Something someone said the other day got me thinking. While it (from the PoV of keeping things simple for a game) that Dwarven culture, and therefore Dwarves in general, would be proficient in armour, it makes no sense that all Dwarves would be like it. If a Dwarf was raised by Elves, he would be more likely to be proficient with rapiers and what not instead. Obviously, in 5e as it stands, there's a conflation between innate abilities and culture. Dwarves, a race, get proficiencies in armour because their culture encourages it. This brings the process into conflict if you're playing a Dwarf that was orphaned and raised by Elves (for reasons...).

So, I'm wondering, would it be better to have it separated out? You get to choose your race, which brings certain traits like Darkvision, Trance, etc. You then get to choose a culture which gives you traits that would be associated with learning or otherwise be dependent on your upbringing. That woukd grant you things like armour proficiencies, weapon proficiencies, etc. Similar to backgrounds, but whereas backgrounds refer to your role in society, this refers to which society you're part of.

It makes sense to me, and I think it's more logical than the current implementation. I do have concerns, though. One is that it could lead to certain combinations being "correct", ie they're the most powerful while others are much weaker, encouraging only certain choices. The easiest way to fix this would be to balance racial traits with cultural ones - which would likely remove diversity and interesting characteristics. For example, the Dragonborn, as it stands, has no cultural traits (in this new nomenclature) but has racial ones. It woukd probably have to have its breath attack toned done, so it doesn't become really strong when it's tied to Dwarven culture with its proficiencies in armour and so forth. That would make the Dragonborn less interesting,  unless they completely rethought its design I guess. Still, the cultural aspects are currently designed to counterbalance the racial ones and vice versa. Making them interchangeable with other species would mean that you can't lean too heavily one aspect and adjust the other to counterbalance it like you can now.

Thoughts? Any solutions? Does it matter?

There was a new book released lately that made some changes to playable character races in much the same direction you're talking about, removing some aspects that were culture based, explicitly in order to make them playable in various settings where the cultural assumptions might be different than Faerun. The races from the Player's Handbook were not included in this book, but Wizard's also announced some sort of major overhaul of D&D in 2024 and the community expects those changes to be made then.

I think this is a fine idea. It would mean that races still maintain their flavour text which Custom Lineages lack, and the cultural aspects could get their own flavour text on how your character might have come about them. I only find it similar to how certain races aren't restricted by background, so by all means, let characters begin with skills that others would have in such a culture.

While I'm not opposed to the idea in general, implementing it system-wide would require a complete overhaul of the races from a mechanical standpoint. Specifically stripping away the features in question from races and either assigning them to backgrounds or creating another category of options that everybody has to pick from in character creation then balancing them all so a few specific combinations of Race X with Culture Y and Background Z don't end up with some kind of ridiculous  munchkiny combo. If you're just doing it for your game this is the kind of thing that should be able to be handled easily enough by discussing it with your DM during the pre-campaign setup, swapping traits from one race for those of another that are of equivalent value (like racial weapon and armor proficiencies from dwarves to elves). 

Honestly, I'd like to see more in Backgrounds like the Krynn UA is doing or what Strixhaven did.

Get rid of one of the traits from each class, and move those to backgrounds with potential feats.  It would expand the traits available and expand the customization available.  Custom Lineage I felt really was just a band-aid for how Humans sucked, and considering how Custom Lineage applies to rules, that you aren't a race at all when you select it?  So even if everything in your Custom Lineage says you are a Elf, blah blah blah, you do not qualify for Elf feats.  

Some background features are good, like Acolyte and free healing at temples for your faith.  In the right setting, that shit is powerful.  Others?  It's just used for skills languages and profs.  

You also inevitably sidestep the argument of "THIS CULTURE DOESNT SUPPORT THAT GRRRRR MY LORE AND IMMERSION" because with backgrounds you can easily say "This is their training, or upbringing, or job"

Doesn't Tasha's "Customizing Your Origin" give a player or DM a mechanic to swipe out default proficiencies for other proficiencies?  I mean, there's a table and everything. I mean one of the expressed reasons for doing that was to allow a race to have a different culture or allow the PC to vary from the "culture default' of a given race.  There's a presumptive balancing act using an exchange between default proficiencies and alternatives to precisely avoid just layering OP and proclaiming the Uberdwarf simply had a different upbringing.

Tashas had optional rules for replacing some proficiencies with others from your race, but I don't think it went as far as armor proficiency, just weapons/tools/skills. I'd be up for a culture based aspect to character creation, perhaps by expanding backgrounds more. 

