait such as Skilful for human parentage, Fey Ancestry for elven... while maybe changing adrenaline rush for savage attacks.
As for Darkvision, if both parents or the base have it, so does the biracial person, but, say, if your halfling x gnome has a halfling base, and you want to have Darkvision, they may have to lose Brave, for example.
Still not very sure how to handle Dwarf and Gnomes as a base.
Tieflings AFAIK are supposed to only have tiefling children, so cosmetic it is, and I suppose the same applies to Ardlings/Aasimar, so, in the case a couple of those 2 races has a kid, I'd have Fiendish and Celestial Legacies cancel each other out, and leave the kid with Darkvision, Otherworldly Presence, Angelic Flight and Radiant Resistance.
As for Dragonborn, well, that's a Draconic Lineage Sorcerer of the race of the other parent, bwahaha.
I like the new rules, because they close the doors of realm of madness that is multiracing. Always felt like half-elves and half-orcs were an exception for purely dramatic purposes. What about half-dwarves-half-gnomes? Orcelves? Yuan-tieflings? Harengocra? Loxofairy? Or the ultimate, Munchkin master hybrid race, armed with best-in-slot racial abilities, making all other races obsolete for minmaxers.
Now you can just pretend you're whatever you want, the game will treat you as one certain race. I like to think that it's basically your mother defining your heritage.
I like the new rules, because they close the doors of realm of madness that is multiracing. Always felt like half-elves and half-orcs were an exception for purely dramatic purposes. What about half-dwarves-half-gnomes? Orcelves? Yuan-tieflings? Harengocra? Loxofairy? Or the ultimate, Munchkin master hybrid race, armed with best-in-slot racial abilities, making all other races obsolete for minmaxers.
Now you can just pretend you're whatever you want, the game will treat you as one certain race. I like to think that it's basically your mother defining your heritage.
I think this is what I am trying to avoid in my game as specific combinations should not be possible and having to say no consistently to a player(s) who want to do something just for humor and because the books says it possible can detract for my/the game.
For example i do not think a fire elemental and a plant should produce an offspring even if they are intelligent.
I do not agree that you will not and or cannot get a diversity of types.
The core problems are
You aren't going to get things as similar as the various humanoid races in D&D without a common ancestor.
On the other hand, you won't get things as distinct as the various humanoid races without a fairly extended period of reproductive isolation, which is not described in most D&D settings.
When creatures with similar size, diet, and favored terrain interact, they compete, and if they're able to do so, interbreed. Either process winds up erasing the distinctions, either because one goes extinct, or because they merge into a single species with somewhat wider genetic diversity.
You can still achieve the wide range by if you have some event in your setting's prehistory that separated a bunch of populations, and another that caused them to be thrown back together, but the second event has to be relatively recent. Settings of "weird (and recent) planar effects created a setting that's patchwork of multiple different worlds" are possible and sounds like a good possible setting background, but isn't a standard as far as I know.
I don't want to come across as insensitive, so please stop me if I'm being so, as this is my take coming from a biology background: between what is pretty much different species, hybrid probably shouldn't be a loaded word: real humans HAVE hybrid ancestry; non-African populations have Neaderthal genes incorporated into our genome, and some Asian (and perhaps Australian natives and/or Polynesian people? Unsure) have Denisovan genes. Hybridation is not something that, in my opinion, should be understood as derogatory, but descriptive. "Mule", "mutt", "halfbreed" and such are sluresque, but, hybrid is a technical term, and one that is often applied at our entire species: this academic paper for example.
