I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism


log in or register to remove this ad



I think pointy eared human(or guy made of lava) syndrome is really no issue. If playing up the inhumanity is so important to a player then it's up to their prerogative to do so, I see no issue if someone takes humans as their race and makes them actually some hyperadaptive bug race.
 

I agree, but that’s the issue, IMO. Making them act differently is left up to the player, which means that it will vary from group to group and player to player. Without guidelines written in the game itself there will be no way to ensure even a basic consistency.

Putting aside the physical capabilities, whether we’re talking arracoccra, thri-kreen, Kua-toa or other creatures, I would think that most writers or creators would imagine differences in their societies that relate to various behaviours or instincts we might assign to birds, insects or fish.

If we were to encounter either of these three as “societies” in a game, we’d likely be more understanding of these generalizations, since the nature vs nurture aspect of this is ambiguous. When someone wants to play one of these as a PC, however, any attempt to develop parameters around how a PC version of either of these ‘should’ differ in their outlook on life or how they relate to the outside world will lead us right back into the same problematic territory.
I dont find it important to have consistency.

My aaracokra probably have a totally different culture than the ones in your campaign. (and my elves etc.).

And thats a strength of the game. IMO.
 

Remove ads

Top