D&D General 5E species with further choices and differences

[CreamCloud0]

'Biological essentialism' is a fallacy of attributing behavioral differences between human ethnic groups-- usually closely juxtaposed and genetically intermixed-- to biological causes. It's a last ditch effort to cling onto a vestigial form of racist pseudoscience.

I hate to keep banging this drum, but it's completely irrelevant and completely missing the point to invoke it when talking about different species of intelligent people that were created by different creator deities in a world with objective, tangible spiritual forces.

I cannot fathom the pervasive misapprehension by which you think it's a legitimate objection to fictional peoples who have, both self-evidently and tautologically, a biologically and spiritually independent and separate essence from humanity.

They are different from humans because they are literally not human; how can you possibly argue that this is some kind of design flaw when it is literally the core premise of the design?

And if nonhuman ancestries are not permitted to be  essentially different from humans-- only culturally different with rubber foreheads-- why even have them at all? What is the point of having such a variety, a diversity, of defined humanoid species if any definition must be rejected as creatively limiting and morally suspect?

I do not understand what your objective is; I don't think you really do, either.

What do you want a 'dwarf', or any other nonhuman person, to be in your games? What is your purpose in having nonhuman peoples at all, if they're just normal human cultural variations with darkvision?

yes other species are biologically different from human, a dwarf is far more hardy than a human, can see in the dark, resists poisons and is sensitive to the tremmors in the earth, but a predisposition to quaffing ale, wielding hammers and desiring gold are not biological traits, nor are particularly interesting traits in and of themselves.

 

[DammitVictor]

... but a predisposition to quaffing ale, wielding hammers and desiring gold are not biological traits,

They're not? Why do you think they're not?

I'll admit that proficiency with given weapons should be a matter of training in most cases-- in most cases-- but taste and tolerance for ale or other spirits is certainly biochemical and neurological. (Do you think it might have something to do with poison resistance?) Greed for gold might be purely cultural, but territorialism and industriousness and risk/change aversion all have known neurological factors with known biological causes in numerous real species, including humans.

In addition to a misplaced fixation on physical biology in a world defined and driven by magic, you're also denying the role biology itself plays in human and nonhuman cognition in the real world... all to justify taking the problem you're trying to fix and keep making it worse.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

i think you could probably do pretty well in covering the broad strokes of things with a decent group of archtypical culture entries and then make like 2~4 specific species-culture entries for each species that highlight the things unique to them and their ways,

Oh, most certainly.

Everyone seems to think it's this  brilliant idea to separate "race" from "background" and "culture"-- but then, nobody wonders why all of these supposedly nonhuman peoples all have the exact same backgrounds, expressed the exact same way, as humans.

That's why it makes them less unique.

It is an improvement over the idea that because you're an elf, you 100% always have one specific culture and never anything else.

Yes, this makes culture less unique. That is completely intentional, and as long as it is done knowingly and judiciously, it won't ruin anything. It will instead enhance, because now you can have an elf who grew up in Darrowdelve and thus is a hard-working hard-drinking swearing sweaty miner, and a dwarf who grew up in one of the surviving cities of lost Cendriane and thus has an ultra refined palate (meaning: super picky and doesn't like spicy food), an eye for quality goods, and a lot of poetry and song. And you can even have a person whose mother and father come from two different culture strongly associated with different particular species, e.g. a dwarf father from Darrowdelve culture and an elf mother from Cendriane Exile culture.

This recognizes the complexity and texture of the cultural space. It, of course, requires more care and subtlety than "you're an elf, you speak elf speak, you eat elf food, you always have more in common with other elves than anyone who isn't an elf, you can't be an elf and not have elf culture, and understanding the ways of non-elves is beyond you"--which is what comes from the idea that race/species IS culture.

IRL societies are not ethnostates, and trying to manufacture an ethnostate always requires dictatorial, oppressive policies. Some dragonborn will be raised by orcs, and learn those orcs' ways. Some elves will emigrate to, and assimilate into, a human-dominant society. Having mechanics that can reflect this is more interesting than mechanics which deny that such a possibility could ever occur.