And, no, interspecies crosses AREN'T mostly sterile or malformed; the Mayr definition of species is not that solid. Fertile hybrids are quite common, but the most popular examples (horse and donkey; tiger and lion) don't work that well. But then we have domestic chickens being the result of hybridizating the red and grey junglefowl (to the point a single red junglefowl population in the world lacks any grey junglefowl ancestry, due to crossbreeding between domestic chicken and wild red junglefowl), llamas and alpacas having an extensive history of interbreeding among themselves and wild guanacos and vicuñas to get to their present states, the entire mess of interfertility the genus Canis is (every living coyote has wolf ancestry, every grey wolf in North America has coyote ancestry, and then we have the red wolf having ancestry of both while working as a separate ecological species), savannah and Bengal cats being fully fertile cat breeds that are hybrids (and, for a savannah, a serval is not at all the same species as a housecat)... the list goes on, as we learned that hybridization is a highly important factor in population dynamics, but, pedigree thinking and "pure bloodlines" were stuff deeply ingrained in the minds of the first naturalists... Oh well, sorry for the ramble, I teach this stuff. '^^
Thanks it has been a long time since my zoology, genetics and biochem genetics in college.
I think you have some important points but able to produce offspring, viable offspring and having the right parent species in the same place and in the proper conditions to produce an offspring is also important. That is why I prefer some standard racial mixes and not just allow anything, with rules for custom races if a GM wants to go full on Star Wars bar or Cartoon Network.
The one rule to rule them all method of RPG design (ie one simple rule and often ignore the issues because you want simplicity) can cause problems and issues and the rules for 1/2 races as they are now are to me an issue.
I mean, after the utter chaos waterfowl and gamefowl are for hybrids (mallards are literally genepool invaders, making fertile hybrids in the wild with pretty much any other duck... they are the humans of the duck world I swear), I wouldn't really have much issue with having the standard Hominid races to be fully interfertile, with some examples given for how to, but giving some leeway for creativity, as, after all, mixed parentage in real life has wild diversity in the offspring.
Stuff like the egg-laying gith, or the different forms of reptilefolk, birdfolk and beastfolk... shouldn't really enter the same cluster as hominids. I mean, having a Kenku x Aarakocra birdperson may work just fine, but trying to have an Aarakocra half-orc... I'd raise my eyebrows.
I mean, after the utter chaos waterfowl and gamefowl are for hybrids (mallards are literally genepool invaders, making fertile hybrids in the wild with pretty much any other duck... they are the humans of the duck world I swear), I wouldn't really have much issue with having the standard Hominid races to be fully interfertile, with some examples given for how to, but giving some leeway for creativity, as, after all, mixed parentage in real life has wild diversity in the offspring.
Stuff like the egg-laying gith, or the different forms of reptilefolk, birdfolk and beastfolk... shouldn't really enter the same cluster as hominids. I mean, having a Kenku x Aarakocra birdperson may work just fine, but trying to have an Aarakocra half-orc... I'd raise my eyebrows.
Just my personal take on this.
Thanks for helping make my point. And I think we might be on the same page.
1) Elrond 1/2 elf: One thing I remember is in Middle Earth Roleplaying (80's) and Rolemaster 2 and Rolemaster Standard System (RMSS) race descriptions is often in later books there was a lot of page space to describe the race and options vs the small page space in 5e. If you devote more space to how the race could and should act and what things they have to go through growing up then you can list various options for players and or GM's to select for their PC (like 1/2 elves must decide to follow the elves path of immortality or be more human and not be immortal). You could have a section like that for every race if you have the space and people want to spend the $$$ and it can (possibly) make your game better...but I have found that some players have trouble finding time to read game background material and other greedily ask for more.
2) From my point of view more definition of races (behavior, daily life in game setting or region they are from, specific challenges and things they find easy) can provide a frame work for players to work with to RP. But the drawback often is custom game worlds can be very different from produced material.
I don't want to come across as insensitive, so please stop me if I'm being so, as this is my take coming from a biology background
Please, do stop. We have no reason to talk about fictional characters, whom we are meant to see as people, in terms we would use for animals. Takes coming from biology have even less reason to be used in a fictional and fantasy context. In the purest sense, these peoples exist as people and not as biological organisms. It is very much insensitive to speak about people in those terms, so lets use others, yes?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
On the other hand, I do think that pretending people aren't animals is something deeply arrogant. In a setting where animals can be talked to and can become sapient, as well.
I am a proud descendant of Neanderthal x sapiens hybridization but would never think of using "hybrid" as a pejorative for interracial people. Still, I understand where you are coming from, don't worry.