Expanding backgrounds to include setting specific cultures could be a way to include more things without putting them into the actual races. So you then have your races for the purely biological 'what is this species' sort of thing, and then add more backgrounds to cover cultures of your setting. Potentially adding race specific backgrounds where they make sense for a given setting. 

I like the idea in principle, but then you start running into WotC’s move to a multiverse. Elf culture is not the same on every world, so it’s tough to put it in the PHB that the cultural tendencies of elves are X. And then you’d need to publish a supplement every time a new setting and/or race is released noting their cultural tendencies in this new world. 

I think a way you could get at it is to remove race from the equation. Have culture be it’s own distinct choice — city dweller, forest, underground, nomadic, that sort of thing. No matter what race you are, if you grew up in the same place, you’re going to have some similar experiences. So if this world has elves that are the underground miners, you pick elf race and underground culture. It could also move away from monocultures. If you want to say dwarves generally are the miners, but this one group of dragonborn live with them, you can do that pretty easily. Or elves are the forest people, but there’s also a tiefling tribe out there, you can do that.

Quote from Flushmaster >>

While I'm not opposed to the idea in general, implementing it system-wide would require a complete overhaul of the races from a mechanical standpoint.

Kind of like what happened with MMM?

Tasha's lets your trade out armor proficiencies for a weapon or skill.

But I think I see the point here being why not pull out anything that could possibly be "learned" or "enculturated" and give a player a range of "culture" options. I mean the idea that every race is a monoculture is a game contrivance in itself to arguably minimize what I've called Tristram Shandyism.  It also asks how seriously players really take their character's origins (I'm guessing it's a pretty broad array of handlings).

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

But I think I see the point here being why not pull out anything that could possibly be "learned" or "enculturated" and give a player a range of "culture" options. I mean the idea that every race is a monoculture is a game contrivance in itself to arguably minimize what I've called Tristram Shandyism.  It also asks how seriously players really take their character's origins (I'm guessing it's a pretty broad array of handlings).

This might possibly happen with the 2024 overhaul WotC announced, because it is a contrivance (which WotC has acknowledged too, even if only on a multiverse scale rather than per setting). For the moment it's arguably something more easily managed on a case by case basis with your DM though. Formalizing a complete not-contrived setup is a lot of work. 

Conceptually, I'm all for it. Mechanically, I feel pretty confident it would result in a busted up metagame.

Would love to see it in the "5.5e" update. That way the rest of the game could be properly adjusted to make it fit nicely.

Dwarven souls are forged by Moradin. The physical and magical biology of many species in fantasy dictate unique traits outside of upbringing, even some behaviors. Elves don't trance because they're taught, they are born with part of the Weave in their brain and are reincarnation of elves with several lives, imparting knowledge of their past lives, including sword training, magic and so on. An unborn Elf has a psychic link with their mother, sharing lessons from their culture even before they're born. So, being a Dwarf raised by elves would impart almost nothing, even the way Draven brains work doesn't include the subtle telepathy that binds their community. When an Elf trances, they sort through the memories of their former lives, it's no more impartable than a dwarves figure or poison resistance.

You can of course reframe any game feature to suit your preferences, but they shouldn't be homogenized for your preference rather than distinct for others preference. 

Quote from Bahamut_Kaiser >>

Dwarven souls are forged by Moradin. The physical and magical biology of many species in fantasy dictate unique traits outside of upbringing, even some behaviors. Elves don't trance because they're taught, they are born with part of the Weave in their brain and are reincarnation of elves with several lives, imparting knowledge of their past lives, including sword training, magic and so on. An unborn Elf has a psychic link with their mother, sharing lessons from their culture even before they're born. So, being a Dwarf raised by elves would impart almost nothing, even the way Draven brains work doesn't include the subtle telepathy that binds their community. When an Elf trances, they sort through the memories of their former lives, it's no more impartable than a dwarves figure or poison resistance.

You can of course reframe any game feature to suit your preferences, but they shouldn't be homogenized for your preference rather than distinct for others preference. 

I want to say the OP actually anticipated this line of thinking ...

No one is going to stop an absolutist holding absolutely to the lore and "magical biology".  I don't think anyone here is identifying trance as a cultural trait, anymore than undead nature or any other "sleep deprived" existence is a cultural trait (like that power down thing Warforged do).  

