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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

So 'most orcs are evil savages, but there are some good ones' is fine by you? (It is not fine by me.)

Or lets try this in the real world. 'Most Asians are good at math.' Yep, still essentialist, still racist. (And I'm sure you can easily imagine even more offensive variations.)

Also, you conveniently omitted the other biological features I mentioned.

 

[Haldrik]

So 'most orcs are evil savages, but there are some good ones' is fine by you? (It is not fine by me.)

Or lets try this in the real world. 'Most Asians are good at math.' Yep, still essentialist, still racist. (And I'm sure you can easily imagine even more offensive variations.)

Orcs are especially problematic, and require extraordinary attention to fix them.

The Evil "savage" Orc, is only one among several prominent Orc cultures. The other cultures include "Good savage" sotospeak meaning respect for reallife shamanic cultures. Likewise there are urban Orc cultures.

Make sure there are goodlooking Orcs (a trope that happens anyway), or Non-Orcs that are positive examples of reallife shamanic animism.

Also, you conveniently omitted the other biological features I mentioned.

I mentioned the other biological features, in the sense that each species can come with a CHOICE of three or more major features. So some Orcs might have +2 Strength and Savage attacks, and other Orcs might have neither.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mentioned the other biological features, in the sense that each species can come with a CHOICE of three or more major features. So some Orcs might have +2 Strength and Savage attacks, and other Orcs might have neither.

So can a halfling choose to be not small, can aaracochra choose to have no wings can lizardfolk choose to not have scales?

 

[Haldrik]

To be clear.

If D&D needs to be humans only, where each human uses magic to augment ones own physical and mental features. I can live with that.

Even so, it seems, species can be convenient silos to organize themes, if with a light-touch, as a suggestive narrative description that invites player choices.

 

[Haldrik]

So can a halfling choose to be not small, can aaracochra choose to have no wings can lizardfolk choose to not have scales?

Honestly, if that is what a player wants. No problem. Some Halfling might include a Human ancestor whose height shows up atavistically. It is easy enough to explain ingame.

When all else fails. The explanation is. Because magic.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You are literally saying that capabilities of person can be assessed by their culture. In what world is that not racist?

Ah, so you are calling me racist for not thinking it's racist to assign ability score modifiers to cultures in a DnD.

Okay, so, now you have attempted to call me out. In a truly absurd manner, but at least you aren't just full of it, now.

The fact that you think that it's fine for races to have ASIs but not for cultures means I have trouble taking you seriously on this topic to begin with, but this garbage...oof.

Well, you're still full of it, just differently, now. The idea that ASIs represent a person's capabilities doesn't even hold up to any scrutiny, but beyond that, saying "it's not racist to allow cultural priorities to influence what stands out about exceptional people from that culture" isn't at all the same thing as this completely asinine claim you have about what I'm saying.

Having said all that, you're on my ignore list now.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Saying that cultural traits are "biological" is racism.

Biological=racism.

Reallife racism became Evil because it originally viewed other human cultures as if separate biological species or subspecies ("races").

(In the US, there can also be a political component, where former African slaves were kept disenfranchized by means of abusive laws. But the idea is still that the "race" is biologically incapable.)

The literal idea of people being physically different isn't racism. Racism is either a belief that race is the primary determiner of a person's value and utility, and that some races are better than others, or a system based upon such notions which marginalises and/or oppresses one or more groups to the benefit of another, along racial lines.

None of that relates at all to the idea of different actual species having different physical tendencies.

Like, y'all realize that the race stat bonus isn't the primary determiner of the PC's capabilities, right? And that gnomes aren't better or more valuable as people than dwarves due to having higher intelligence?

Like, it would be racist to look at a world with dnd races as they are right now, and say that gnomes and elves are better than dwarves and halflings, and thus should be of higher status or rule over them. It wouldn't be racist to view such a world and note the differences between those peoples.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ah, so you are calling me racist for not thinking it's racist to assign ability score modifiers to cultures in a DnD.

I'd imagine most people would understand why that might be the case. Trying to do the this for real life cultures should show it pretty clearly.

The fact that you think that it's fine for races to have ASIs but not for cultures means I have trouble taking you seriously on this topic to begin with, but this garbage...oof.

Monkeys are smarter than bears -> not racist
Wookiees are stronger than Ewoks -> not racist.
Elves are more agile than Orcs -> still not racist.
Chinese are smarter than Kenyans -> hella racict.

(It truly pained me to write that last line. It felt bad to do it even as an example. Yet some people think that this is somehow fine. Boggles my mind.)

 

[Haldrik]

The literal idea of people being physically different isn't racism. Racism is either a belief that race is the primary determiner of a person's value and utility, and that some races are better than others, or a system based upon such notions which marginalises and/or oppresses one or more groups to the benefit of another, along racial lines.

None of that relates at all to the idea of different actual species having different physical tendencies.

Like, y'all realize that the race stat bonus isn't the primary determiner of the PC's capabilities, right? And that gnomes aren't better or more valuable as people than dwarves due to having higher intelligence?

Like, it would be racist to look at a world with dnd races as they are right now, and say that gnomes and elves are better than dwarves and halflings, and thus should be of higher status or rule over them. It wouldn't be racist to view such a world and note the differences between those peoples.

If essentialized species exist. Then biologically, the species will be BETTER at certain tasks and WORSE at certain tasks, relative to other species.

Essentialism=supremacism.

It is systemic racism in a game that comes from an era of racism.

 

[Haldrik]

Elves are more agile than Orcs -> still not racist.
Chinese are smarter than Kenyans -> hella racict.

Elves ( ≈ Brits) are Good. Orcs ( ≈ Mongolians/Africans) are Evil.

Elves ( ≈ Brits) are beautiful. Orcs ( ≈ Mongolians/Africans) are ugly.

Defacto racist.