I am a proud descendant of Neanderthal x sapiens hybridization but would never think of using "hybrid" as a pejorative for interracial people. Still, I understand where you are coming from, don't worry.
Thank you for your understanding, and the understanding that whether or not we deliberately use something as a pejorative, it can still be hurtful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Doesn't change the fact that most people are hybrids, and every single person is an ape and therefore a monkey, under any proper definition of any of those words. Gotta embrace the terms and throw them at the face of those who would use them as insults while pretending it doesn't apply to them.
I still don't like the system as it is, but it occurs to me that we can use the Build a Background feature to better represent a hybrid nature. Here's a sample background that could do this:
Half-Orc Outcast (for anything mixed with Orc) Abilities: +2 Str, +1 Con Skill Proficiencies: Survival, Perception Tool Proficiency: Herbalism Kit Language: Orcish Feat: Savage Attacker Equipment: (I'm not feeling writing out an equipment list right this minute) Too orc for one parent, not enough for another, you've been driven away. You've learned to survive on your own, and you've learned to be alert, ready for an attack from anyone. And above all, you've learned how to finish fights before they finish you. It's you against the world.
This isn't bad, but it does run into the issue that you have to 'waste' your Background to fix a problem that shouldn't be a problem in the first place.
And, of course, that it turns someone's heritage into their defining background. Why does the 'pureblood' human get to be defined as a sailor or a prince or the smartest kid in class or whatever, but the mixed-heritage person has to define themselves entirely by who their parents were?
I still don't like the system as it is, but it occurs to me that we can use the Build a Background feature to better represent a hybrid nature. Here's a sample background that could do this:
Half-Orc Outcast (for anything mixed with Orc) Abilities: +2 Str, +1 Con Skill Proficiencies: Survival, Perception Tool Proficiency: Herbalism Kit Language: Orcish Feat: Savage Attacker Equipment: (I'm not feeling writing out an equipment list right this minute) Too orc for one parent, not enough for another, you've been driven away. You've learned to survive on your own, and you've learned to be alert, ready for an attack from anyone. And above all, you've learned how to finish fights before they finish you. It's you against the world.
This isn't bad, but it does run into the issue that you have to 'waste' your Background to fix a problem that shouldn't be a problem in the first place.
And, of course, that it turns someone's heritage into their defining background. Why does the 'pureblood' human get to be defined as a sailor or a prince or the smartest kid in class or whatever, but the mixed-heritage person has to define themselves entirely by who their parents were?
A single or mixed-race character can choose just how much their heritage defines them.
If I want to be the most woodsy elf who ever touched a tree, I can focus my background on really digging into my Wood Elf heritage.
If I want to be an orc that happens to have some human blood, I can describe my character as cosmetically different and still devote my background to his former career as a florist.
This isn't bad, but it does run into the issue that you have to 'waste' your Background to fix a problem that shouldn't be a problem in the first place.
No you don't. You can apply an arbitrary amount of description to your background, there's only a limit on the mechanical benefits it can offer. Your background can perfectly well be "Half-orc outcast who worked as a caravan guard" or whatever.
If there's no game-mechanical advantage for doing so, most people are only going to do this for character concept reasons, so I don't think worrying too much about banning "unbelievable" parentage is worth it. And what's unbelievable may depend a lot on individual world, so any attempt to formalize it on the level of the D&D rules is probably a bad plan.
Also, none of this makes sense from a biological standpoint, so we've got to assume that it works because the gods said so. Once you get them into the mix, anything's possible, and we can conclude that:
The gods are into some weird stuff
The Greek pantheon is the canonical pantheon for the new edition
Note: I tried to not use any language that would be in any way offensive as that is not my intent and I went to extreme measures to do so, often trying to dance around language that could be offensive (but not intended) in that way.
After posting in the backgrounds do not work the way you think they do thread and remembering that about 2 years ago (or around then) that essentially the same info was presented (if not the same in the same manner) and people had the same comments and issues with it then, brought back the same thoughts to me about how races having babies are combined for game mechanics.
