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)


 * Hihih when a mommy sword and a daddy sword love each other very much :P! But yeah, thanks! Hmm so then golems wouldn't be a race even if given sentience? Hmm This is turning in to "what is truly life" and "if a machine can love is it alive?" territory...  Terrorblades 's Far Realm logs dated  18:24, 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)

Hmm we haven't categorised Genasi as a race but that would be reasonable right? Its more of a collective term to a wide veraitey of people whom have elemental blood in them... but then many other races would fall in to that category as well then? as a side note: The 5e PHB says: "Every characters has a race, one of the many intelligent humanoid species in the D&D world." Cant find a description from the 3.5 PHB. Also I agree with the alignment box, we should have there most natural state of alignment not just all boxes filled, if that was so then we might as well just not have the box. But should this also be true for the classes? Paladin for example, most people would view as Lawful good but there are some bad once or even neutral once, and the box covers all. Terrorblades 's Far Realm logs dated 18:14, April 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * All great points, yet New user Sam aka Unreg-user has gone on a crazy editing spree... so we need to come up with a plan... I agree with Movie, if a "Monster Manual" says an elf is chaotic good in 2e, that should be cited and in the infobox... as for playable races... basically, everything could be a "race" in 3e... even black pudding, which I made as a paladin once... long ago... cannot talk about it... horrible ending to a character... he was eaten... by a god child of Bhaal... anyway, I do not like when editors go on crazy editing movements (though I have been guilty of this) without having a community decision on the topic... "Race" categories fall under "Creature" categories... basically, a race is something that has a personality, society, language... I just want a solid idea from everyone :) - Darkwynters (talk) 20:14, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

"Race" is a bit of an arbitrary concept, and a touchy one in the real world. So we have to go by what it is in D&D terms, a standard player race. So a Race has to be a type of creature written up and intended for PCs to play. So, humans, elves, dwarves, etc. With extra sourcebooks and editions, that list expands: tieflings, drow, etc. Genasi are a race, but equally, each breed of genasi is a race itself. Monsters never intended to be played aren't races in this, so no black puddings or dustdiggers. Just because maybe you could play them, doesn't mean you should. They're creatures or monsters. Maybe it's racist, but that's what we've got. There was that whole thing of making gnomes monsters in 4th edition, so maybe they're both? But I'd say once a race, always a race, no backsies. This gets complicated when you consider "Xs as Characters" entries in monster manuals, but I'd recommend ignoring them as exceptions to the rule.

Because player-characters are always exceptions. They can play races that shouldn't be played, they can have any alignment. Like good drow. As exceptions, we shouldn't bend the wiki to their possibilities. So, when we use alignments in infoboxes and categories, they should reflect the rules laid out in the sourcebooks. If a drow is Always Chaotic Evil, then that's it. There may be exceptions (even "Always" isn't always in 3e), but they're not worth breaking the creature pages over.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the alignment grid, as it makes alignments seem more definite, fixed, and important that they really are, and they don't carry the Usually vs Always distinction of 3e alignments. A text entry can be more nuanced ("Usually Neutral Good, except in summertime"). — BadCatMan (talk) 07:58, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

Hmm I like the "Personality, society, language" way of picking what a race is, it leaves some wiggle room... But yeah maybe we should have the race category for all that are considered "playable" without a guide or a calculation or something. totally agree we should not break the race pages because there are some that are different. Ugh but it feels like we should put something about the boxes like "Generic alignment" but that feels like where dumbing it down for the reader. Ofc that a race can have any alignment, in my campaign I think the way I'm gonna put is that mortal races always have the once whom want to make there own destiny.

Hmm what would fit in there? Common alignment box? Wynters, hahah did it use armor? Pudding in full plated armor sounds like a joke about a Elf wizard in full plated armor. Terrorblades 's Far Realm logs dated 09:45, April 7, 2015 (UTC)