And if you don't want to bother with all that? Then just roll with the default. Every high elf is a Cendriane Exile. Every Dragonborn is a Scion of Arhosia. Every Tiefling is Turathi. Every human is Nerathi. Etc. It costs you precisely nothing in terms of keeping things simple, unless you consider having to speak the sentence "Please stick to default/expected culture" as being a cost, which I do not. But having this space open presents a world of possibilities and embraces the much more realistic situation, and I'm actually using that word intentionally because this is how reality works, where a person's phenotype is not particularly indicative of their culture and vice versa.

 

[Remathilis]

'Biological essentialism' is a fallacy of attributing behavioral differences between human ethnic groups-- usually closely juxtaposed and genetically intermixed-- to biological causes. It's a last ditch effort to cling onto a vestigial form of racist pseudoscience.

Well yes, biology shouldn't have any affect on what kind of person you are. Your intelligence, aptitudes, interests, gender role, or culture is not a factor of biology. The same is, in theory, true of other sapient beings.

I hate to keep banging this drum, but it's completely irrelevant and completely missing the point to invoke it when talking about different species of intelligent people that were created by different creator deities in a world with objective, tangible spiritual forces.

So? There is nothing in the lore of that says that they have any differences in intellectual capacity or development. Its not like dwarves cannot understand the concept or love or elves reproduce by budding. Most of your Tolkien-based races are basically humans already, and I don't see too much going on with dragonborn or tieflings to make them utterly alien.

I cannot fathom the pervasive misapprehension by which you think it's a legitimate objection to fictional peoples who have, both self-evidently and tautologically, a biologically and spiritually independent and separate essence from humanity.

We have no idea what another species of sentient life would be like. We infer everything based on how a human would work with some twist. If we ever meet aliens from another world, we can determine what a truly alien mindset is. Until then, they are ALL humans in funny hats.

They are different from humans because they are literally not human; how can you possibly argue that this is some kind of design flaw when it is literally the core premise of the design?

We cannot know if a mushroom feels pain, a tree understands love, or if the dog actually understand what death is. We can only know the limits of consciousness based on the framework of human capability. The notion of a sentient species that is unrelated to primate evolution can only be inferred by what we know of human capability. We cannot know what a dwarf would actually be like, so we give them a bunch of stereotypical traits a human could have and call that their species traits.

There is nothing inherently dwarven about a dwarf: I can play a human who works mines, swings an axe, is grumpy and loves gold and ale and is played 100% like I would play a dwarf but has the stats of a human. And guess what? That human is 100% within the parameters of a real human.

And if nonhuman ancestries are not permitted to be  essentially different from humans-- only culturally different with rubber foreheads-- why even have them at all? What is the point of having such a variety, a diversity, of defined humanoid species if any definition must be rejected as creatively limiting and morally suspect?

Because people like wearing funny hats. D&D wouldn't create 500 different unique species and subspecies if there wasn't enjoyment from it. And 99% of them are played like humans in funny hats. As are every sci-fi and fantasy race you've ever seen, read, or played. Its all cosplay because we cannot understand anything other than human consciousness.

I do not understand what your objective is; I don't think you really do, either.

My objection is to the notion there is only One True Way to play a dwarf.

What do you want a 'dwarf', or any other nonhuman person, to be in your games? What is your purpose in having nonhuman peoples at all, if they're just normal human cultural variations with darkvision?

At this point, I'm prone to be dismissive of your question and say "I want a cool hat". But I will attempt one more good-faith discussion.

I don't want "dwarf" to mean just one thing. I want a dwarf to be able to be all about axes and Moradin if you want, but I want the option to NOT be that if I choose. A dwarf that grows up in the jungles of Chult or the heart of Waterdeep isn't the same as one who lives in the heart of Mythral Hall. I certainly don't want things like "Dwarves are usually Lawful Good" or "Dwarves are all proficient with hammers" in the PHB. And I'm fairly neutral on the idea we need a mechanically separate culture element like PF, LU or ToV use. To me, the fact that 5.24 gives me just enough species traits to be interesting without boxing me into " the fighter race" or "the cleric race" is fine enough. But I don't want to go back to monoculture dwarves any more than I want to go back to racial limitations on classes or level limits or humanoid types having typical alignments.

Anything else, agree to disagree.