So I am not surprised that like in that thread essentially the same comments and questions are posted here again.
In general people (GM and players) commented to me they thought the pick your options in D&D 3E could be unbalancing as some options were clearly better then others in their game (or how they played the game). The same can be said of allowing children to pick from any of the abilities from their parent's abilities to me is potentially problematic vs just picking a presented race. I remember making this point a few years ago in essentially using the terms.
Comparing game stuff to humanity today: This can be a problem and I think is a problem so anyway to uncouple game ideas from making negative statements in todays society can be beneficial. Note I said negative and things that promote negative ideas as well. That does not mean that just letting anything go to supposedly promote positive ideals should necessarily be supported either. For example (I do not mean to offend in any way) the way any race can have children with any other is designed to promote racial diversity in our society. To me the two do not share anything is common because we as humans are not RPG races and thinking of the races presented in D&D1 in exactly the same way as we live today raises a a lot of issues vs if they are just trying to be inclusive.
I think in the past I have also referred to the rules as presented in the UA doc in this topic as a Build a Bear approach to the rpg concept.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I do not agree that you will not and or cannot get a diversity of types. Also as I stated above there can be rules for home brew races vs a general rule for every race can produce offspring with any other race.
I also remember a large number of strange species combos from D&D 3e and in general how it brought up laughter and negatively affected the game among people I knew and people I played MtG with at various game stores.
Science: I have found that unless your game is based in comedy then you should try and stick to science, even if your science is defined by making magic real...then defining the game world based on those facts.
Side Question: Are not the racial children rules the same as in a past document? I seem to remember these exact same discussions here on D&DB about the same thing and the same issues being raised about 2+ years ago.
I don't want to come across as insensitive, so please stop me if I'm being so, as this is my take coming from a biology background: between what is pretty much different species, hybrid probably shouldn't be a loaded word: real humans HAVE hybrid ancestry; non-African populations have Neaderthal genes incorporated into our genome, and some Asian (and perhaps Australian natives and/or Polynesian people? Unsure) have Denisovan genes. Hybridation is not something that, in my opinion, should be understood as derogatory, but descriptive. "Mule", "mutt", "halfbreed" and such are sluresque, but, hybrid is a technical term, and one that is often applied at our entire species: this academic paper for example.
And, no, interspecies crosses AREN'T mostly sterile or malformed; the Mayr definition of species is not that solid. Fertile hybrids are quite common, but the most popular examples (horse and donkey; tiger and lion) don't work that well. But then we have domestic chickens being the result of hybridizating the red and grey junglefowl (to the point a single red junglefowl population in the world lacks any grey junglefowl ancestry, due to crossbreeding between domestic chicken and wild red junglefowl), llamas and alpacas having an extensive history of interbreeding among themselves and wild guanacos and vicuñas to get to their present states, the entire mess of interfertility the genus Canis is (every living coyote has wolf ancestry, every grey wolf in North America has coyote ancestry, and then we have the red wolf having ancestry of both while working as a separate ecological species), savannah and Bengal cats being fully fertile cat breeds that are hybrids (and, for a savannah, a serval is not at all the same species as a housecat)... the list goes on, as we learned that hybridization is a highly important factor in population dynamics, but, pedigree thinking and "pure bloodlines" were stuff deeply ingrained in the minds of the first naturalists... Oh well, sorry for the ramble, I teach this stuff. '^^
Anyway, I'd mostly take one of the parent species to act as the basis, and swap a few attributes. I'd mostly focus on giving intrinsic ones; for example, the kid of an elf would have fey ancestry anyway, while that of a dwarf would have dwarven resilience; they get that from their physiology.
Taking a look at the mixed parentage options in 5e (half-elf, half-orc, and sorta stout halfling), those would be relatively easy to do:
-(Human) Half elves starting from an elven base, and swapping Trance for an extra language and having Skillful as an alternative to Elven Lineage would be done; maybe changing Trance for Resourceful instead?
-Stout halflings are quite easy; halfling base, Naturally Stealthy gets swapped for Dwarven resilience and presto. Use Fey ancestry instead and you get a tallfellow with elf parentage, or Skillfull for one with human parentage.
