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

[Haldrik]

Every D&D Humanoid species, needs to be treated sensitively, as if a reallife Human culture.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

Defacto racist.

Yes. But that wasn't what I said.

 

[Haldrik]

Yes. But that wasn't what I said.

If we were talking scientifically about species of flowering trees, I would be agreeing with you.

But we are talking about reallife humans in costumes (literally and figuratively) for gameplay roleplaying.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Every D&D Humanoid species, needs to be treated sensitively, as if a reallife Human culture.

Yes, with sensitivity. But you can take 'as if a real life human culture' analogue too far. Because they aren't. They are not human, and they're not cultures. They are different species. If you are not willing to accept that and treat them as such, then they shouldn't exist in your game.

 

[Haldrik]

Yes, with sensitivity. But you can take 'as if a real life human culture' analogue too far. Because they aren't. They are not human, and they're not cultures. They are different species. If you are not willing to accept that and treat them as such, then they shouldn't exist in your game.

Every D&D race is a "planet of hats", and a "human with a prosthetic forehead".

Reallife humans in a what-if scenario.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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

Technically its nationalist. Not racist.
Still pretty odious.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.)

I'm not going to butt my nose in your argument. But...
You do see what you did there, right?
Monkeys and bears are different species.
Wookies and ewoks are different species.
Elves and orcs are different species.
Chinese and Kenyans are not different species. They are the same - humans.

And I hate to bring this up. I really do. But maybe it'll allow the framework of the argument to shift a little.

In D&D, at least most of the lore I have read, there is not a lot of melting pots. Thus, not a lot of cross-pollination of ideas. There is no internet. Not all cultures have access to the same learning. Maybe some struggle to have access to food. It's hard to build a culture of book worms when you're worried about competing with all manner of crazy beasts for your slim next meal. It's easier to create a culture of toughened individuals that know how to fight when you are forced to fight each day just to get some berries or go on a hunt.
So if you do culture ASI's or bonuses or skills or whatever, you could easily have different cultures within the same species (It's been mentioned many times in this thread). Most of culture is based on natural resources and environment/terrain anyway. From the musical instruments to the food to the traditions.

 

[Scott Christian]

Whereas this looks good in principal. Some classes can live with a single amazing stat and this makes them substantially more powerful. Wizards for instance. I like the soft limit on primary stats that then develop over time. It encourages more balanced characters.

And here is what you might get from that:

• Some people saying good, let some classes overpower others in one of the three pillars
• Some people saying the difference in "overpower" is negligible. Statistically it means very little
• Some people saying not really, because their character is still broader than the one considered overpowered
• Some people saying one person's balance is another person's inability to game the system and create a "better" character than yours
• Some people saying, prove it? Prove it that a wizard that starts with a 20 intelligence is "substantially more powerful" than a rogue that starts with an 18 dex. Especially when that 20 cost them to lose all other bonuses except a 12 in one other. Where as the 18 can still have a 14, 12, and 12.

I am with you. I like soft caps. But, this is all that would come out of a debate around the implementation of a 20 start/cap.

In the end, players are all different, and all of them have two or three things they like more than others. For some it might be min/maxing and RP'ing. Other it might be character design and rolling dice. Others, it might be storytelling and getting together with friends. (And before it happens: I am sure someone on these boards will say, I am all those. Plus you forgot one. That is why I said, "two things they like more than others.")

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I disagree. Can’t really go further into it without spending time on the political stuff with no relation to gaming, but bears and dogs are different. One isn’t better than another. Saying that one is better would be racist. Recognizing the differences isn’t.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Every D&D race is a "planet of hats", and a "human with a prosthetic forehead".

Reallife humans in a what-if scenario.

Then you can't have them without it being problematic. If your logic is that we must treat fantasy species as they were human cultures or ethnic groups, then you cannot have them. It is only logical conclusion from your premise. You can't say that one ethnic/culture is better at thing X, you can't say one culture/ethnic group has drastic physical differences from others.