But, Italian-ness though has nothing to do with genetics. The argument as I understand it is that the species have distinct cultures because they are biologically incompatible with each other thus are innately driven to live in different locations / styles - thus those species will always develop specific types of cultures regardless of setting (thereby justifying it existing in the PHB). Then species should be far more segregated than human cultures. E.g. Tritons live underwater b/c they can breath in water just as easily as in air. You should see 0 characters of non-aquatic races in an underwater Triton city because they literally can't breathe there, and almost no Tritons should exist in on-land cities because they are inherently inferior at living in those places than the species that built them.
Otherwise there is no reason for cultures to be species-specific, b/c cultures migrate, and shift all the time. E.g lots of Africans are Muslim even though Islam originated in a completely different ethnic group and geographic location. Loads of Chinese are Christian despite the same things. English draws half its words from Germanic languages and half from Romance languages because the British Isles has so much cultural mixing throughout its history.
Either culture is not driven by biology and can be radically different for the same species in different settings (making having cultural description in the PHB pretty pointless), or it is driven by different brain chemistries and biological abilities and all the species are almost entirely segregated from each other into ethno-cities or ethno-states in every single setting - and those adventurers that deviate from it are viewed as freaks / weirdos.
(This is why reading-between the lines the biological-determinism argument is very aligned with alt-right propaganda, it is inherently a pro-segregationist / ethno-nationalist argument)
Your attempting to apply a human-centric understanding to a society which is made up of literally other species. It doesn't work, in no small part because you want to erase the very differences between everyone. Your position, whether you intend it to be or not, is supremacist. The non-human races don't matter. They're just "humans in funny hats" to you.
Those differences should be acknowledged and celebrated.
Can we all cut it out with the eugenicist and supremacist accusations?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
If the cities of Lucerne and Machu Picchu were hypothetically settled by dwarves, would you expect them to be identical? Or would they be recognizably dwarven while still maintaining stark differences from one another?
Assuming identical history, geography, and resources then yes, the door ways / ceilings might be a little shorter, there might be a slightly fewer torch sconces. But otherwise I don't see any reason they'd be significantly different.
Professor Tolkien is fairly low on the list. You'd do better by avoiding that well.
Mm... sure.. there's absolutely no similarity between the different classes of elves - High & Wood - the core species - humans, elves (with their racial proficiency in longbows and longsword that definitely has nothing to do with their description in the Battle of Helms Deep), dwarves (with their racial proficiency in axes that definitely has nothing to do with Gimili using an axe), hobbits halflings, orcs - the classes - Aragorn Ranger - magic items - Ring of Invisibility, Cloak of Elvenkind, and Mithril - or the setting (racially segregated world with irredeemable evil races created by evil gods).
Sure Tolkien isn't the only inspiration, but it's pretty clear he was a big influence. I mean he had a huge influence on the entire English-speaking fantasy genre (and even beyond into works in other languages as well). Sure we may disagree with his politics these days but you can't combat his influence on society by pretending he wasn't massively influential.
Can we all cut it out with the eugenicist and supremacist accusations?
a bunch of entitled yucks who've never had to be 'Other'-d a day in their lives
Can we also cut it out with the assumptions regarding the life experiences of others? You seeing somebody's name on a screen does not mean you know everything that they've gone through.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Sure. Right after we cut it out with the insistence on sharply divisive, rigidly enforced, and fundamentally incompatible monolithic hive-mind monocultures for literally any playable entity that isn't human.
Because no - I don't believe people when they say that's not what they're asking for. Every friggin' time this comes up people say "well OBVIOUSLY PCs are the exception to the rule!" before blithely going about trying to get Wizards to force every table in the hobby to adopt outlandishly rigid monocultures.
None of you - not one person - thinks that telling players that ALL (X) ABSOLUTELY MUST be (Y) only to tag on "well, unless you have a really good reason I guess" at the end after spending an hour hammering home that all nonhuman creatures are basically clones of the Platonic Ideal of that particular critter, with absolutely no personality, individuality, or nonconformity allowed is going to result in those players feeling constrained to color inside the lines, stay in their lane, and do what they're told?
Because that's what'll happen. If those players consent to keep playing at all, anyways.
Some people don't care about WHO you are. They only care about WHAT you are. "Character" is thrown out and ignored in favor of "Species". All entities within D&D must be judged not by the content of their character (sheet) but by the taxonomic classification of their skin.
