Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 9544648" data-attributes="member: 162">In my setting, I have a "race" of sentient free-willed robots (using quotes on that because they're not biological, so the term doesn't really fit). They gain a bonus to INT because they are computers, so of course they are capable of processing information faster than humans.If I can accept this -- and I do -- then I can also accept the possibility of a biological race with a similar capacity. I can also imagine the reverse.This notion is not offensive. You either accept that bears are stronger than you, or you do not. One position aligns with reality. The other does not. That which the truth can kill should die.Letting you play against type like this goes against why we have fantasy races in the first place.That said: I'm not opposed to these characters being an option, if preferably a rare one. I also don't mind providing interesting mechanics that let you play the character in a way that makes sense. Halflings becoming barbarians (in the class sense) are walking a road they should know is more difficult because they're not playing into their strengths. Having options available to halflings that let them operate in melee better to put them on par with races more built for it, but in ways that make their approach to it different to account for their disadvantages, is both good game design and good worldbuilding.Pigs are not dogs.I hereby cite Babe as my rebuttal to this line of thinking.The concept is not intrinsically a bad one, but I will grant that it can have poor implementations.Going into detail about how a naturally evil people, but one with a functional society, makes sense requires a number of prerequisite beliefs about the world and how it works. If you don't have those beliefs, then having a problem with this notion is sensible.The ones who push it the most do so because they have an agenda.I have not, in fact, used the term at all. I will grant that I am obviously pointing at it, however.That said, I find nothing in that definition to be particularly "nasty;" rather, the implication that those who believe in biological essentialism think biology is the only source of various qualities is rather narrow-minded.The culture war will continue until... well, until things get interesting, I suppose.</blockquote>

Verification