Level Up (A5E) Changes to race (species?)

[The Mirrorball Man]

It does seem that many of those things that people now find obviously "problematic" and unacceptable felt perfectly acceptable just five years ago. Surely that shows us that we should all show some degree of humility when throwing around epithets of all kind.

 

[Haldrik]

Some of them you can, some of them you can't. As long as we accept that the ability bonuses actually measure something concrete, then certain species will be on average be better in some of them.

Averages are no problem, as long as individuals can significantly diverge.

So a gnome-majority culture can average more Intelligence if more members of the culture choose Backgrounds (and Classes) that favor Intelligence.

There can still be individual Gnomes within the species and within the culture that are brutish with high Strength and child-like obtuseness.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In theory the essentialism of a species could be neutral. But in practice, when players humanize the species in order to roleplay it, it is highly problematic.

There seems to be a solution, if the species has diverse expressions of possible traits. Moreover, players can additionally customize any trait.

So forget the rules. Certainly if it is problematic in rules it is equally problematic in the lore. So we can't have the lore to say that Goliaths are stronger than Halflings, that would still be biological essentialism, we cannot have the lore to say that only the Aarakochra have wings and can fly, that would be biological essentialism etc.

 

[Haldrik]

So how do you apply this to a situation where several distinct sapient species exist? Dragonborn are literal fire breathing lizards and halflings are biologically distinct from humans too. That is literally part of the definition of them.

For example, I associate Dragonborn with mythological snake-like qualities (perceptiveness, eternal youth shedding skin, "breathing venom") and ironic knightly qualities (strength, charisma). So the prominent abilities are Intelligence (Perception!), Strength, Charisma. An individual Dragonborn might be only one or even none of these three abilities. In the aggregate, on average, the three abilities are notable. But an individual member of the species may or may not exhibit it.

 

[Haldrik]

So forget the rules. Certainly if it is problematic in rules it is equally problematic in the lore. So we can't have the lore to say that Goliaths are stronger than Halflings, that would still be biological essentialism, we cannot have the lore to say that only the Aarakochra have wings and can fly, that would be biological essentialism etc.

We can have lore that "many" Goliath reach Large size and great strength. But not all do.


I am less familiar with the Aarakochra. Also I have less worry about Aarakochra because they have bird faces, and the less human they are the less concern they seem to be. Nevertheless they are Humanoid, thus playable, and in some settings are a typical choice for a species. So they require extra scrutiny for reallife sensitivities. But even the Arakochra can exhibit significant diversity if not all Arakochra fly. Some might be ostrich-like runners. Or penguin-like swimmers. Just saying. Here the point is a good design approach to avoid essentialism generally.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

We can have lore that "many" Goliath reach Large size and great strength. But not all do.

That's still biological essentialism. Also, do only 'many' aarakochra have wings, are only 'many' halflings small and do only 'many' tabaxi have tails?

I really don't think complaining about biological essentialism and still having distinct species will work. You can choose to have distinct species or you can choose to not have biological essentialism. Both is not an option.

 

[Haldrik]

It does seem that many of those things that people now find obviously "problematic" and unacceptable felt perfectly acceptable just five years ago. Surely that shows us that we should all show some degree of humility when throwing around epithets of all kind.

Yeah, 5 years ago, I had zero problems with essentializing races and subraces. Sometimes I disputed what that essence should be, but I liked essentialism. I liked essentialism because of gaming design. Specifically it made both mechanics and narrative tropes agree with each other, which is a good coherent design that helps the gameplay. Mechanics come with flavor. Flavor can be expressed mechanically.

However, in the context of the cop killing Floyd, an African American, there is widespread frustration with systemic racism. I too take notice.

D&D is literally a game about racism. I dont care if the races are dwarf-hates-elf.

The fact that some of these races echo reallife racist paradigms is even more problematic.

I want zero to do with systemic racism − of any kind at any level.

Zero.

I will no longer play a racist game.

I think D&D history is mostly innocent. But the time is now to move beyond systemic racism. I trust WotC will do everything in its power to rip D&D away from any racist origins.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, 5 years ago, I had zero problems with essentializing races and subraces. Sometimes I disputed what that essence should be, but I liked essentialism. I liked essentialism because of gaming design. Specifically it made both mechanics and narrative tropes agree with each other, which is a good coherent design that helps the gameplay. Mechanics come with flavor. Flavor can be expressed mechanically.

However, in the context of the cop killing Floyd, an African American, and widespread frustration with systemic racism, made me take notice.

D&D is literally a game about racism. I dont care if the races are dwarf-hates-elf.

The fact that some of these races echo reallife racist paradigms is even more problematic.

I want zero to do with systemic racism − of any kind at any level.

Zero.

I will no longer play a racist game.

I think D&D history is mostly innocent. But we need to move beyond systemic racism. And the time is now. I trust WotC will do every in its power to rip D&D away from its racist origins.

I understand your concerns, but I'm not sure even WotC has the power to completely address them, without making a game so different from what D&D has been that it will drastically affect their sales.

 

[Haldrik]

That's still biological essentialism.

No.

There is no essence.

In the example of the Goliath. Many Goliath exhibit an ability score improvement to Strength. But some dont.

There is no essence.

There are individuals who are quite different.

 

[Haldrik]

I understand your concerns, but I'm not sure even WotC has the power to completely address them, without making a game so different from what D&D has been that it will drastically affect their sales.

If D&D needs to become different to kill racism, then guess what. D&D must become different. It is an ethical imperative.

That said, tentatively, it seems that it doesnt need to change too much.

D&D can keep its traditions − as long as − there are meaningful alternatives, variants, and inherent diversity. And player empowerment to customize.

Wherever there was once a homogeneity, there must now be a plurality.

Wherever there was a monolithic "all", there must now be a modal "many", with notable divergences.

D&D can still have its tropes, its that these tropes are in the context of other tropes alongside it.