-Half orcs don't really feel that different from orcs in 5e; as of MotM, orcs feel like a subrace of them; regular orcs have adrenaline rush and powerful build, while half-orcs had menacing and savage attacks... Keeping the orc base, and changing Powerful Build for a trait such as Skilful for human parentage, Fey Ancestry for elven... while maybe changing adrenaline rush for savage attacks.
As for Darkvision, if both parents or the base have it, so does the biracial person, but, say, if your halfling x gnome has a halfling base, and you want to have Darkvision, they may have to lose Brave, for example.
Still not very sure how to handle Dwarf and Gnomes as a base.
Tieflings AFAIK are supposed to only have tiefling children, so cosmetic it is, and I suppose the same applies to Ardlings/Aasimar, so, in the case a couple of those 2 races has a kid, I'd have Fiendish and Celestial Legacies cancel each other out, and leave the kid with Darkvision, Otherworldly Presence, Angelic Flight and Radiant Resistance.
As for Dragonborn, well, that's a Draconic Lineage Sorcerer of the race of the other parent, bwahaha.
I like the new rules, because they close the doors of realm of madness that is multiracing. Always felt like half-elves and half-orcs were an exception for purely dramatic purposes. What about half-dwarves-half-gnomes? Orcelves? Yuan-tieflings? Harengocra? Loxofairy? Or the ultimate, Munchkin master hybrid race, armed with best-in-slot racial abilities, making all other races obsolete for minmaxers.
Now you can just pretend you're whatever you want, the game will treat you as one certain race. I like to think that it's basically your mother defining your heritage.
I think this is what I am trying to avoid in my game as specific combinations should not be possible and having to say no consistently to a player(s) who want to do something just for humor and because the books says it possible can detract for my/the game.
For example i do not think a fire elemental and a plant should produce an offspring even if they are intelligent.
The core problems are
You can still achieve the wide range by if you have some event in your setting's prehistory that separated a bunch of populations, and another that caused them to be thrown back together, but the second event has to be relatively recent. Settings of "weird (and recent) planar effects created a setting that's patchwork of multiple different worlds" are possible and sounds like a good possible setting background, but isn't a standard as far as I know.
Thanks it has been a long time since my zoology, genetics and biochem genetics in college.
I think you have some important points but able to produce offspring, viable offspring and having the right parent species in the same place and in the proper conditions to produce an offspring is also important. That is why I prefer some standard racial mixes and not just allow anything, with rules for custom races if a GM wants to go full on Star Wars bar or Cartoon Network.
The one rule to rule them all method of RPG design (ie one simple rule and often ignore the issues because you want simplicity) can cause problems and issues and the rules for 1/2 races as they are now are to me an issue.
I mean, after the utter chaos waterfowl and gamefowl are for hybrids (mallards are literally genepool invaders, making fertile hybrids in the wild with pretty much any other duck... they are the humans of the duck world I swear), I wouldn't really have much issue with having the standard Hominid races to be fully interfertile, with some examples given for how to, but giving some leeway for creativity, as, after all, mixed parentage in real life has wild diversity in the offspring.
Stuff like the egg-laying gith, or the different forms of reptilefolk, birdfolk and beastfolk... shouldn't really enter the same cluster as hominids. I mean, having a Kenku x Aarakocra birdperson may work just fine, but trying to have an Aarakocra half-orc... I'd raise my eyebrows.
Just my personal take on this.
Thanks for helping make my point. And I think we might be on the same page.
1) Elrond 1/2 elf: One thing I remember is in Middle Earth Roleplaying (80's) and Rolemaster 2 and Rolemaster Standard System (RMSS) race descriptions is often in later books there was a lot of page space to describe the race and options vs the small page space in 5e. If you devote more space to how the race could and should act and what things they have to go through growing up then you can list various options for players and or GM's to select for their PC (like 1/2 elves must decide to follow the elves path of immortality or be more human and not be immortal). You could have a section like that for every race if you have the space and people want to spend the $$$ and it can (possibly) make your game better...but I have found that some players have trouble finding time to read game background material and other greedily ask for more.
