D&D 5E Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)

[TwoSix]

Not a mechanical difference. Being long-lived may change some the stories you tell, but it is still a cosmetic difference.

Well, yes. Isn’t the point that you don’t NEED mechanical differences to demonstrate a different narrative in play?

 

[the Jester]

Not a mechanical difference. Being long-lived may change some the stories you tell, but it is still a cosmetic difference.

Not if you play in games that run through multiple (human) generations of in-game time.

 

[Malmuria]

Look, you know this is not some gotcha to smuggle in evil orcs or some BS like that. But as you note, it gets weird when we apply biological essentialism, a concept that is mainly used about humans, to actually different species. And it is technically biological essentialism to say that birds have wings, just like it is to say that humans are smarter than chimps. It just happens to be that some of these things have been said about real groups of people while some (probably) have not. And yeah, it is pretty easy to spot things that are unlikely to come across as problematic, such as wings or breathweapon or some purely cosmetic things. (Though closer we get to things that actual people have or are describes as that too gets problematic. Drow skin colour is just cosmetic, but it definitely is not an insignificant issue!) But it is far from clear cut. You mentioned changeling shapeshifting. Not necessarily so innocuous, as 'others' that look like us infiltrating our society definitely is a racist trope. And then there of course are things that just measure capability in other way. Due how D&D mechanics work speed is not dependent on ability scores, but that doesn't make being fast conceptually different to being strong. And if being depicted strong is problematic biological essentialism, then it doesn't matter whether it is done via strength score, powerful build or even just in the lore. D&D mechanics are not social justice issue, what they depict might be. Even pretty trivial seeming things may seem problematic to some. A while ago there was discussion (here? somewhere...) about whether goliaths were 'black-coded' due their overt physicality.

I was creating my current setting a while ago when the great orc flame wars raged here, and I thought about this quite a bit. I fully agree that we should endeavour to remove clearly problematic elements and I have been complaining about D&D's racist depictions of certain things (orcs and drow mainly) at least since the 3rd edition. However, I also came to the conclusion that if the standard is "would this be racist if it was said about human ethnic group" then we pretty much cannot (and shouldn't) have non-humans. Anything that would be left would be some cosmetics and perhaps some superpowers*. Eberron is usually considered to be very good with these things, so lets look at its orcs "The orcs of Eberron weren't formed by Gruumsh, and they aren't inherently driven to evil. However, they are an extremely passionate and primal race, given to powerful emotions and deep faith." If I was to describe a real life human ethnic group thusly (ignoring the Gruumsh part obviously) it would be incredibly racist. Ultimately the issue is, that in order to describe non-humans, we have to describe how they're different from humans or at least stereotype then into some sort of extreme form humans. But describing any real human group that way would be racist. Even things like "industruous, holds grudges and loves gold" would be problematic.

* And for a game that needs to be balanced, even superpowers might be an issue, as having them necessitates that the group is worse than humans at something.

biological essentialism as a concept makes most sense when used in context and contrast to culture. So in an extreme example, social darwinists sought a biological or genetic answer to the question, "why are some people poor," rather than turning to economic or political analysis.

So in terms of dnd, what makes an aarakocra fly? They have wings. What makes half-orcs "feel emotion powerfully," and be commonly "short-tempered and sometimes sullen, more inclined to action than contemplation and to fighting than arguing"? We usually ascribe that kind of language to individual personality; in fact, it's sort of problematic even as a cultural depiction, much less a biological one. And if we talk about other species in that way, it's usually in reference to animals that we are anthropomorphizing, like our pets.

 

[Malmuria]

So we are just talking about cosmetic differences then? If that's all there is, then we shouldn't anyone but humans.

flying creatures can still fly, trancing creatures can still trance, fire-resistant creatures are still fire resistant, see-in-the-dark creatures can still see in the dark.

