I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Fanaelialae]

The fact you have a deeply realized cosmology is cool. The fact that you feel the need to call it a "workaround" makes me sad.

I put quotes around it to try and indicate that wasn't the term I was looking for, just the closest I could come up with at the moment. What I intended was "creating opportunities for nuanced storytelling with complex antagonists, while still allowing for the enjoyment of scenarios with simply EVIL opponents". I just can't think of a term that succinctly conveys that idea.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm not. There is even literary precedence.

Edgar Rice Burroughs in the Barsoom series wants to have a race that is obviously evil and can be slaughtered at will so he encodes them as a blond Aryan racial supremacists who are hypocritical religious fanatics.

Oh, GREAT example, and I hope some other people in this thread are still reading.

The reason that works is that they are 'encoded', as you put it, as Nazis. Right? It's not something unrecognizable, we read the description and we think, "Nazi. Nazis are bad. I can kill them." That happens even though they aren't actually called Nazis, don't speak German, and don't have a weird cultural taboo against giving knives as gifts.

And it would make sense if actual Nazis took offense at that, and didn't want to read his books, or play an RPG based on it. But we don't care, because they are stinkin' Nazis! Win-win! Nazism isn't something you are born with, it's a conscious (if poorly made) choice, so it's fair.

 

[Staffan]

Agreed.

I think the problem arose in the old days when the designers conflated "elves are agile as species", as an average, with the characteristics of PCs. (See 1st E ability score min/max table)

If they had emphasized that PCs are not subject to those guidelines, we might not have these issues today.

Of course we were still in the "run the world as a simulation" design mode back then.

Also, having species ability score modifiers makes more sense when you have random ability scores. If you're rolling 3d6 or 4d6 drop lowest and you feel halflings should have an edge when it comes to Dexterity and issues when it comes to Strength, a +2 Dex -2 Str makes sense. But if you're using some kind of point buy and you don't think halflings should suplex Goliaths, just don't put a high score in Strength.

PF2 tries to have the best of the worlds approach by having you get ASIs from your ancestry, background and your class. I suppose if you add more essentialism to something, the less essential it feels.

PF2 also gives all the ancestries one free stat boost (i.e. can be placed in any stat), and I think PF2 revised gives all ancestries the option of using the human ancestry boosts (two free boosts instead of two fixed, one free, and one fixed penalty).

 

[Bill Zebub]

You definitely didn't do that.

I'll thank you to stop making assumptions about my behavior because of my birth status as a real person.

 

[Argyle King]

Is it fair to say that mechanically representing differences in species is not by itself "bad," but perhaps the approaches that D&D has taken to doing that have been?

Speaking only for myself, getting a +2 from my background rather than my choice of fantasy species hasn't made me feel that 5e is more inclusive.

I think level of granularity might also be part of it. In some games, +N to a stat might be the primary way to show that a particular species is good at something, regardless of whether the reason is biological or cultural. In other games, a difference in strength (for example) might mean a spectrum of possible Advantages or Disadvantages.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Doing 1 without 2 is challenging. Sure, you can have a tall, beautiful, pale-skinned race of monogamous philosophers who are inherently evil...but I am skeptical that players would slaughter them the way they do orcs.

I think that has more to do with orcs typically being portrayed in campaigns as "shoot first, ask questions later" types than anything else.

If your hypothetical philosopher species was established as being aggressively belligerent, I think PCs would slaughter them with little to no hesitation.

Similarly, if orcs were inherently evil philosophers who were more likely to ensnare you in their schemes than murder you on first sight, I think most players wouldn't readily slaughter them.

IMO, the reason players will readily slaughter orcs is because they are often portrayed by DMs as mindlessly belligerent antagonists who attack on sight.

I've had numerous encounters between orcs and PCs IMC over the years, and if the orcs don't simply attack them on sight, the encounters usually end peacefully. My players certainly don't slaughter orcs on sight, because they've learned IMC that not every "monster" behaves the same. Many orcs IMC are just doing their own thing, hunting for their next meal, and hoping they make it home to their family. My players, in turn, are often more than happy to live and let live.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think that has more to do with orcs typically being portrayed in campaigns as "shoot first, ask questions later" types than anything else.

If your hypothetical philosopher species was established as being aggressively belligerent, I think PCs would slaughter them with little to no hesitation.

Similarly, if orcs were inherently evil philosophers who were more likely to ensnare you in their schemes than murder you on first sight, I think most players wouldn't readily slaughter them.

IMO, the reason players will readily slaughter orcs is because they are often portrayed by DMs as mindlessly belligerent antagonists who attack on sight.

I've had numerous encounters between orcs and PCs IMC over the years, and if the orcs don't simply attack them on sight, the encounters usually end peacefully. My players certainly don't slaughter orcs on sight, because they've learned IMC that not every "monster" behaves the same. Many orcs IMC are just doing their own thing, hunting for their next meal, and hoping they make it home to their family. My players, in turn, are often more than happy to live and let live.

Agreed, but I'll point out that the monster manual descriptions in question do not just say, "They attack on sight." Instead they describe orcs the way Europeans, for centuries, described people they wanted to subjugate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Also, having species ability score modifiers makes more sense when you have random ability scores. If you're rolling 3d6 or 4d6 drop lowest and you feel halflings should have an edge when it comes to Dexterity and issues when it comes to Strength, a +2 Dex -2 Str makes sense. But if you're using some kind of point buy and you don't think halflings should suplex Goliaths, just don't put a high score in Strength.

PF2 also gives all the ancestries one free stat boost (i.e. can be placed in any stat), and I think PF2 revised gives all ancestries the option of using the human ancestry boosts (two free boosts instead of two fixed, one free, and one fixed penalty).

That might be one of the reasons I've never objected to species-based stat mods. I never use point buy.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh, GREAT example, and I hope some other people in this thread are still reading.

The reason that works is that they are 'encoded', as you put it, as Nazis. Right? It's not something unrecognizable, we read the description and we think, "Nazi. Nazis are bad. I can kill them." That happens even though they aren't actually called Nazis, don't speak German, and don't have a weird cultural taboo against giving knives as gifts.

And it would make sense if actual Nazis took offense at that, and didn't want to read his books, or play an RPG based on it. But we don't care, because they are stinkin' Nazis! Win-win! Nazism isn't something you are born with, it's a conscious (if poorly made) choice, so it's fair.

So now you approve and think something different has happened? This is why it is hard to take your argument seriously,

But at the very least I think you have to recant your original claim: "Sure, you can have a tall, beautiful, pale-skinned race of monogamous philosophers who are inherently evil...but I am skeptical that players would slaughter them the way they do orcs." since your reply doesn't dispute my actual point.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That might be one of the reasons I've never objected to species-based stat mods. I never use point buy.

Another factor that has arisen is the difference between NPCs and PCs. I've frequently seen the argument that if Elves don't get +2 bonus to Dex then it's empirically not true that elves, on average, have higher dexterity than, say, humans. I really scratched my head over that, until I realized those people mean that all elves, not just PCs, and not even PCs plus the handful of NPCs that get statted out, but all the thousands or millions of elves which exist by implication in the game world, but which are never statted out or really even encountered also have their dexterity determined by those rules.

I'm still scratching my head, but at least now I understand what those people are saying.