D&D (2024) Size = Strength-Constitution?

[Yaarel]

Very easy to correct, via errata and reprint, because the core concept of fantastical beings as distinct player options, is not racist at all.

If it was so easy to correct the racism implied by D&D race mechanics, you would feel less frustrated with the updates to mechanics, like how the background now handles the cultural and personal options, including personal ability variations.

Obviously, the corrections arent easy.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Not so easy to correct.

The D&D racism is structural, literally mechanical, more than accidental narratives.

I disagree. I think it is totally possible to correct. But there will always be those who can't let go of the past, and will always draw parallels, no matter how tenuous, to further their argument. I guess my problem is that I see serious problems with your own narrative that you are trying to spin. I don't see it as more ethical, and I've been trying to point out why it doesn't resonate.

 

[Scribe]

If it was so easy to correct the racism implied by D&D race mechanics, you would feel less frustrated with the updates to mechanics, like how the background now handles the cultural and personal options, including ability diversity.

The concept of distinct abilities, of variable sets of attributes that are tied to player options, is not a racist one.

If you were correct, and again you are not, then the entire body of GAMING. Not RPGs, but GAMING, would be flawed and in need of a rebuild.

You are, again, as with biology/culture, as with size/species, as with any number of other things, applying your terms and logic and concepts incorrectly.

Player options are not racist.

 

[Yaarel]

The concept of distinct abilities, of variable sets of attributes that are tied to player options, is not a racist one.

Saying that this "race" is slightly stronger, is and was, historical racism.

 

[Yaarel]

Whenever D&D is quantifying a species that is very humanlike, it cant resort to reallife historical racism to do it.

 

[Horwath]

so if I have Con 17 I can be a Large gnome?

Ofc,
we'll call you Gnoliath.

 

[Scribe]

Saying that this "race" is slightly stronger, is and was, historical racism.

Saying a tiger is stronger than a chihuahua is not racist.

 

[Yaarel]

Saying a tiger is stronger than a chihuahua is not racist.

Humans arent tigers.

Humans − and "Humanoids" who are humanlike − require reallife cultural sensitivity, and must actively avoid reallife historical racist assumptions.

It doesnt matter if historical racism is part of the "traditions" of D&D, it is unethical and must discontinue.

 

[Scribe]

Humans arent tigers.

Neither are Halfings, or Orcs, or Goliath, or Elves. None of them are Humans either. They are words, for rules containers, and not one of them is real.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

If a bunch of aliens turned up in their flying saucers and flew down to earth. And said aliens slightly resembled humans (upright, two arms, two legs). But said aliens were also twice as physically strong as humans, it wouldn't be racist to say x humanoid species (aliens) is stronger than y species (humans).

If a gorilla descendent evolved sapience similar to humans and moved around on two legs like humans, but could still rip peoples arms off casually, it wouldn't be racist to say they're stronger.

And a gorilla is probably closer related to humans than some species like thri-kreen, dragonborn, and plasmoids.

It's even thought that neandarthals were probably quite a lot stronger than homo sapiens. And neandarthals would count as a humanoid beyond all doubt.