The aptitude of any individual character, as expressed by stats, are up to the dice and the player and dm, as well as that character's personality, background, and culture

 

[Faolyn]

Congrats, now all races are the same. Well done on making the game bland.

If the only thing that makes a race interesting to you is where that +2 is, then I'd say the problem isn't with the races, but in how you play them.

 

[MGibster]

If the only thing that makes a race interesting to you is where that +2 is, then I'd say the problem isn't with the races, but in how you play them.

And that's fair. I've had quite a bit of apathy towards races in D&D because whatever a player selects doesn't seem to matter much so far as the game play goes. My Fighter could be a human, an elf, a dwarf, or a dragonborn and there's going to be little difference between their experiences. I know several people here have said it matters a great deal in their campaigns and I believe them. But throughout most editions of D&D I've played, player race rarely made a difference in any of the published adventures.

 

[Faolyn]

And that's fair. I've had quite a bit of apathy towards races in D&D because whatever a player selects doesn't seem to matter much so far as the game play goes. My Fighter could be a human, an elf, a dwarf, or a dragonborn and there's going to be little difference between their experiences. I know several people here have said it matters a great deal in their campaigns and I believe them. But throughout most editions of D&D I've played, player race rarely made a difference in any of the published adventures.

That's because it's up to the players--and the DM--to bring in the cultures. If you treat all the races as the same, it's going to be boring. If you try to come up with ways why one race is different (not better, not worse: different) than each other, then it becomes interesting.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

biological essentialism as a concept makes most sense when used in context and contrast to culture. So in an extreme example, social darwinists sought a biological or genetic answer to the question, "why are some people poor," rather than turning to economic or political analysis.

So in terms of dnd, what makes an aarakocra fly? They have wings. What makes half-orcs "feel emotion powerfully," and be commonly "short-tempered and sometimes sullen, more inclined to action than contemplation and to fighting than arguing"? We usually ascribe that kind of language to individual personality; in fact, it's sort of problematic even as a cultural depiction, much less a biological one. And if we talk about other species in that way, it's usually in reference to animals that we are anthropomorphizing, like our pets.

Right. But as your last sentence already alludes, differences in temperament can actually be based on biology. For example I would imagine that intelligent creatures that have evolved from small herbivores would have rather different temperament than ones that have evolved from apex predators. Now whether actually depicting this is problematic is another matter. However; I have to say that if we cannot actually depict aliens/fantasy species as having different instincts and ways of thinking than humans, then it's not worth bothering with them. Those are the actually interesting differences, not whether someone can fly or shoot lasers from their eyes.

 

[Malmuria]

Right. But as your last sentence already alludes, differences in temperament can actually be based on biology. For example I would imagine that intelligent creatures that have evolved from small herbivores would have rather different temperament than ones that have evolved from apex predators. Now whether actually depicting this is problematic is another matter. However; I have to say that if we cannot actually depict aliens/fantasy species as having different instincts and ways of thinking than humans, then it's not worth bothering with them. Those are the actually interesting differences, not whether someone can fly or shoot lasers from their eyes.

In biology and animal behavior, I think a certain care is taken to not ascribe human emotions to animals, especially using human language. It is a tricky problem, and possibly one that can't totally be solved. In fact, if we ever met an alien species we would probably describe them in anthro-centric terms for lack of a better vocabulary or comprehension. One novel that explores this dynamic is China Mieville's Embassytown.

Monster manual type books that are written from an in-game perspective make a certain sense to me. Then the depiction of the creatures is not treated as "objective," but coming from a semi-reliable or unreliable narrator. But this works less well for descriptions of playable beings.

 

[Charlaquin]

Look, you know this is not some gotcha to smuggle in evil orcs or some BS like that. But as you note, it gets weird when we apply biological essentialism, a concept that is mainly used about humans, to actually different species. And it is technically biological essentialism to say that birds have wings, just like it is to say that humans are smarter than chimps.

