So I figured the best source of info on this would be the game itself so I took another look at the record screen of one of the Bhaalspawns, and sure enough, tennisgolfboll is onto something. She sure seemed normal enough initially though, I have no idea how I missed all the signs though:
lets all have a big arguement about what fraction/percentages each would represent!
(I expect all sources to be cited, and would like to see some charts and calculations)
Obviously the human part would be the bigger one since you have two halves of human from the half-elf and half-orc; 50+50=100. So that makes one full-blooded human, half an elf, half an orc aaand... I'm not sure how much of the dragon and god genetic makeup fits in.
The meaning of "race" is much more cut-and-dry in DnD than it is in real life, though. Right?
Not ... really. It's cut and dry from a mechanics standpoint if you stick to a few pre-designed races in the PHB. -- It's cut and dry specifically because it doesn't concern itself with edge cases where things get messy. (I'm 1/8 elf, 1/8 halfling, 3/4 human, mother's from Tyr, father's from Thay [grandparents are from Rasheman though]; the birth was facilitated by fey magic and I was raised among heretic Dwarven cultists of Umberlee...).
But once you go out of that; especially once you add things like "divine heritage" it's not longer really clear what that means. Hence the discussion above.
[For another example of race murkiness in AD&D: Elves - here are 2 traits: (1) 90% Immune to Sleep (2) +1 attack with long swords One is presumably "genetic" the other is "cultural" (they learn sword play during their long childhood).
What if the elf were raised among Dwarves? Do they lose their "racial" bonus to sword play? Is "race" also "culture" then? Do they get stone cutting proficiency? Is that nature or nurture? Do they lose charisma points for growing up among surly autism-spectrum workaholics? Things are almost only "cut and dry" when you confine yourself to stereotypes. Even in imaginary realms. ]
By the way, if anyone can explain Draconis, they would get a cookie.
Father Half-Blue Dragon, Draconis is a full-blooded BROWN Dragon.
I think most half-races would take after the other parent. So if the father was a half-blue dragon and the mother was a full-blooded brow dragon, then I think the child would be as well.
EDIT: I know it works that way for half-elves anyway.
I just want to point out that a wiki can be edited by anyone, anywhere, at any time, for the most part, and I could edit it just now to say Bhaalspawn are giant walking carrots if I so cared to.
The line in question on the wiki that's causing this debate is the first one, right? 'Bhaalspawn mostly seemed like normal members of their race at first, so long as the race was humanoid (Abazigal was considered a half-breed according to the game).'
Yet that line is given no annotation. Where is it said canonly that Bhaalspawn mostly seemed like normal members of their race at first? Can someone give me a quote in game? A quote from one of those novels we are trying so desperately to pretend don't exist? A quote from a sourcebook somewhere?
I honestly don't think anyone can. I've read every damn file of this game, and I've read those stupid novels too many times for my own sanity, and I'm pretty sure I've read every Forgotten Realm sourcebook in existence.
This semantics debate around the word 'seems' isn't even about a canonical statement: it's about a statement someone, just like me and you and that other person over there, chose to use when writing up a wiki article. Honestly, they probably just blitzed through it, saved, and zoomed on to the next article: that's usually what I do when I'm stuck writing for a wiki. They could have said 'Bhaalspawn looked like normal members of their race at first', 'Bhaalspawn are normal members of their race at first glance', 'Bhaalspawn are no different then any other normal member of their race excluding the taint of their dead father', 'Bhaalspawn are of a different race entirely', and none of those statements would be canon anymore then 'Bhaalspawn mostly seemed like normal members of their race at first, so long as the race was humanoid (Abazigal was considered a half-breed according to the game).' The Forgotten Realms wiki is an awesome and extremely useful resource, but it is not canon. Only points directly annotated and linked to a sourcebook of sorts can be considered so.
However, because I'm sure everyone wants my opinion (no, actually, I'm sure you don't, but whatever)... Bhaal is not the only god who has had children.