I mean from an "ABSOLUTELY NOT AT MY TABLE" standpoint, sure Dwarves don't truck with Elves.  Whatever.  Your world, and reflective of some lore worlds. Those partitions can be done.  But from a story standpoint, I could imagine a "Dwarf raised by elves" where the Dwarf's inability to commune through the trance is sort of a tragic note toward their backstory.  "Raised by but not fully belonging".  This could lead to epic high fantasy exploits where the Dwarf endeavors for the Elven pantheon's blessing.  Maybe the Dwarf never attains communion ... or maybe someone in the Pantheon, a Galadriel type but actually divine, takes humor or pity upon the Dwarf and gives it at least a glimpse.  

Or you can still just say "heck no" but there are many tables out there that do think of their game space as a place to entertain ideas of the "how would that even work?" sort.  And it ain't just a 5e thing.

I've started dabbling in making my own game system and I've done this exact thing. I've taken a bunch from the Ironclaw game system, and one thing in particular was their Gifts mechanic/system. So for mine I gave all the races X number of standard qualities they all have, like all goblins have darkvison, all of them are small sized, all of them have a 35 ft. speed, etc. But then I let the player choose any of the variable qualities, such as whether they get a trait increase (increasing your Quick or Luck trait die to the next die size), whether they get bonuses to stealth or not, whether they get bonus XP for finding trinkets and keeping them, etc.

Quote from Bahamut_Kaiser >>

Dwarven souls are forged by Moradin. The physical and magical biology of many species in fantasy dictate unique traits outside of upbringing, even some behaviors. Elves don't trance because they're taught, they are born with part of the Weave in their brain and are reincarnation of elves with several lives, imparting knowledge of their past lives, including sword training, magic and so on. An unborn Elf has a psychic link with their mother, sharing lessons from their culture even before they're born. So, being a Dwarf raised by elves would impart almost nothing, even the way Draven brains work doesn't include the subtle telepathy that binds their community. When an Elf trances, they sort through the memories of their former lives, it's no more impartable than a dwarves figure or poison resistance.

You can of course reframe any game feature to suit your preferences, but they shouldn't be homogenized for your preference rather than distinct for others preference. 

 Please point to the passages that say who forges dwarven souls and the bits about elf fetuses and the collective unconscious and reincarnation and the weave. 

Because dwarves in eberron probably haven’t ever heard of moradin. And elves outside of toril don’t know what the weave is. 

The things the OP suggests don’t come anywhere near homogenizing things  they actually open up more options and recognize that not everyone plays in the same game world. If anything, insisting that all elves in all campaigns have to have identical traits is homogeneity.

Use whatever mythology you like at your table, that’s cool. I won’t say a thing about it. But don’t try and force me to play in the FR.

I just wish that we'd stop calling them races - that is way more problematic than the culture aspect in my opinion. By calling them races every species in the D&D word is further anthropomorphised. Of course, even species need to be anthropomorphised to be playable, but by clinging on to the race label brings up a lot of connotations about racism, when they are fundamentally different species as different capabilities demonstrate - even when you remove ASI. 

I do see the challenge in describing cultures within the species sections (using that expression deliberately), especially if the books needs to be setting agnostic (which they are not at all at the moment - they contain instructions on how you can change things for your own setting and provide examples for already published settings - including some previous edition settings). So removal of all cultural aspects from the descriptions will enable you to do exactly what you probably already do if you create your own world - ignore the baseline. 

We could remove the baseline/stereotype completely - but if we are realistic, most people that enter into D&D have probably also watched Lord of the rings or similar, and already have a baseline impression that orcs tend to be evil in many settings. So the cultural baggage exist outside of D&D - and while the game system skeleton could be completely separated from that, it is not something that has gone terribly well for generic game systems. There are waaay more people that play D&D than play e.g. GURPS - and if we are honest, part of that popularity is that D&D comes with a certain amount of cultural setting so you can get started without spending a year building your world/campaign including a specification of every culture. 
Some people really enjoy world crafting, and it is already clear in the D&D material that you are free or even encouraged to do so, but having a baseline inevitably makes it easier to get up and running with a game where people have a set of fairly common expectations of how the different species exist.  I think it is great how the rules enable those changes, but the idea of having complete separation between the setting/cultural aspects and the barebones rules framework actually makes it a ton more work for everyone (including those who don't particularly want to build a new world and redefine the cultural aspects of every species) would either lead to a massive amount of additional books/collections to purchase in smaller pure rule books and then separate world setting books - something I don't think actually appeals to many people. 