That isn’t what biological essentialism means. But, I don’t want to get bogged down in semantics, so whatever term you want to use for “belief that ‘human nature’, an individual's personality, or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression) is an innate and natural ‘essence’, rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture,” just imagine I used that term instead whenever you see me use “biological essentialism.”

It just happens to be that some of these things have been said about real groups of people while some (probably) have not. And yeah, it is pretty easy to spot things that are unlikely to come across as problematic, such as wings or breathweapon or some purely cosmetic things.

Did you just call wings and breathing fire purely cosmetic? If you believe that, we are operating on very different understandings of what cosmetic means.

(Though closer we get to things that things actual people have or are describes as that too gets problematic. Drow skin colour is just cosmetic, but it definitely is not insignificant issue!)
But it is far from clear cut.

And there’s value in discussing the areas where it is unclear! Let’s do that instead of whataboiting over things that are obviously not problematic.

You mentioned changeling shapeshifting. Not necessarily so innocuous as 'others' that look like us infiltrating our society definitely is a racist trope.

And if changelings were depicted as an inherently duplicitous race who used their shape shifting ability to infiltrate societies of other races for nefarious purposes, this might be a valid concern. That would be essentialism. Simply having the ability to shapeshift is not a problem, unless it’s used to define essential qualities of the race.

And then there of course are things that just measure capability in other way. Due how D&D mechanics work speed is not dependent on ability scores, but that doesn't make being fast conceptually different to being strong. And of if being depicted strong is problematic biological essentialism, then it doesn't matter whether it is done via strength score, powerful build or even just in the lore.

A race being strong isn’t biological essentialism. They’re larger, they have more muscle mass, that’s just a physical attribute. What’s problematic is when those physical attributes are used to define essential qualities of the race. When Goliaths are not just strong but a race of natural athletes. Unfortunately, with the way abilities interact with class in D&D, this essentializing is unavoidable with racial ASIs.

D&D mechanics are not social justice issue, what they depict might be. Even pretty trivial seeming things may seem problematic to some. A while ago there was discussion (here? somewhere...) about whether Goliaths were 'black-coded' due their overt physicality.

Yes, there will always be someone who can find something to take issue with anything. Our goal should be to achieve a reasonable standard, not to make the game 100% critique-proof.

I was creating my current setting a while ago when the great orc flame wars raged here, and I thought about this quite a bit. And whilst I fully agree that we should endeavour to remove clearly problematic elements and I have been complaining about D&D's racist depictions of certain things (orcs and drow mainly) at least since the 3rd edition. However, I also came to the conclusion that if the standard is "would this be racist if it was said about human ethnic group" then we pretty much cannot (and shouldn't) have non-humans.

That seems like a silly conclusion to come to, perhaps based on trying to come up with a deterministic rule instead of evaluating on a case-by-case basis

Anything that would be left would be some cosmetics and perhaps some superpowers*.

And what would be wrong with that? Cosmetics and superpowers are cool.

Eberron is usually considered to be very good with these things, so lets look at its orcs "The orcs of Eberron weren't formed by Gruumsh, and they aren't inherently driven to evil. However, they are an extremely passionate and primal race, given to powerful emotions and deep faith." If I was to describe a real life human ethnic group thusly (ignoring the Gruumsh part obviously) it would be incredibly racist. Ultimately the issue is, that in order to describe non-humans, we have to describe how they're different from humans or at least stereotype then into some sort of extreme form humans. But describing any real human group that way would be racist. Even things like "industruous, holds grudges and loves gold" would be problematic.

Yeah, I don’t love that description of orcs either. What it, and your “industrious, holds grudges, and loves gold” example have in common is that they describe essential qualities of the race. Those are all perfectly fine traits for individual members, or even entire groups of those races to have. They just can’t be inherent qualities of birth. Make it nurture instead of nature.

* And for a game that needs to be balanced, even superpowers might be an issue, as having them necessitates that the group is worse at something than humans.

I think this concern is overblown.