I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Mr. Lahey]

Thus, if humans deviate from primate behavior, kuo-toa should deviate from fish behavior. If both of us are building cities, should we mot consider the idea that sentience is paving over most of the differences?

Then we are back to using species largely as a stand-in for culture...

I don’t disagree, but the vast majority of players/creators are not experts in fish (or insects, or birds). For good or bad, I would still expect most of us to base our RPG ideas on a simplistic (read: inaccurate) view of the real world biology of such creatures.

To your second point, why should we expect that sentience would pave over most of the biological differences? If kuo-toa and humans each diverge from other fish and primates, it does not deal with the idea that kuo—toa and humans might diverge from each other. Personally I would expect that sentience and intelligence derived from fish, or insects etc. might differ from us, but I wouldn’t want to be the one who tries to explain how.

 

[Umbran]

That can be the point, for some games, or even at some individual tables. I don't think it's a good generalization.

Fair. I was speaking at that moment largely to the d20 rules engine, but this is a more general forum.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I hardly think ferocity is the only relevant metric of comparison.

Really?

Sorry I didn't include an exhaustive list of potential differences in order to validate the point.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is that in the 5e rules? Do you have a page citation?

2014 DMG, p. 82. Granted, they fixed that in 5.5.

 

[aramis erak]

Right.

So, koa-toa society will have to differ from human, due to the qualities of the water they live deep within (unless we do away with some of those issues with magic).

....especially because, biologically and evolutionarily speaking, "fish" isn't really a thing - we no longer view Pisces to be a phylogenic group, because any inclusive group of "fish" ends up including... all tetrapods, including us.

Common use hasn't changed to follow the phylogeny system's changes.
Doesn't seem to be changing except amongst certain narrow sub-populations. (Mostly Biologists and Ecologists.)

It still means "water dwelling bony* vertebrates with gills and fins," to most. And in the context of Kuo-toa, that's plenty good enough. Most animal clade labels never were phylogenically correct... because phylogeny is an artifical structure to understand relationships.

The DNA phylogeny changes are, because of the flux given DNA comparison, not relevant to most people. And the Linean system is no longer terribly helpful in understanding phylogeny.

Fish, however, has one other element to it that resists the phylogeny changes: religious dietary restrictions... for several major world relgions. Each of which has a different definition.

* vs cartilaginous, IE, Sharks and Rays, etc

 

[Umbran]

To your second point, why should we expect that sentience would pave over most of the biological differences?

Because that seems to be the main biological advantage of sentience - allowing one to ignore or work around biological limitations.

If kuo-toa and humans each diverge from other fish and primates, it does not deal with the idea that kuo—toa and humans might diverge from each other.

Perhaps. I am merely positing that you have to go to some pretty great lengths to make that undeniably biological, as opposed to cultural.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because that seems to be the main biological advantage of sentience - allowing one to ignore or work around biological limitations.

You mean sapience.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Because that seems to be the main biological advantage of sentience - allowing one to ignore or work around biological limitations.

as well as taking advantage of your biological strengths, no?

 

[Mr. Lahey]

Perhaps. I am merely positing that you have to go to some pretty great lengths to make that undeniably biological, as opposed to cultural.

I suppose none of it is undeniable, the the alternative is the ‘humans with funny ears’ model.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I suppose none of it is undeniable, the the alternative is the ‘humans with funny ears’ model.

Unless....to bring up the Tolkien point again...you have a "race" with a detailed and compelling backstory, maybe as a function of their differing biology, that would explain why members of that group would have a unique, interesting, and near-universal outlook.