I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Scribe]

There is simply a game that is being played, and what works for the players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

We don’t know the ring could turn either Galdalf or Galadriel, though they each feared that would be the result.

If killing one’s friend within minutes of coming near the ring isn’t immediate corruption, then you have I have fundamental differences in our definition of corruption that makes further conversation pointless.

Perhaps Smeagol was the murderous sort prior to encountering the One? He certainly had character traits that could exploited and/or corrupted.

 

[Mr. Lahey]

Given how both Bilbo and Frodo were corrupted much more subtlely and slowly, it's hard to square Sméagol's corruption into committing murder with such immediacy. That is, unless it turns out that Sméagol was a pretty sick personality even before Déagol found the ring - which I think we might be able to infer from the story Gandalf relates to Frodo.

It’s an interesting point, but IMO this is literary criticism and I see limited value in using any of this to set the statistics or traits in an RPG.

 

[Mr. Lahey]

Perhaps Smeagol was the murderous sort prior to encountering the One? He certainly had character traits that could exploited and/or corrupted.

For sure, though this argues against the notion of “racial” resistance or vulnerability.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For sure, though this argues against the notion of “racial” resistance or vulnerability.

Well, it certainly doesn't support that notion.

 

[Maxperson]

For sure, though this argues against the notion of “racial” resistance or vulnerability.

Resistance is not immunity. Hobbits are resistant to the magical corruption of the sort the rings subjected their wearers to. Not the basic corruption of human nature. They are different things, but you seem insistent on conflating them.

 

[Emerikol]

I think an easier and better way of handling the vast number of races in the D&D world would have been to say that alignment assigned to that race is it's typical expression and that this does not determine any individuals viewpoint. This had been my viewpoint in 1988. I never thought all orcs were necessarily bad and couldn't possibly change. I just thought most would not either because of nature or nurture.

 

[Corinnguard]

Sometimes a race or several related races become evil, not because of their own doing, but because of the acts of a deity. Goblinoids (or Goblinkin as they are called in the Exandria setting) became the way they are because of the actions of a deity.

From the Critical Role Wiki:

During the Calamity, Bane revealed himself to the dranassar, a strong, cunning, multitudinous race of humanoids then living in what is now Xhorhas. Many of them, enthralled by Bane's power, followed him willingly, and their capital of Ghor Dranas became the seat of the Betrayer Gods' power. Those who opposed him were bent to his will and were corrupted first. When Bane needed skirmishers, he twisted some dranassar slaves into goblins; when he needed loyal legions, he made some dranassar into hobgoblins; when he needed spies or brute force, he turned them into bugbears. As the war raged on, even those loyal to him were corrupted to fill the ranks.

I like this particular origin for the Goblinoids as it explains how three related races came about and lumped together under one group name. I am sure there is a trope on TV Tropes that covers evil races being the result of divine manipulation.

 

[Mr. Lahey]

Resistance is not immunity. Hobbits are resistant to the magical corruption of the sort the rings subjected their wearers to. Not the basic corruption of human nature. They are different things, but you seem insistent on conflating them.

Sure, but according to Tolkien there’s nothing biological to it:

Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 131

The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically human race (not Elves or Dwarves) – hence the two kinds can dwell together (as at Bree), and are called just the Big Folk and Little Folk. They are entirely without non-human powers, but are represented as being more in touch with 'nature' (the soil and other living things, plants and animals), and abnormally, for humans, free from ambition or greed of wealth.

 

[Distracted DM]

To be fair, dwarves were explicitly designed by the Valar Aule to be resistant to the works of the Enemy. That's why Sauron couldn't use the Seven to put them under his thrall (not to say that the dwarf-rings had no effect on them).

Yeah iirc they had an effect, but they didn't work as Sauron wanted- they didn't become servants, they just became extra negative-dwarfy-traits of seclusion and greed.