Some people don't care about WHO you are. They only care about WHAT you are. "Character" is thrown out and ignored in favor of "Species". All entities within D&D must be judged not by the content of their character (sheet) but by the taxonomic classification of their skin.
You've clearly got a very rigid view of how sample cultures would be implemented, Yurei. Other people clearly have very different views. Stop acting like the way you imagine it being written is the only way it could be.
I've got a question. Do you have a problem with the "of Many Worlds" sections of species descriptions in the 1D&D playtests? If so, which ones do you dislike, which ones are you more okay with, and why?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
It doesn't matter what the One D&D playtests say because absolutely nothing in them is making it to print. "The D&D Community" has seen to that, what with the violent rejection of every single new idea presented in all five current documents.
That said, the "Of Many Worlds" sidebars are mostly useless filler. They're too brief to be descriptive and useful, while also forcibly constraining players into trying to obey a hazy, ill-defined "Default" their character must conform to.
EDIT: Here, let's look at one. "DWARVES OF MANY WORLDS On some worlds in the multiverse, the first dwarven settlements were built in hills or mountains, and the dwarven families who trace their ancestry to those settlements call themselves hill dwarves or mountain dwarves, respectively. Oerth and Krynn (the worlds of the Greyhawk and Dragonlance settings, respectively) are examples of worlds that have such dwarven communities. In other worlds, dwarves have given themselves other cultural designations. For example, on the continent of Faerûn in the Forgotten Realms, the dwarves of the south call themselves gold dwarves, and the dwarves of the north are shield dwarves."
This says nothing useful. At all. It says that dwarves live in hills or mountains, and gives the Faerunian names for two different instances of the dwarven monoculture. It provides nothing of substance, but it does tell you that your character HAS to come from a hill or mountain settlement. No dwarven sailors, no dwarven travelers, no cosmopolitan city dwarves - "dwarven settlements were built in hills or mountains."
It's pointless filler that accomplishes nothing at all save cramping your origin without any value or meaning. Why is this something to be sought after and celebrated?
Of Many Worlds is a good start, but it's still short on substance; writing up a few different takes on the races would be useful, but personally I think it needs to be a good 5 or 6 paragraphs, give some different options people can spin real world-building from, give players prompts so they can develop fully fledged characters.
It provides nothing of substance, but it does tell you that your character HAS to come from a hill or mountain settlement. No dwarven sailors, no dwarven travelers, no cosmopolitan city dwarves - "dwarven settlements were built in hills or mountains."
I don't disagree that the sidebars would be better off more developed. In fact, I think pretty much everybody here agrees with that. However, I do disagree with your idea that it constrains players to such a significant degree.
The quote you used here is very cherry-picked. You left out an important word at the start: "first". You also omitted the latter part of that sentence, which makes it pretty clear that those are not the only kinds of dwarven settlements, but rather that most dwarves are descended from (and probably impacted by the culture of) dwarves that lived in those places.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
If the cities of Lucerne and Machu Picchu were hypothetically settled by dwarves, would you expect them to be identical? Or would they be recognizably dwarven while still maintaining stark differences from one another?
Assuming identical history, geography, and resources then yes, the door ways ceilings might be a little shorter, there might be a slightly fewer torch sconces. But otherwise I don't see any reason they'd be significantly different.
Professor Tolkien is fairly low on the list. You'd do better by avoiding that well.
Mm... sure.. there's absolutely no similarity between the different classes of elves - High & Wood - the core species - humans, elves (with their racial proficiency in longbows and longsword that definitely has nothing to do with their description in the Battle of Helms Deep), dwarves (with their racial proficiency in axes that definitely has nothing to do with Gimili using an axe), hobbits halflings, orcs - the classes - Aragorn Ranger - magic items - Ring of Invisibility, Cloak of Elvenkind, and Mithril - or the setting (racially segregated world with irredeemable evil races created by evil gods).
Sure Tolkien isn't the only inspiration, but it's pretty clear he was a big influence. I mean he had a huge influence on the entire English-speaking fantasy genre (and even beyond into works in other languages as well). Sure we may disagree with his politics these days but you can't combat his influence on society by pretending he wasn't massively influential.
Sorry for not seeing this sooner, but you've piqued my curiosity.
Which description of elves at the Battle of Helm's Deep are you referring to? Because, in the book, the only elf there was Legolas. You're referring to an invention of Peter Jackson's adaptation, which was in theatres in 2002.
