D&D 4E Racial Intolerance Chart in 4E.

[kennew142]

Fair enough. What about a racial intolerance chart?

In 3E, every core race seemed to - more or less - get along. I'm sure this provides the social lubrication needed so a party of PCs can be of any race and not have to delve into bickering based on "accurate" roleplaying. That being said, I think some decent racial antagonism could add to RP aspects, and not detract from them. It seems the table has been set to allow such a chart (eladrin vs. elves, dragonborn vs. all, etc.)...but will anyone dine upon it?

I don't see the developers taking the next step and providing a context wherein everyone is not everyone else's friend. And that's a shame, I think, because some of the best fiction you can find uses such racial norms as a compelling springboard toward an interesting social dynamic and - more often than not - a "realization" somewhere down the road that everyone should, afterall, get along.

But I think that point of harmony is best reached after characters spend some time on the road saving one another's lives.

W.P.

I believe this kind of rule doesn't belong in the core rulebooks. Each campaign can have its own rules on this issue. In most of my campaigns, NPCs do show racial intolerance. I usually expect players to be above such things. If a particular PC starts out with a little intolerance (not enough to disrupt the game), that's okay - so long as the character shows some growth over the course of the campaign.

 

[Cadfan]

Its ok if we're realistic and give men +2 strength just for being male, because the same realism dictates that women get the benefits of eight levels of sorceror at level 1, regardless of class.

Prove it doesn't.

 

[pawsplay]

There is virtually no overlap in upper-body strength between men and women. For example, being able to bench-press 105 lbs puts a woman in the 95th percentile of women. That's the 10th percentile for men.

We're not nearly as sexually dimorphic as gorillas, but we have clear physical differences between the sexes.

So what are you going to do, benchpress a gnoll to death? I should point out that I've taken a college course on human sexuality, which included a section on sexual dimorphism, so I hope you are prepared to make very strong arguments for your position.

The bench press comparison is substantially flawed, in that many, many more men train the bench press than do women.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Any chance we see sexual dimorphism within a race?

Nope. All races will be smooth as Ken and Barbie down there, and all members of all races will have 36 C chests, regardless of gender.

 

[Kintara]

So what are you going to do, benchpress a gnoll to death? I should point out that I've taken a college course on human sexuality, which included a section on sexual dimorphism, so I hope you are prepared to make very strong arguments for your position.

The bench press comparison is substantially flawed, in that many, many more men train the bench press than do women.

Well, I'd wager that an untrained man would probably have a serious advantage in a wrestling match against an untrained woman (both of a typical, average build), but adventurers aren't untrained (and the system is more forgiving of weight differences between characters of the same mechanical size).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Sex and gender are the same thing. "Gender" came into vogue in the 19th century when prudes wanted to discuss sex without it being so "icky."

 

[pawsplay]

Sex and gender are the same thing. "Gender" came into vogue in the 19th century when prudes wanted to discuss sex without it being so "icky."

In various academic disciplines, they are not used the same. Sex denotes reproductive category, gender denotes social role prescribed for that category.

 

[NaturalZero]

Fair enough. What about a racial intolerance chart?

In 3E, every core race seemed to - more or less - get along. I'm sure this provides the social lubrication needed so a party of PCs can be of any race and not have to delve into bickering based on "accurate" roleplaying. That being said, I think some decent racial antagonism could add to RP aspects, and not detract from them. It seems the table has been set to allow such a chart (eladrin vs. elves, dragonborn vs. all, etc.)...but will anyone dine upon it?

I don't see the developers taking the next step and providing a context wherein everyone is not everyone else's friend. And that's a shame, I think, because some of the best fiction you can find uses such racial norms as a compelling springboard toward an interesting social dynamic and - more often than not - a "realization" somewhere down the road that everyone should, afterall, get along.

But I think that point of harmony is best reached after characters spend some time on the road saving one another's lives.

W.P.

I think its up to the DM to decide how different races get along in his world considering the matter is a campaign specific issue. Besides, i have serious doubts that the devs are just going to say the everyone just gets along anyway when we have dragonborn, tieflings, eladrin, dwarves, etc, all in the same book.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In various academic disciplines, they are not used the same. Sex denotes reproductive category, gender denotes social role prescribed for that category.

Yeah, those would be the prudes I was speaking about, who have attempted to further codify an arbitrary usage.

Other than it sounding strange to one accustomed to using the two different words, they work pretty much interchangeably, even amongst academics.

 

[Kintara]

Yeah, those would be the prudes I was speaking about, who have attempted to further codify an arbitrary usage.

Other than it sounding strange to one accustomed to using the two different words, they work pretty much interchangeably, even amongst academics.

I can see the use for it as an academic jargon, but in the real world people use them interchangeably.