The other part is where to draw the line? Why stop at species? Certain spells might not fit in your setting or be culturally acceptable, so that kind of specific information should be separated out as well - perhaps gear. Eventually we can strip out classes because rangers are not culturally universal either.

Long rant, but - I'll stick by my guns that a huge amount of these tensions are down to continuing to call it races rather than species.

Quote from Bahamut_Kaiser >>

.You can of course reframe any game feature to suit your preferences, but they shouldn't be homogenized for your preference rather than distinct for others preference. 

 I'm really confused as to why you think this would increase homogeneity. Right now, Goblins are Goblins are Goblins. You have a Goblin adopted by Humans? You're still, mechanically, the same as any other Goblin with your class. Or you could have the Goblin be mechanically human but flavoured as Goblin, I guess. In the proposed system, you could instead build your Goblin to have Goblin physical traits while having Human cultural traits, which is a unique combination that Goblins and Humans generally don't have. That is decreasing homogeneity, not increasing it.

Quote from overchord >>

I just wish that we'd stop calling them races - that is way more problematic than the culture aspect in my opinion. By calling them races every species in the D&D word is further anthropomorphised. Of course, even species need to be anthropomorphised to be playable, but by clinging on to the race label brings up a lot of connotations about racism, when they are fundamentally different species as different capabilities demonstrate - even when you remove ASI. 

I do see the challenge in describing cultures within the species sections (using that expression deliberately), especially if the books needs to be setting agnostic (which they are not at all at the moment - they contain instructions on how you can change things for your own setting and provide examples for already published settings - including some previous edition settings). So removal of all cultural aspects from the descriptions will enable you to do exactly what you probably already do if you create your own world - ignore the baseline. 

We could remove the baseline/stereotype completely - but if we are realistic, most people that enter into D&D have probably also watched Lord of the rings or similar, and already have a baseline impression that orcs tend to be evil in many settings. So the cultural baggage exist outside of D&D - and while the game system skeleton could be completely separated from that, it is not something that has gone terribly well for generic game systems. There are waaay more people that play D&D than play e.g. GURPS - and if we are honest, part of that popularity is that D&D comes with a certain amount of cultural setting so you can get started without spending a year building your world/campaign including a specification of every culture. 
Some people really enjoy world crafting, and it is already clear in the D&D material that you are free or even encouraged to do so, but having a baseline inevitably makes it easier to get up and running with a game where people have a set of fairly common expectations of how the different species exist.  I think it is great how the rules enable those changes, but the idea of having complete separation between the setting/cultural aspects and the barebones rules framework actually makes it a ton more work for everyone (including those who don't particularly want to build a new world and redefine the cultural aspects of every species) would either lead to a massive amount of additional books/collections to purchase in smaller pure rule books and then separate world setting books - something I don't think actually appeals to many people. 

The other part is where to draw the line? Why stop at species? Certain spells might not fit in your setting or be culturally acceptable, so that kind of specific information should be separated out as well - perhaps gear. Eventually we can strip out classes because rangers are not culturally universal either.

Long rant, but - I'll stick by my guns that a huge amount of these tensions are down to continuing to call it races rather than species.

 While I agree that species is better than race (I sometimes do slip in terminology), this thread is about having the mechanic to separate culture and species traits, not about species ASIs, alignments and the various hot topics about those changes. I really don't want this thread to devolve into another flamewqr, so if you really must delve into those, please kindly post elsewhere, either create your own thread or tack it onto one of the 1,367 threads that already discuss them.

Responding to the relevant parts, you seem to be under the impression that I'm advocating the removal of the cultural aspects. I'm not, I'm advocating the decoupling of cultural aspects from the species traits. The choices made in character creation process, with variation in order, goes something like this:

Stats -> species -> class -> background.

Your culture is married to your species. I'm proposing this:

Stats -> species -> culture -> class -> background.

You get to pick your culture, making it more important to you. Also, it allows, if WotC desires, a solution to the monoculture problem. You could have several cultures for each species, or go by region, or whatever. That may not be feasible, but it's an option. The point is though, that you can have more unique characters that are mechanically closer to their story. It makes no sense that a Goblin raised by Humans would be mechanically identical to a homegrown Goblin, and this would allow you to reflect that in your character.

It will likely devolve into a mix-and-match of "the culture I come from has all these attributes which perfectly match my ideal character build".