Even the word "orc" comes from "orcneas" in Beowulf. It's an old English word that, along with ogre, can trace its origins back to Orcus, the Latin name for a Roman god of the underworld. Huh, isn't that also one of the gods of undeath in D&D?
The game's inspirations come from a whole mess of places. It's a hodge podge, and it always has been. Yeah, a little comes from Tolkien. You'd do better to not overstate his importance.
How much do you actually know, and how much have you simply assumed and are trying to pass off with confidence?
Even the word "orc" comes from "orcneas" in Beowulf. It's an old English word that, along with ogre, can trace its origins back to Orcus, the Latin name for a Roman god of the underworld. Huh, isn't that also one of the gods of undeath in D&D?
Funny that Orcus also exists in the Forgotten Realms but Orcs aren't related to him at all. Seems like that wasn't the inspiration they used for their orcs....
You'd do better to not overstate his importance.
Why the denialism about Tolkien? His work inspired so much of fantasy. Even the Witcher (Polish) depicts elves like his elves rather than any of the folk-lore elves (who were typically small and/or mischievous not tall and serene) that came before him, and dwarves and halflings like his dwarves and hobbits. World of War Craft, Discworld, Elder Scrolls, Witcher, Eragon all draw inspiration from his flavour fantasy.
Funny that Orcus also exists in the Forgotten Realms but Orcs aren't related to him at all. Seems like that wasn't the inspiration they used for their orcs.
It's the retcon they used to conclude that they could ignore the Tolkien estate in the case of orcs (whereas hobbits got renamed to halflings).
I don't disagree that the sidebars would be better off more developed. In fact, I think pretty much everybody here agrees with that. However, I do disagree with your idea that it constrains players to such a significant degree.
The quote you used here is very cherry-picked. You left out an important word at the start: "first". You also omitted the latter part of that sentence, which makes it pretty clear that those are not the only kinds of dwarven settlements, but rather that most dwarves are descended from (and probably impacted by the culture of) dwarves that lived in those places.
Simple question.
Would you allow an oceangoing dwarven storm sorceress in one of your games? Aileen Thunderheart, storm-souled daughter of the sea, born of traveling tradesmen and unable to stand being far from the open sky.
Genetic Determinism people wouldn't. They'd probably burst something first. Their guts would roil violently at just reading that description, in fact. First of all, dwarven women don't exist; second of all, dwarves don't know how to boat; third of all, dwarves simply cannot be spellcasters; fourth of all, dwarves hate the sun; fifth of all, D&D species don't intermingle enough for there to be dwarven 'traveling tradesmen'.
This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. Genetic Determinism people will never accept that it's possible for someone to be a non-archetypical member of agiven species, because then "there's no reason to be that species just be a human you insensitive jerk if you're not gonna play it RIGHT don't play it!" And that is bad for the game.
A fascinating assertion that is completely unsupported by all sides of this discourse besides your own insistence that this is the only possible alternative position people might hold to the idea that race should be nothing but a cosmetic look and a collection of mechanics. Saying that the typical dwarven culture is primarily found in the mountains and as such primarily practices such trades as would be available to them in that region is not the same thing as saying there's no possibility that a dwarf could set to sea and be claustrophobic.
A fascinating assertion that is completely unsupported by all sides of this discourse besides your own insistence that this is the only possible alternative position people might hold to the idea that race should be nothing but a cosmetic look and a collection of mechanics. Saying that the typical dwarven culture is primarily found in the mountains and as such primarily practices such trades as would be available to them in that region is not the same thing as saying there's no possibility that a dwarf could set to sea and be claustrophobic.
Eh, I am sure there are those few die hards out there who still make such insistences. I certainly do know that they have existed in the past.
I'm not saying no one in all of creation will hold that position, just that the only one bringing up that concept in this discussion is Yurei.
IMHO all that setting stuff is optional. In pre-made adventures all you need to know is included. In basic manuals what is required is what you need for mechanics and maybe some suggestions (for languages and etc.), like those shown with spells selection for classes, for "typical", but not imposed, specie features.
For deep knowledge then side manuals like the Sword Coast or Ravenloft guides, so you have material for your own adventures, if required.
where each character typically has their own, completely unique power set. Character histories and personalities tend to reflect each character's powers. Each may as well be considered a different race.
