Category talk:Races

Race
As the Unreg-user goes on a crazy edit spree, I have a question... are Races sentient creatures while Creatures are "monsters"... just want a consensus... which is why it is a good idea to make a profile. Thoughts? - Darkwynters (talk) 03:20, April 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * IMO, creature is a broader category that includes animals & vermin, monsters, and races. Races are sentient creatures, yes, but they are still creatures. ~ Lhynard (talk) 03:35, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Lhyn... that sounds good, let's see what either High admin BadCat or Admin Movie think :) - Darkwynters (talk) 03:50, April 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I probably go with that. It gets fuzzy with intelligent and playable monsters thought, but I suppose they can overlap. — BadCatMan (talk) 06:01, April 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * Are there any offical sources that states what is what? I would agree wit the they are sentient creatures are races... but then as BatCatMan said, it get fuzzy with like the intelligent creatures that are one of a kind... Hmm... Terrorblades 's Far Realm logs dated  08:47, April 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point, Terror. I definitely would not call a sentient magical sword a member of a race. ~ Lhynard (talk) 10:28, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Before the edits of the Unreg-user, I, personally, was thinking of just using the Creature category for Races and maybe possibly changing all cats to follow hi format, such as Inhabitants by creature type or Items by creature type... not completely sure... hmmm - Darkwynters (talk) 12:55, April 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't want to see the alignment info lost. Sure, player character gnomes can be any alignment, but gnomes encountered in the wild are whatever the Monster Manual says they are (with DM discretion, as always). I suggest we roll back the changes to the alignment boxes on these pages and agree on some other way of indicating a PC race (at least a category at a minimum). If I'm not mistaken, later editions have guidelines on playing sentient creatures as PCs, which, if followed to the unregistered user's logical conclusion, would mean wiping out all the alignment info for dragons, werewolves, vampires, and so on. We need a better way that preserves the alignment info for creatures that can be PCs. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:50, April 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * In my understanding, the alignment grid was never indented to lock creatures (or races) into only those alignment options. It usually represents the most common alignments of that creature or race. If it's a monster with an inherent alignment, the grid should not be used; just say the alignment. The only exception is for classes where is does become a handy way of showing allowed instead of usual alignments.


 * In other words, I am opposed to "Unreg-user"'s alignment box changes. ~ Lhynard (talk) 14:35, April 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S., Alignment was one of the items that we were thinking of tabbifying in the Creature template because, for example, orcs went from Lawful Evil to Chaotic Evil. See Template Talk:Creature &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:02, April 6, 2015 (UTC)