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

[TheSword]

Well, yes. It is D&D. What I'm proposing here is about as reductive as classes or saving throws.

In my opinion, if a similar approach works for the Civilization video games, there's no reason why it couldn't work in a role playing game like D&D.

I take your point. However I don’t see how it is less racist to follow Civ’s approach and say that Shaka Zulu is Aggressive and Expansive.

Either way you’re putting people in boxes and making claims about them. Surely this is just a ‘subset’ version of making assumptions about races/species?

For the record, i don’t have a problem with make assumptions about species but certainly don’t see how making assumptions about culture is cleaner/more inclusive/less racist.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, is Civilization "inherently racist"? Because it does just that.

Picard facepalm

Giving bonuses to people in the culture is saying that every member of the culture shares a certain trait. That is absurd and blatantly racist. That the culture as whole has tendency towards certain things is completely another matter. (Not that Civ's characterisations are particularly accurate, sensible or indeed unproblematic.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Again, is Civilization "inherently racist"? Because it does just that.

It has been on several occasions, yeah. That's hardly even arguable. It also flirted with a couple of other fringe political issues in the 3/4/5 era, which are not really suitable for discussion here. Further, it has done a ton of stuff where it's conflated culture/race/tribe and so on, largely because it wasn't attempting any kind of remotely serious "simulation" or anything, but just a sort of computerised "paint-the-map" board game (I say this having played Civ since the original), which you can sort of wallpaper with your "civilization" of choice (and slightly influence your game experience).

More to the point, though, your argument makes no sense:

In my opinion, if a similar approach works for the Civilization video games, there's no reason why it couldn't work in a role playing game like D&D.

That doesn't follow. The specific reason it couldn't work is because they're completely different games with different approaches.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Picard facepalm

Giving bonuses to people in the culture is saying that every member of the culture shares a certain trait. That is absurd and blatantly racist. That the culture as whole has tendency towards certain things is completely another matter. (Not that Civ's characterisations are particularly accurate, sensible or indeed unproblematic.)

Oh well. Describing flesh and blood, sentient beings with numbers is, in itself, a particularly abhorrent form of social violence and these days, finding anything within the realm of roleplaying games that is not at least slightly problematic is simply inconceivable.

Or: giving bonuses to individuals who belong to a particular species or a particular culture doesn't say anything about that species or that culture in general, besides the fact that adventurers who share that background may have certain traits in common.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Or: giving bonuses to individuals who belong to a particular species or a particular culture doesn't say anything about that species or that culture in general, besides the fact that adventurers who share that background may have certain traits in common.

You appear to be proposing doing the opposite though - giving all adventurers from "culture x", bonuses Y and Z, because that culture has been labelled "expansionist imperial" or whatever. If you aren't, why are you comparing it with Civ which does exactly that?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

That doesn't follow. The specific reason it couldn't work is because they're completely different games with different approaches.

Very different games sometimes share similar rules. I don't see how you've demonstrated that "it couldn't work."

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

You appear to be proposing doing the opposite though - giving all adventurers from "culture x", bonuses Y and Z, because that culture has been labelled "expansionist imperial" or whatever. If you aren't, why are you comparing it with Civ which does exactly that?

Sorry, in what way is that the opposite?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My argument is simply against the spurious notion that it’s somehow inherently racist to give each specific culture, eg Lantanese and Waterdhavian, an ASI.

You don't seem to presenting an actual argument to this effect. Prima facie, it is racist, or racist-adjacent, because it's explicitly assigning physical/mental abilities to people based on their race or ethnicity. That's exactly what D&D is trying to avoid.

Plus it doesn't make any sense at all.

Sorry, in what way is that the opposite?

In the literal sense that I explained in the post? Your "Or:" paragraph expresses a viewpoint opposite to how Civ operates.

Very different games sometimes share similar rules. I don't see how you've demonstrated that "it couldn't work."

It's not on me to demonstrate that it couldn't work. That's not how logical arguments work. You have claimed that because it works in Civ, it must work in D&D. You have provided no argument to that effect, merely a claim. As you are the one claiming this, you are the one who must argue it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It is inherently racist. It should become blatantly obvious if you would try to assign such bonuses to say, to the French, the Chinese and the Nigerians.

Firstly, we aren’t talking a game set in the real world.


As to your earlier point, Dungeon Masters Guild

I’ve yet to see a single person claim this product is racist, yet it places ASIs in Culture.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You don't seem to presenting an actual argument to this effect. Prima facie, it is racist, or racist-adjacent, because it's explicitly assigning physical/mental abilities to people based on their race or ethnicity. That's exactly what D&D is trying to avoid.

So far, the only counter to my challenge against the notion has been to restate the notion that I’ve challenged.

In which case, there isn’t much to argue.