2) From my point of view more definition of races (behavior, daily life in game setting or region they are from, specific challenges and things they find easy) can provide a frame work for players to work with to RP. But the drawback often is custom game worlds can be very different from produced material.
Please, do stop. We have no reason to talk about fictional characters, whom we are meant to see as people, in terms we would use for animals. Takes coming from biology have even less reason to be used in a fictional and fantasy context. In the purest sense, these peoples exist as people and not as biological organisms. It is very much insensitive to speak about people in those terms, so lets use others, yes?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
On the other hand, I do think that pretending people aren't animals is something deeply arrogant. In a setting where animals can be talked to and can become sapient, as well.
Still, let's not use language to refer to multiracial people in a way that echoes harmful language in real life, please?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I am a proud descendant of Neanderthal x sapiens hybridization but would never think of using "hybrid" as a pejorative for interracial people. Still, I understand where you are coming from, don't worry.
Thank you for your understanding, and the understanding that whether or not we deliberately use something as a pejorative, it can still be hurtful.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Doesn't change the fact that most people are hybrids, and every single person is an ape and therefore a monkey, under any proper definition of any of those words. Gotta embrace the terms and throw them at the face of those who would use them as insults while pretending it doesn't apply to them.
This isn't bad, but it does run into the issue that you have to 'waste' your Background to fix a problem that shouldn't be a problem in the first place.
And, of course, that it turns someone's heritage into their defining background. Why does the 'pureblood' human get to be defined as a sailor or a prince or the smartest kid in class or whatever, but the mixed-heritage person has to define themselves entirely by who their parents were?
A single or mixed-race character can choose just how much their heritage defines them.
If I want to be the most woodsy elf who ever touched a tree, I can focus my background on really digging into my Wood Elf heritage.
If I want to be an orc that happens to have some human blood, I can describe my character as cosmetically different and still devote my background to his former career as a florist.
No you don't. You can apply an arbitrary amount of description to your background, there's only a limit on the mechanical benefits it can offer. Your background can perfectly well be "Half-orc outcast who worked as a caravan guard" or whatever.
If there's no game-mechanical advantage for doing so, most people are only going to do this for character concept reasons, so I don't think worrying too much about banning "unbelievable" parentage is worth it. And what's unbelievable may depend a lot on individual world, so any attempt to formalize it on the level of the D&D rules is probably a bad plan.
Also, none of this makes sense from a biological standpoint, so we've got to assume that it works because the gods said so. Once you get them into the mix, anything's possible, and we can conclude that:
Note: I tried to not use any language that would be in any way offensive as that is not my intent and I went to extreme measures to do so, often trying to dance around language that could be offensive (but not intended) in that way.
After posting in the backgrounds do not work the way you think they do thread and remembering that about 2 years ago (or around then) that essentially the same info was presented (if not the same in the same manner) and people had the same comments and issues with it then, brought back the same thoughts to me about how races having babies are combined for game mechanics.
So I am not surprised that like in that thread essentially the same comments and questions are posted here again.
In general people (GM and players) commented to me they thought the pick your options in D&D 3E could be unbalancing as some options were clearly better then others in their game (or how they played the game). The same can be said of allowing children to pick from any of the abilities from their parent's abilities to me is potentially problematic vs just picking a presented race. I remember making this point a few years ago in essentially using the terms.
Comparing game stuff to humanity today: This can be a problem and I think is a problem so anyway to uncouple game ideas from making negative statements in todays society can be beneficial. Note I said negative and things that promote negative ideas as well. That does not mean that just letting anything go to supposedly promote positive ideals should necessarily be supported either. For example (I do not mean to offend in any way) the way any race can have children with any other is designed to promote racial diversity in our society. To me the two do not share anything is common because we as humans are not RPG races and thinking of the races presented in D&D1 in exactly the same way as we live today raises a a lot of issues vs if they are just trying to be inclusive.
I think in the past I have also referred to the rules as presented in the UA doc in this topic as a Build a Bear approach to the rpg concept.