But no, no they aren't, not if the argument is that different "races" must have their own culture and living in different geographical locations because they have different innate abilities. Of Marvel and DC pretty much every superhero has been raised as ordinary human people and have friends, family, lovers that are human so they care about things that affect humans (and nearly all of them are American) so share essentially the exact same culture - just with different powers & personalities. If Superman was raised on Krypton by his original parents it would make far more sense for him to sympathize and help Zod than humans when Zod attacks Earth. If Aquaman was raised in Atlantis he may well have been Orm and helped attack humanity rather than fought against him to save it. In the most recent Ms. Marvel film, Ms. Marvel is helping the bad guys until she remembers she is human and was born and raised on Earth, and has a best friend on Earth.
Magneto is the best example for "humanoids having super powers means they will develop their own culture and choose to live among their own kind", and he's usually a villain. The other would be Super Woman, but she was raised in a culture that explicitly told her, she was to help and save humanity, which is kind of a special case, and if you consider the other Amazonians, they aren't exactly leaping to the aid of humans or other superheroes (plus she does end up living among humans for significant amounts of time and assimilating into American culture).
Even the word "orc" comes from "orcneas" in Beowulf. It's an old English word that, along with ogre, can trace its origins back to Orcus, the Latin name for a Roman god of the underworld. Huh, isn't that also one of the gods of undeath in D&D?
Funny that Orcus also exists in the Forgotten Realms but Orcs aren't related to him at all. Seems like that wasn't the inspiration they used for their orcs....
You'd do better to not overstate his importance.
Why the denialism about Tolkien? His work inspired so much of fantasy. Even the Witcher (Polish) depicts elves like his elves rather than any of the folk-lore elves (who were typically small and/or mischievous not tall and serene) that came before him, and dwarves and halflings like his dwarves and hobbits. World of War Craft, Discworld, Elder Scrolls, Witcher, Eragon all draw inspiration from his flavour fantasy.
You really think you have a point, don't you?
This isn't about the Forgotten Realms. Orcus, the Demon Prince of Undeath, is tied to most settings. You honestly think that's the setting which introduced him?
There's an 11-year gap between Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the first Forgotten Realms setting book (1987). I think you've made plain as day your familiarity with the subject. You aren't even trying to Google, man. You're just jumping from one assumption to another.
Oh, and the first modern interpretation of elves predates the hobbit by almost 20 years. I don't know if Tolkien read it, but it doesn't matter. His work is fringe nerd stuff. Yes, even the Hobbit. It didn't enter the popular culture until Jackson's adaptation.
You keep going back to this Catholic linguistics professor who wrote up languages and a world first. And then uses it to tell an allegorical story about his time in the trenches of France, the horrors of war, and how it's okay to not be okay after that. It was a bedtime story for his children. He only started writing it down because they were calling him out on inconsistencies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Your attempting to apply a human-centric understanding to a society which is made up of literally other species. It doesn't work, in no small part because you want to erase the very differences between everyone. Your position, whether you intend it to be or not, is supremacist. The non-human races don't matter. They're just "humans in funny hats" to you.
Those differences should be acknowledged and celebrated.
Can we all cut it out with the eugenicist and supremacist accusations?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Assuming identical history, geography, and resources then yes, the door ways / ceilings might be a little shorter, there might be a slightly fewer torch sconces. But otherwise I don't see any reason they'd be significantly different.
Mm... sure.. there's absolutely no similarity between the different classes of elves - High & Wood - the core species - humans, elves (with their racial proficiency in longbows and longsword that definitely has nothing to do with their description in the Battle of Helms Deep), dwarves (with their racial proficiency in axes that definitely has nothing to do with Gimili using an axe),
hobbitshalflings, orcs - the classes -AragornRanger - magic items - Ring of Invisibility, Cloak of Elvenkind, and Mithril - or the setting (racially segregated world with irredeemable evil races created by evil gods).Sure Tolkien isn't the only inspiration, but it's pretty clear he was a big influence. I mean he had a huge influence on the entire English-speaking fantasy genre (and even beyond into works in other languages as well). Sure we may disagree with his politics these days but you can't combat his influence on society by pretending he wasn't massively influential.
Can we also cut it out with the assumptions regarding the life experiences of others? You seeing somebody's name on a screen does not mean you know everything that they've gone through.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Sure. Right after we cut it out with the insistence on sharply divisive, rigidly enforced, and fundamentally incompatible monolithic hive-mind monocultures for literally any playable entity that isn't human.