Look at the 3E sourcebooks for planetouched. Races of Faerun is a good one. It describes how Shaundakul has made Air Genasi, Umberlee has made Water Genasi, many good gods have made Aasimar, and many evil gods have made tieflings. If CHARNAME was a different race, all they would be is a tiefling: the result of a humanoid breeding with an evil outsider (which a god like Bhaal certainly is). There is no 'half-god' template.
If this debate was about 'Is CHARNAME a tiefling or not?', my opinion might differ. But then again, Haer'Dalis. He gets certain bonuses that CHARNAME does not. So, CHARNAME is probably by game not supposed to be considered a tiefling, and should thus be considered a normal member of their race, despite their taint.
I just want to point out that a wiki can be edited by anyone, anywhere, at any time, for the most part, and I could edit it just now to say Bhaalspawn are giant walking carrots if I so cared to.
The line in question on the wiki that's causing this debate is the first one, right? 'Bhaalspawn mostly seemed like normal members of their race at first, so long as the race was humanoid (Abazigal was considered a half-breed according to the game).'
Yet that line is given no annotation. Where is it said canonly that Bhaalspawn mostly seemed like normal members of their race at first? Can someone give me a quote in game? A quote from one of those novels we are trying so desperately to pretend don't exist? A quote from a sourcebook somewhere?
I honestly don't think anyone can. I've read every damn file of this game, and I've read those stupid novels too many times for my own sanity, and I'm pretty sure I've read every Forgotten Realm sourcebook in existence.
This semantics debate around the word 'seems' isn't even about a canonical statement: it's about a statement someone, just like me and you and that other person over there, chose to use when writing up a wiki article. Honestly, they probably just blitzed through it, saved, and zoomed on to the next article: that's usually what I do when I'm stuck writing for a wiki. They could have said 'Bhaalspawn looked like normal members of their race at first', 'Bhaalspawn are normal members of their race at first glance', 'Bhaalspawn are no different then any other normal member of their race excluding the taint of their dead father', 'Bhaalspawn are of a different race entirely', and none of those statements would be canon anymore then 'Bhaalspawn mostly seemed like normal members of their race at first, so long as the race was humanoid (Abazigal was considered a half-breed according to the game).' The Forgotten Realms wiki is an awesome and extremely useful resource, but it is not canon. Only points directly annotated and linked to a sourcebook of sorts can be considered so.
However, because I'm sure everyone wants my opinion (no, actually, I'm sure you don't, but whatever)... Bhaal is not the only god who has had children.
Look at the 3E sourcebooks for planetouched. Races of Faerun is a good one. It describes how Shaundakul has made Air Genasi, Umberlee has made Water Genasi, many good gods have made Aasimar, and many evil gods have made tieflings. If CHARNAME was a different race, all they would be is a tiefling: the result of a humanoid breeding with an evil outsider (which a god like Bhaal certainly is). There is no 'half-god' template.
If this debate was about 'Is CHARNAME a tiefling or not?', my opinion might differ. But then again, Haer'Dalis. He gets certain bonuses that CHARNAME does not. So, CHARNAME is probably by game not supposed to be considered a tiefling, and should thus be considered a normal member of their race, despite their taint.
Yea I agree with this entirely. This is the product of some person in their spare time. It seems like in this case the user "Ville V. Kokko" is responsible for that particular wording.
It's actually sort of tempting, but I'd probably get banned from the wiki then, and I use that site a lot to grab quick info on gods (and the spelling of their names). So, not me. It's a pain to have to IP change constantly. >.>
Someone else should, and see if it sparks a large debate. I mean, seriously, people, anyone can edit the wiki. I can edit the wiki and exclude that seems part if I so want to. Maybe I will. Hm. Wonder if Ville V. Kokko (who I am guessing is a wonderful person who does wiki articles and is much more sane than I) would change it back?
Comments
"Heya, it's me Imoen!"
part elf
part human
part orc
part dragon
part god
So only one thing left to do... lets all have a big arguement about what fraction/percentages each would represent!
