G
Guest 4770
Guest
sausage
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism
- Thread starter Shades of Eternity
- Start date
TwoSix
Programs in KOBOLD
If your group doesn't already know the default tropes and identities of a race, then there really isn't any need to portray them "accurately", as your group doesn't have a reference point.
It isn't like there's a "right" answer as to how depict any one species.
G
Guest 4770
Guest
sausage
Last edited by a moderator:
Crimson Longinus
Legend
I have been uncomfortable how D&D has portrayed some species for decades. Literally having evil versions of species you can recognise by their (usually darker) skin tone is so obviously offensive that I am amazed it ever got written. They're moving away from that, though I still think in awkward way where you still need to have "bad groups" and "good groups". And of course for example dragons have still skin colour coded morality.
But I think the biological essentialism discussion has certainly gotten weird. Different species are defined by them having essential biological differences to other species. Dolphins just are better swimmers than humans, hawks have better vision and are better flyers etc. Now humans, all being of same species really do not have such essential differences among themselves, but a lot of racist ideology is based on claiming that such differences exist. But by saying that this setting has actual different sapient species sort of implies saying that these different sapient groups have essential biological difference. If it is problematic to create this sort of fiction, then fantasy species cannot exist, perhaps beyond cosmetic.
Personally I never found it problematic that wookiees are stronger than ewoks. Now I am not saying that people who say such things are problematic are wrong. They might very well be correct, but if that is the case, then we must accept the logical conclusion that different fantasy species cannot really exist. I think the current approach where the differences are sort of minimised, but still partly exist is just confused.
I don't think current D&D knows why these species are in the game and what to do with them. They lean very heavily into "everyone can be anything and the species are not really that different" which means that the species have little thematic or mechanical identity, yet choosing a species is presented as a major character building step instead of just being some fluff like choosing your hair colour.
This is how a lot of people see it, but I have never liked this approach for D&D. To me this is bad fit for a game with predefined splats you build your character with. If your halfling is some sort of special super halfling that is as strong as a strong human,* then why cannot you have a special halfling with dark vision or, hell, a fire breath? If we have these species splats, then I feel they should actually tell us what the species is like in the setting instead of just be an arbitrary rules packages. I think the approach you describe would make far more sense in more freeform character building system that lets you pick any powers you want and then invent fluff to justify them.
* And I for one do not think that this is particularly cool or interesting concept. I mean it would be if it was uncommon, but when it is basically every PC halfling that has use for high strength, then it is not creative or interesting.
Of course a lot of this in D&D stems from how closely the classes are tied to certain ability scores, and it encourages boringly repetitive builds. Every barbarian maxes strength, every rogue dex, every sorcerer charisma etc. There should be more varied ways to build your character, and I don't mean 4e way where they just basically gave up and had feats that let you attack with any stat. At that point there is little point of having ability scores at all. This is not good regardless of whether different species have different ability scores or not.
And incidentally strength that is the perennial stumbling block on these discussions and the ability that is by far most liable to cause dissonance is the one stat that at least somewhat does this OK in the modern D&D. You can actually be an effective warrior without high strength and using dex leads you to choosing different gear and different feats etc, leading the character to play at least somewhat differently. It could be better, but there at least is some choice that has some impact on gameplay. This is sort of thing the game should have more, so that there would actually be some choice in ability score placement and it would not be a disaster if some species could not be great in all of them.
But I think the biological essentialism discussion has certainly gotten weird. Different species are defined by them having essential biological differences to other species. Dolphins just are better swimmers than humans, hawks have better vision and are better flyers etc. Now humans, all being of same species really do not have such essential differences among themselves, but a lot of racist ideology is based on claiming that such differences exist. But by saying that this setting has actual different sapient species sort of implies saying that these different sapient groups have essential biological difference. If it is problematic to create this sort of fiction, then fantasy species cannot exist, perhaps beyond cosmetic.
Personally I never found it problematic that wookiees are stronger than ewoks. Now I am not saying that people who say such things are problematic are wrong. They might very well be correct, but if that is the case, then we must accept the logical conclusion that different fantasy species cannot really exist. I think the current approach where the differences are sort of minimised, but still partly exist is just confused.
I don't think current D&D knows why these species are in the game and what to do with them. They lean very heavily into "everyone can be anything and the species are not really that different" which means that the species have little thematic or mechanical identity, yet choosing a species is presented as a major character building step instead of just being some fluff like choosing your hair colour.
This is how a lot of people see it, but I have never liked this approach for D&D. To me this is bad fit for a game with predefined splats you build your character with. If your halfling is some sort of special super halfling that is as strong as a strong human,* then why cannot you have a special halfling with dark vision or, hell, a fire breath? If we have these species splats, then I feel they should actually tell us what the species is like in the setting instead of just be an arbitrary rules packages. I think the approach you describe would make far more sense in more freeform character building system that lets you pick any powers you want and then invent fluff to justify them.
* And I for one do not think that this is particularly cool or interesting concept. I mean it would be if it was uncommon, but when it is basically every PC halfling that has use for high strength, then it is not creative or interesting.
Of course a lot of this in D&D stems from how closely the classes are tied to certain ability scores, and it encourages boringly repetitive builds. Every barbarian maxes strength, every rogue dex, every sorcerer charisma etc. There should be more varied ways to build your character, and I don't mean 4e way where they just basically gave up and had feats that let you attack with any stat. At that point there is little point of having ability scores at all. This is not good regardless of whether different species have different ability scores or not.
And incidentally strength that is the perennial stumbling block on these discussions and the ability that is by far most liable to cause dissonance is the one stat that at least somewhat does this OK in the modern D&D. You can actually be an effective warrior without high strength and using dex leads you to choosing different gear and different feats etc, leading the character to play at least somewhat differently. It could be better, but there at least is some choice that has some impact on gameplay. This is sort of thing the game should have more, so that there would actually be some choice in ability score placement and it would not be a disaster if some species could not be great in all of them.
Last edited:
The Firebird
Commoner
What if the group includes some people who do have a reference point and others who don't?
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Yes, and I truly believe the game (and because of D&D's oversized influence, the hobby) is worse off for it.
TwoSix
Programs in KOBOLD
Then it only sort of matters?
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
There doesn't have to be a "right" answer, but there should be at least one (preferably more than one) answer at all in the text, and if you're right there just isn't.
Take 5.5 D&D. The MM tells us about goblins, and lizardfolk, and aarakocra, etc. What tells us about dwarves, elves, and dragonborn? According to you, nothing. We only know about how to make PCs that resemble these beings. You don't see this as a problem?
The Firebird
Commoner
My thought is more that the drift in reference frame can cause a disconnect at the table. As @Micah Sweet says, 5e24 doesn't tell us much about species. That isn't an issue for people who have been playing for decades because the text was there before. But if you come into the game now, you won't learn the same lore about species; it may be obvious to you that halflings and goliaths have the same strength.
Then if you sit down with someone who has preconceived notions, and...what are halflings like? What are elves like? Yes these can be campaign-specific, and yes there is non-D&D media that can help establish this. But it helps to have a common reference frame, and the current books won't help you.
Similar Threads