Because no - I don't believe people when they say that's not what they're asking for. Every friggin' time this comes up people say "well OBVIOUSLY PCs are the exception to the rule!" before blithely going about trying to get Wizards to force every table in the hobby to adopt outlandishly rigid monocultures.
None of you - not one person - thinks that telling players that ALL (X) ABSOLUTELY MUST be (Y) only to tag on "well, unless you have a really good reason I guess" at the end after spending an hour hammering home that all nonhuman creatures are basically clones of the Platonic Ideal of that particular critter, with absolutely no personality, individuality, or nonconformity allowed is going to result in those players feeling constrained to color inside the lines, stay in their lane, and do what they're told?
Because that's what'll happen. If those players consent to keep playing at all, anyways.
Please do not contact or message me.
Honestly, you know what this all boils down to?
Some people don't care about WHO you are. They only care about WHAT you are. "Character" is thrown out and ignored in favor of "Species". All entities within D&D must be judged not by the content of their character (sheet) but by the taxonomic classification of their skin.
Why should anyone stand for that?
Please do not contact or message me.
Literally nobody here is arguing that.
You've clearly got a very rigid view of how sample cultures would be implemented, Yurei. Other people clearly have very different views. Stop acting like the way you imagine it being written is the only way it could be.
I've got a question. Do you have a problem with the "of Many Worlds" sections of species descriptions in the 1D&D playtests? If so, which ones do you dislike, which ones are you more okay with, and why?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
It doesn't matter what the One D&D playtests say because absolutely nothing in them is making it to print. "The D&D Community" has seen to that, what with the violent rejection of every single new idea presented in all five current documents.
That said, the "Of Many Worlds" sidebars are mostly useless filler. They're too brief to be descriptive and useful, while also forcibly constraining players into trying to obey a hazy, ill-defined "Default" their character must conform to.
EDIT: Here, let's look at one.
"DWARVES OF MANY WORLDS
On some worlds in the multiverse, the first dwarven settlements were built in hills or mountains, and the dwarven families who trace their ancestry to those settlements call themselves hill dwarves or mountain dwarves, respectively. Oerth and Krynn (the worlds of the Greyhawk and Dragonlance settings, respectively) are examples of worlds that have such dwarven communities. In other worlds, dwarves have given themselves other cultural designations. For example, on the continent of Faerûn in the Forgotten Realms, the dwarves of the south call themselves gold dwarves, and the dwarves of the north are shield dwarves."
This says nothing useful. At all. It says that dwarves live in hills or mountains, and gives the Faerunian names for two different instances of the dwarven monoculture. It provides nothing of substance, but it does tell you that your character HAS to come from a hill or mountain settlement. No dwarven sailors, no dwarven travelers, no cosmopolitan city dwarves - "dwarven settlements were built in hills or mountains."
It's pointless filler that accomplishes nothing at all save cramping your origin without any value or meaning. Why is this something to be sought after and celebrated?
Please do not contact or message me.
Of Many Worlds is a good start, but it's still short on substance; writing up a few different takes on the races would be useful, but personally I think it needs to be a good 5 or 6 paragraphs, give some different options people can spin real world-building from, give players prompts so they can develop fully fledged characters.
I don't disagree that the sidebars would be better off more developed. In fact, I think pretty much everybody here agrees with that. However, I do disagree with your idea that it constrains players to such a significant degree.
The quote you used here is very cherry-picked. You left out an important word at the start: "first". You also omitted the latter part of that sentence, which makes it pretty clear that those are not the only kinds of dwarven settlements, but rather that most dwarves are descended from (and probably impacted by the culture of) dwarves that lived in those places.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Sorry for not seeing this sooner, but you've piqued my curiosity.
Which description of elves at the Battle of Helm's Deep are you referring to? Because, in the book, the only elf there was Legolas. You're referring to an invention of Peter Jackson's adaptation, which was in theatres in 2002.
Even the word "orc" comes from "orcneas" in Beowulf. It's an old English word that, along with ogre, can trace its origins back to Orcus, the Latin name for a Roman god of the underworld. Huh, isn't that also one of the gods of undeath in D&D?
The game's inspirations come from a whole mess of places. It's a hodge podge, and it always has been. Yeah, a little comes from Tolkien. You'd do better to not overstate his importance.
How much do you actually know, and how much have you simply assumed and are trying to pass off with confidence?