(I expect all sources to be cited, and would like to see some charts and calculations)
Father Half-Blue Dragon, Draconis is a full-blooded BROWN Dragon.
It's cut and dry from a mechanics standpoint if you stick to a few pre-designed races in the PHB. -- It's cut and dry specifically because it doesn't concern itself with edge cases where things get messy.
(I'm 1/8 elf, 1/8 halfling, 3/4 human, mother's from Tyr, father's from Thay [grandparents are from Rasheman though]; the birth was facilitated by fey magic and I was raised among heretic Dwarven cultists of Umberlee...).
But once you go out of that; especially once you add things like "divine heritage" it's not longer really clear what that means.
Hence the discussion above.
[For another example of race murkiness in AD&D:
Elves - here are 2 traits: (1) 90% Immune to Sleep (2) +1 attack with long swords
One is presumably "genetic" the other is "cultural" (they learn sword play during their long childhood).
What if the elf were raised among Dwarves? Do they lose their "racial" bonus to sword play? Is "race" also "culture" then? Do they get stone cutting proficiency? Is that nature or nurture? Do they lose charisma points for growing up among surly autism-spectrum workaholics?
Things are almost only "cut and dry" when you confine yourself to stereotypes. Even in imaginary realms.
EDIT: I know it works that way for half-elves anyway.
The line in question on the wiki that's causing this debate is the first one, right? 'Bhaalspawn mostly seemed like normal members of their race at first, so long as the race was humanoid (Abazigal was considered a half-breed according to the game).'
Yet that line is given no annotation. Where is it said canonly that Bhaalspawn mostly seemed like normal members of their race at first? Can someone give me a quote in game? A quote from one of those novels we are trying so desperately to pretend don't exist? A quote from a sourcebook somewhere?
I honestly don't think anyone can. I've read every damn file of this game, and I've read those stupid novels too many times for my own sanity, and I'm pretty sure I've read every Forgotten Realm sourcebook in existence.
This semantics debate around the word 'seems' isn't even about a canonical statement: it's about a statement someone, just like me and you and that other person over there, chose to use when writing up a wiki article. Honestly, they probably just blitzed through it, saved, and zoomed on to the next article: that's usually what I do when I'm stuck writing for a wiki. They could have said 'Bhaalspawn looked like normal members of their race at first', 'Bhaalspawn are normal members of their race at first glance', 'Bhaalspawn are no different then any other normal member of their race excluding the taint of their dead father', 'Bhaalspawn are of a different race entirely', and none of those statements would be canon anymore then 'Bhaalspawn mostly seemed like normal members of their race at first, so long as the race was humanoid (Abazigal was considered a half-breed according to the game).' The Forgotten Realms wiki is an awesome and extremely useful resource, but it is not canon. Only points directly annotated and linked to a sourcebook of sorts can be considered so.
However, because I'm sure everyone wants my opinion (no, actually, I'm sure you don't, but whatever)... Bhaal is not the only god who has had children.
Look at the 3E sourcebooks for planetouched. Races of Faerun is a good one. It describes how Shaundakul has made Air Genasi, Umberlee has made Water Genasi, many good gods have made Aasimar, and many evil gods have made tieflings. If CHARNAME was a different race, all they would be is a tiefling: the result of a humanoid breeding with an evil outsider (which a god like Bhaal certainly is). There is no 'half-god' template.
If this debate was about 'Is CHARNAME a tiefling or not?', my opinion might differ. But then again, Haer'Dalis. He gets certain bonuses that CHARNAME does not. So, CHARNAME is probably by game not supposed to be considered a tiefling, and should thus be considered a normal member of their race, despite their taint.
Someone else should, and see if it sparks a large debate. I mean, seriously, people, anyone can edit the wiki. I can edit the wiki and exclude that seems part if I so want to. Maybe I will. Hm. Wonder if Ville V. Kokko (who I am guessing is a wonderful person who does wiki articles and is much more sane than I) would change it back?