Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 8848238" data-attributes="member: 18182">It helps, but doesn't itself solve the problem It's just a change of wording . . . although words do matter."Race" is a problematic term, species isn't. As long as designers separate cultural traits (learned) from biological traits (inherent), we should be fine. They could have done that without the wording change, and in fact have started to do just that with Tasha's, but the word "race" remains problematic on it's own. So, it's gone. A good change, but not enough on it's own.The term "bioessentialism" is one I don't like in these types of discussions . . . because different species SHOULD have biological differences. The problem is that all of these fantasy races are stand-ins for real-world ethnic differences between people. So when we describe a fantasy race with the same loaded stereotypes we pejoratively describe real world peoples, it is a problem.But goliaths can still tend towards being huge and brawny, even if some specific members of the species might not be. Gnomes can still tend to be small and adorable, even if some individuals don't fit that mold. There's significant diversity in humanity, there can be in the various fantasy races as well. Technically, could a race be less mentally adept than other races? Sure, but . . . again considering that fantasy races are stand-ins for real people, it's a bad design idea.</blockquote>