Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9725501" data-attributes="member: 7025508"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>* 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crimson Longinus, post: 9725501, member: 7025508"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism
Top