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

[Crimson Longinus]

I understand what you are saying.

The problem is. These "species" are too human. Humans can anthropomorphize anything, and a ROLE-playing game requires it so as to self-identify to take on the persona of the role.

So invariably reallife ethnicities inform the descriptions of these fictional humanoid species. Thus there are "Orc shamans" that are highly problematic. Often designers intentionally and overtly borrow from reallife ethnicities to describe a humanoid species.

To essentialize any humanoid group is racism in the strictest sense, and seems inevitably abusive toward reallife cultures.

The only escape seems to be to make any humanoid customizable, thus ensuring nonessentialism.

The nonessentialism leaves D&D with the dilemna of how to offer recognizable tropes while emphasizing customizability.

To be fair, recognizable tropes are why the reallife racist paradigms happen.

Until recently, D&D has been a game about racism, literally. To simply change the dwarf from the word race to the word species is superficial at best and fixes little. Albeit it helps distance D&D away from an unfortunate vocabulary word.

Offensive depictions that draw on racist stereotypes are one thing, but I really don't think giving the species different capabilities is really a problem though. Like do you think that anyone ever has thought that it would be racist to depict Wookiees as stronger than Ewoks in a Star Wars? Because I seriously doubt that. But people have certainly complained about Gungans and whatever the Trade Federation guys are being based on racist stereotypes.

 

[Charlaquin]

Culture depends on campaign setting. I don’t really see how those two things can be separated.

Not designing ‘culture rules’ around a specific campaign setting seems guaranteed to leave some pretty massive gaps.

Designing it around a specific setting means there is a risk it won’t fit other campaign settings.

But making culture a part of character creation and making a few generic ones provides the design space for specific settings and/or homebrew creators to fill with their own material.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Upbringing would be better. Come to think of it, isn't background exactly that?

No. Background is not upbringing. Most backgrounds are occupations, or ways of life that one would choose after having been raised to adulthood. They should remain that way.
Split race and culture, but do not replace background with culture.

I have not. The parallel here was not that orcs have ASIs, the parallel was that people notice an association to real world group, and with cultures that association will be way more apparent.


Indeed it isn't, as orcs are actually a different species that are biologically distinct from humans so them all having tendency to be stronger makes sense. However making similar claim about human cultures or ethnic groups is racist, as those are actually all members of the same species, and as culture is a social construct, not every member of it would share the same features. Thinking that they would is racist. Assigning ability modifiers to cultures is racist, full stop.

This is a completely absurd position, and an extremely uncommon one. Even if I were arguing for culture being the only source of a level 1 stat bump, which I’m not, that suggestion would not be racist. You have taken a reasonable position against negative and/or stereotypes representation, especially that which uses real world racist rhetoric to demonize playable people, and taken it to the upmost extreme.

As people are discussing applying a range of potential ASI options to different backgrounds rather than races or culture seem like an idea worth thinking through.



Not that this comment is claiming the product is racist per se, but that it shuffles the cards in a way to address the fundamental issues people raise with race and ability scores in D&D without changing much about the deck. I should add that I haven't read the product and am basing my understandings of it on what they said in DMs Guild and what commenters and the creators are saying.

View attachment 124676

I’m not sure I see any issue there. The product provides a simple separation of biological race and ability scores, which many people want. It also has options for a less simple removal of any trace of essentialism.

 

[Haldrik]

Offensive depictions that draw on racist stereotypes are one thing, but I really don't think giving the species different capabilities is really a problem though. Like do you think that anyone ever has thought that it would be racist to depict Wookiees as stronger than Ewoks in a Star Wars? Because I seriously doubt that. But people have certainly complained about Gungans and whatever the Trade Federation guys are being based on racist stereotypes.

You voiced crystal-clear objections against essentializing any culture. Your reasoning is solid.

Is it really difficult to understand that a ficticious humanoid species functions defacto as an essentialized human culture?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Like do you think that anyone ever has thought that it would be racist to depict Wookiees as stronger than Ewoks in a Star Wars?

Yes. I know for a fact that many people find it problematic that in a SW roleplaying game they “cannot make a Bookworm Genius Wookiee” because the ASIs are Strength.

The same argument has been made repeatedly and vociferously on Twitter and reddit and elsewhere in recent months with regards to Minotaurs and Goliaths and other stronk races.

In fact, what I’ve seen quite a bit is not only the notion that that a Minotaur should be able to be a weak lazy bookworm with 8 strength, but that a culture of Minotaurs who focus on maintaining and adding to great libraries and reward acedemic accomplishment above all should have a bonus to Int, and not to Strength.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You voiced crystal-clear objections against essentializing any culture. Your reasoning is solid.

Is it really difficult to understand that a ficticious humanoid species functions defacto as an essentialized human culture?

If that is how they're seen, they should not exist. It means that there is no way to depict sapient non-humans without it being problematic. Either the non-humans can be different from humans without it being problematic or they cannot so they shouldn't exist. There really isn't other logical positions on this.

 

[Charlaquin]

See, I've always used the Tolkien idea that elves are basically immortal, but after a while most of them chuffed off to the Feywild or something and aren't really around in the material world anymore. 2nd ed also used this idea.

I do that with Eladrin, while Elves are more like Arwen and Lúthien - those who became so attached to the mortal world that they became a part of it, and thus became mortal. Or rather, they’re the descendants of such Eladrin.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m also completely fine with that narrative. It accomplishes the same thing, there are no 500 year old elves in the city

I shorten the lifespans of all of the common races significantly. My dwarves grow, mature, and age basically as humans do, but thanks to their toxin resistance they tend to remain healthier in their later years and can live to around 120. Eladrin are immortal but have largely all buggered off to the Otherworld, while their mortal descendants the elves have lifespans comparable to humans, though many nearing the end of their lives will opt to enter Trance and never awake rather than succumb to deterioration and disease. Halfling children grow about as fast as human children do, so they reach their full height pretty early, usually around 7-9 years, though like humans they of course aren’t finished maturing sexually until their mid-teens or developmentally till their mid-twenties. They have the same average life expectancy as humans but on occasion have been known to live over a hundred years in favorable conditions. Humans can live up to about 120 with a great deal of magical aid, but such life-support is not available to the common folk, who don’t tend to live much longer than 80 or 90 years.

EDIT: Oh, and my Tieflings are literally humans with Turathi noble heritage so they have human lifespans, and my dragonborn exhibit negligible senescence.

 

[TheSword]

Until recently, D&D has been a game about racism, literally. To simply change the dwarf from the word race to the word species is superficial at best and fixes little. Albeit it helps distance D&D away from an unfortunate vocabulary word.

That’s a fairly egregious statement there. I’m not sure the game is about discrimination, prejudice or antagonism towards marginalized or minority groups. I don’t think that’s how most reasonable people view the game.

Racism can be explored in the game. However to suggest it’s what the game is about probably shows a lack of appreciation for either what racism really means to people, or what the game means.

 

[Wishbone]

Yeah, I fully get that. I just think that getting rid of the differences between the species is the most boring and unimaginative way to achieve that goal.

I quote myself from earlier:

I guess the crux of the question is how much of the differences between species needs to be tied up in their ability scores?

That’s a fairly egregious statement there. I’m not sure the game is about discrimination, prejudice or antagonism towards marginalized or minority groups. I don’t think that’s how most reasonable people view the game.

Racism can be explored in the game. However to suggest it’s what the game is about probably shows a lack of appreciation for either what racism really means to people, or what the game means.

I read Haldrik as saying fantasy racial essentialism is a default assumption of D&D.