I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Shades of Eternity]

not disagree,

Just don't understand.

PC species feel different and part of the reason they think differently is because of their physiology.

Using my rpg concepts to try to figure it out.

1. If you play a Feylin, one of the ongoing themes is building your life around pulp culture. It creates a varied throughput (mixes in the conceptual model that the fey imitate the real world, but it's taken to the logical extreme). Because it is built on the bones of our world, it gives options for a wide variety of characters without feeling anachronistic.

Plus, they can fly (if you take the right feats), which is something a human can't do without magical or technological assistance.

2. If you play a garter folk, you are a snake person based on the humble garter snake, and you can take feats to work on your venom, something a human can not do. Plus, Garter Folk in general are friendly, even if they have slightly different social boundaries than humans.

Species will feel different and have different traits as they aren't just human. Their physiology (whether magical or mundane) will allow for different options.

Is this bio-essentialism or something different?

Can somebody explain it to me?

 

[cranberry]

This thread has the potential to get heated...

Personally, I agree. Different species (and they are not races...) have different strengths and weaknesses.

Making all of the species a blank slate / skin may be easy from a game development perspective, but IMHO, doesn't make sense.

Yes, it's a fantasy game, but some things should be rooted in reality. Where you draw that line will be different for different people

 

[Celebrim]

Bioessentialism isn't wrong where it isn't false to facts. Indeed, where it is true to facts it inherently important. It's a taboo topic because too often people make assumptions about biological destiny for traits that aren't necessarily wholly or largely biological or where the assumed link between one trait and another doesn't exist. There is a very big difference between, "Spiders have venom" and "All Irish are drunks."

Personally I think you can go to far in either direction with this sort of thing. Either being offended by legitimate biological differences or else adhering to the idea that national and ethnic identities or cultures are just some built in inescapable biology both show a lack of comfort with the other and a tendency to oversimplify.

That this topic has become a heated one in the context of wholly fantastic settings though is just embarrassing, and the fact that the vanguards of our self-appointed puritan protectors so often in their zeal do things like make a race of flying monkey minstrel slaves or Hispanic orc gauchos or trying to tell me that draconian need to be explicitly coded as Asian suggests to me that the framework they are approaching the topic in isn't useful. Snakefolk can have venom seems a lot more wholesome than what the people doing the judging are actually up to.

Personally, I think as long as you are avoiding parallels between any real-world ethnicity and what you are doing in your fantasy you are fine.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The examples the OP gives are not a problem. Bioessentialism becomes problematic when two things happen:

1. The essentialism is about being "the bad guy" such that it's ok to kill them on sight (evil Drow, evil Orcs, etc).
2. The way that evilness is portrayed is by using tropes that have historically been used as an excuse to exterminate and enslave other people.

 

[Alzrius]

Personally, I think as long as you are avoiding parallels between any real-world ethnicity and what you are doing in your fantasy you are fine.

I agree, but there's a very vocal contingent who keeps arguing that this is quite literally impossible, because humans will always imagine sapient beings in the context of humanity.

 

[Bill Zebub]

...and the fact that the vanguards of our self-appointed puritan protectors....

Yeah there won't be any red text anytime soon in this thread....

 

[overgeeked]

The examples the OP gives are not a problem. Bioessentialism becomes problematic when two things happen:

1. The essentialism is about being "the bad guy" such that it's ok to kill them on sight (evil Drow, evil Orcs, etc).

2. The way that evilness is portrayed is by using tropes that have historically been used as an excuse to exterminate and enslave other people.

Exactly this.

Bioessentialism is also what gets us things like stat bonuses or penalties for gender.

 

[TiQuinn]

I don't know why this had to be tied to that word. They are different species. Bio-essentialism is not a term brought up in discussions of different characteristics of species.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Exactly this.

Bioessentialism is also what gets us things like stat bonuses or penalties for gender.

In my personal opinion (although I know others disagree) the problem with stat bonuses is less about the insidious aspects of bioessentialism, and more that it forces an unnecessary trade-off between optimization and roleplaying. Why dissuade people from playing Orc wizards or Halfling warriors? If you (meant generically, not @overgeeked) don't want to play an orc wizard or halfling warrior, then don't. Put your own floating stat bonus* wherever you want, but don't tell other people how to make characters.

*Or don't have stat bonuses. Real gamers roll 3d6 straight down the line.

 

[Alzrius]

In my personal opinion (although I know others disagree) the problem with stat bonuses is less about the insidious aspects of bioessentialism, and more that it forces an unnecessary trade-off between optimization and roleplaying. Why dissuade people from playing Orc wizards or Halfling warriors? If you (meant generically, not @overgeeked) don't want to play an orc wizard or halfling warrior, then don't. Put your own floating stat bonus wherever you want, but don't tell other people how to make characters.

I think it's important to remember that this is a question of how you approach the game, in terms of generating characters. While a lot of people seem to think that the default method is to have your character completely developed—in terms of identity, powers/abilities, and backstory—before you start making them, that wasn't always the expectation. You can also use a semi-randomized method of generating your character (e.g. using a combination of die rolls and prerequisites that have to be met) that lets you discover who they are as you're making them, one which dovetails with the idea that their backstory is the first several levels/sessions of play.

Personally, I think there's a lot to be said for that latter approach.