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

[Undrave]

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

Race would be 'nature' and culture 'nurture'. Anybody can be raised by anybody else and, theoretically anyway, get the 'benefit' from that culture?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Do you agree with @Haldrik That D&D is fundamentally racist/essentialist then? Or do you believe that ASIs are all biological?

@Haldrik, if I am misrepresenting your position, I apologize.

 

[Haldrik]

High Elf often tends toward Dexterity-Intelligence-Charisma
Drow Elf often tends toward Dexterity-Charisma-Wisdom
Wood Elf often tends toward Dexterity-Wisdom-Strength
Sea Elf often tends toward Dexterity-Consititution-Strength
Sun Elf (intellectual and artistic) often tends toward Intelligence-Charisma-Wisdom
Moon Elf (highly social) often tends toward Charisma-Dexterity-Wisdom


I view the Elf entry to be like the Dragon entry and Giant entry. It is a family of species, where each species can be quite different.

In any case, I feel it is worthwhile to present each of the "kinds" of a species as a standalone, that may or may not have much in common with other kinds within the species. So a Mountain Dwarf may or may not have much in common with a Hill Dwarf or a Deep Dwarf.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Do you agree with @Haldrik That D&D is fundamentally racist/essentialist then? Or do you believe that ASIs are all biological?

@Haldrik, if I am misrepresenting your position, I apologize.

The current races in D&D mix biological and cultural elements. That is kinda problematic if you start to really think about it. I feel that ASIs should only represent biological tendencies of the species. Now if some feels that the biological essentialism of species (as opposed of cultures/ethnicities) is problematic, then they simply cannot have different species, at least beyond pure cosmetics. It is the definition of species that they're biologically distinct from other species.

 

[Haldrik]

Do you agree with @Haldrik That D&D is fundamentally racist/essentialist then? Or do you believe that ASIs are all biological?

@Haldrik, if I am misrepresenting your position, I apologize.

Saying that cultural traits are "biological" is racism.

Biological=racism.

Reallife racism became Evil because it originally viewed other human cultures as if separate biological species or subspecies ("races").

(In the US, there can also be a political component, where former African slaves were kept disenfranchized by means of abusive laws. But the idea is still that the "race" is biologically incapable.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

The current races in D&D mix biological and cultural elements. That is kinda problematic if you start to really think about it. I feel that ASIs should only represent biological tendencies of the species. Now if some feels that the biological essentialism of species (as opposed of cultures/ethnicities) is problematic, then they simply cannot have different species, at least beyond pure cosmetics. It is the definition of species that they're biologically distinct from other species.

Can we not represent those biological differences through other racial/your preferred term features rather than ASIs? I mean something a little stronger than what we have now.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Race would be 'nature' and culture 'nurture'. Anybody can be raised by anybody else and, theoretically anyway, get the 'benefit' from that culture?

I feel that nurture is part of the individual variation represented by point buy or randomisation. And it gets really problematic otherwise. Think real world cultures and start apply ability bonuses to them that would apply to every singe member of that culture. Certainly you must see how that would be super problematic? Like just as though exercise try to give ASIs to represent the Swedes, the Kenyans and the Chinese. Wouldn't you feel uncomfortable doing so? Don't you think that a lot of people would find publishing those offensive?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Can we not represent those biological differences through other racial/your preferred term features rather than ASIs? I mean something a little stronger than what we have now.

Some of them you can, some of them you can't. As long as we accept that the ability bonuses actually measure something concrete, then certain species will be on average be better in some of them.

 

[Haldrik]

Now if some feels that the biological essentialism of species (as opposed of cultures/ethnicities) is problematic.

In theory the essentialism of a species could be neutral. But in practice, when players humanize the species in order to roleplay it, it is highly problematic.

There seems to be a solution, if the species has diverse expressions of possible traits. Moreover, players can additionally customize any trait.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Saying that cultural traits are "biological" is racism.

Biological=racism.

Reallife racism became Evil because it originally viewed other human cultures as if separate biological species or subspecies ("races").

So how do you apply this to a situation where several distinct sapient species exist? Dragonborn are literal fire breathing lizards and halflings are biologically distinct from humans too. That is literally part of the definition of them.