Funny that Orcus also exists in the Forgotten Realms but Orcs aren't related to him at all. Seems like that wasn't the inspiration they used for their orcs....
Why the denialism about Tolkien? His work inspired so much of fantasy. Even the Witcher (Polish) depicts elves like his elves rather than any of the folk-lore elves (who were typically small and/or mischievous not tall and serene) that came before him, and dwarves and halflings like his dwarves and hobbits. World of War Craft, Discworld, Elder Scrolls, Witcher, Eragon all draw inspiration from his flavour fantasy.
It's the retcon they used to conclude that they could ignore the Tolkien estate in the case of orcs (whereas hobbits got renamed to halflings).
Simple question.
Would you allow an oceangoing dwarven storm sorceress in one of your games? Aileen Thunderheart, storm-souled daughter of the sea, born of traveling tradesmen and unable to stand being far from the open sky.
Genetic Determinism people wouldn't. They'd probably burst something first. Their guts would roil violently at just reading that description, in fact. First of all, dwarven women don't exist; second of all, dwarves don't know how to boat; third of all, dwarves simply cannot be spellcasters; fourth of all, dwarves hate the sun; fifth of all, D&D species don't intermingle enough for there to be dwarven 'traveling tradesmen'.
This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. Genetic Determinism people will never accept that it's possible for someone to be a non-archetypical member of agiven species, because then "there's no reason to be that species just be a human you insensitive jerk if you're not gonna play it RIGHT don't play it!" And that is bad for the game.
It. Just. Is.
Please do not contact or message me.
A fascinating assertion that is completely unsupported by all sides of this discourse besides your own insistence that this is the only possible alternative position people might hold to the idea that race should be nothing but a cosmetic look and a collection of mechanics. Saying that the typical dwarven culture is primarily found in the mountains and as such primarily practices such trades as would be available to them in that region is not the same thing as saying there's no possibility that a dwarf could set to sea and be claustrophobic.
I'm not saying no one in all of creation will hold that position, just that the only one bringing up that concept in this discussion is Yurei.
IMHO all that setting stuff is optional. In pre-made adventures all you need to know is included. In basic manuals what is required is what you need for mechanics and maybe some suggestions (for languages and etc.), like those shown with spells selection for classes, for "typical", but not imposed, specie features.
For deep knowledge then side manuals like the Sword Coast or Ravenloft guides, so you have material for your own adventures, if required.
But no, no they aren't, not if the argument is that different "races" must have their own culture and living in different geographical locations because they have different innate abilities. Of Marvel and DC pretty much every superhero has been raised as ordinary human people and have friends, family, lovers that are human so they care about things that affect humans (and nearly all of them are American) so share essentially the exact same culture - just with different powers & personalities. If Superman was raised on Krypton by his original parents it would make far more sense for him to sympathize and help Zod than humans when Zod attacks Earth. If Aquaman was raised in Atlantis he may well have been Orm and helped attack humanity rather than fought against him to save it. In the most recent Ms. Marvel film, Ms. Marvel is helping the bad guys until she remembers she is human and was born and raised on Earth, and has a best friend on Earth.
Magneto is the best example for "humanoids having super powers means they will develop their own culture and choose to live among their own kind", and he's usually a villain. The other would be Super Woman, but she was raised in a culture that explicitly told her, she was to help and save humanity, which is kind of a special case, and if you consider the other Amazonians, they aren't exactly leaping to the aid of humans or other superheroes (plus she does end up living among humans for significant amounts of time and assimilating into American culture).
You really think you have a point, don't you?
This isn't about the Forgotten Realms. Orcus, the Demon Prince of Undeath, is tied to most settings. You honestly think that's the setting which introduced him?
There's an 11-year gap between Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the first Forgotten Realms setting book (1987). I think you've made plain as day your familiarity with the subject. You aren't even trying to Google, man. You're just jumping from one assumption to another.
Oh, and the first modern interpretation of elves predates the hobbit by almost 20 years. I don't know if Tolkien read it, but it doesn't matter. His work is fringe nerd stuff. Yes, even the Hobbit. It didn't enter the popular culture until Jackson's adaptation.
You keep going back to this Catholic linguistics professor who wrote up languages and a world first. And then uses it to tell an allegorical story about his time in the trenches of France, the horrors of war, and how it's okay to not be okay after that. It was a bedtime story for his children. He only started writing it down because they were calling him out on inconsistencies.