Modifiers seperate from race

[Shackled Slayer]

So i've been playing for a while, not just D&D but a range of games (BESM, D&D 3.5 onward, lasers & feelings, L5R etc.)

I've GMed for at least 3 years, i want to say 4+. I've entrenched myself in the culture, i've researched esoteric gaming styles, had players and GMs i've hated, and more that I've loved, I've read articles about gaming culture on the whole. I know what I'm doing here.

One day i was reading an article about racism in D&D. This was on facebook, and filtered through one of the various ads for content i may enjoy. I did not enjoy this particular article and the angle it was working on table top culture as a whole, but I could say it was a good article based solely on how it got me thinking; why exactly do we put modifiers to a race? At first it seems straight-forward, it's to make that race feel unique and to have a particular, tangible bonus to playing it. Pretty simple.

But the article cited this as racist. Why? It suggests (allegedly) that certain races are better at certain things. Dwarves are better fighters than elves and most are not good wizards, most elves are better wizards or bards, but do less well in melee martial classes in comparison to dwarves or orcs, and so on. This, the article asserted, promotes stereotypes. And while it bugged me, i couldn't refute that it was a valid point.

Lets get to the point though: why DO we assign modifiers to races? It's not like the races as they stand cant have variations within themselves. Can't a drow be strong & hardy, but slow witted? CanCan't a dwarf be smart and wise, but sickly?
I've been playing around with the idea of divorcing modifiers and race in future games, at first as an experiment and then as a practice if it goes well. The races wille retain racial features: humans will still get an extra feat, dragonborn will still have a breath weapon.

But what in your opinion might be the drawbacks or merits of making race a secondary, background element, and allowing players to simply choose their ability score adjustments? (two +2s at creation)
My games are intended to be played with a story focus more than a murderhobo dungeon crawl. The character's race is supposed to serve the character's backstory, not restrict them into a certain class or build, in my opinion, so factor that into your answers

[Talamare]

There are always exceptions, but exceptions doesn't mean you can't point out to traits in a Race.

On Average a Chinese Person will be Physical Short, that isn't Racist.
Regardless of Yao Ming being very tall.

Also, isn't this topic a massive can of worms?

[Sigreid]

It wouldn't harm anything.

That said I see the racial modifiers as 2 things. First, they're physical and mental tendencies inherited from their creator-god. Second, they represent the effect that cultural values have on the way children develop. You could argue that a race's culture shouldn't be that uniform, but the counter argument would be that in D&D the gods take a much more active role in guiding their people which would tend to lead to a more rigid cultural norm. Much like I would probably keep kosher if God literally appeared in front of me, flanked by flights of angels and told me to.

With longer lived races it's also likely that knowing your great, great, great grandfather as you grow up would add to cultural stability.

[solidork]

Check out this thread from last week on this topic: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?551479-So-how-bad-would-it-honestly-be-if-racial-stats-were-variable

[Naanomi]

It isn’t ‘racist’ in the classic sense until you start assigning fantasy counterpart cultures to everyone.

Orcs are measurably less intelligent than most races? No problem... orcs also live in the newly discovered continent, with a relatively primitive tribal culture, hunting the mighty buffalo? Then that lack of intelligence may be an issue

[Wryte]

While I think the argument is well-intentioned, I disagree with it for a few reasons.

First off, we have to remember that "races" in D&D, and most other fantasy game, aren't actually different races; they're entirely different species. Sub-races are the equivalent of race as we understand it in the real world; it's just that "species" doesn't sound as fantasy-y. As such, it does make sense that different races have different attributes, as they are physically distinct creatures from one another.

Secondly, I would argue that a lot of the racial modifiers (particularly subrace modifiers, which are appropriately a lesser +1 as opposed to the +2 that distinguishes entirely different races from one another), are more indicative of cultural differences rather than inherent physical differences. This is supported by variant humans, who have the ability to assign their ability score increases at their discretion to reflect the differences in their wildly varied backgrounds as the most wide-spread and culturally diverse race in the setting, compared to other races who tend to be more culturally homogeneous.

That said, I think the question of whether the things we enjoy and even love have the capacity to support unfortunate viewpoints is an important one, that we need to ask ourselves and answer honestly. And yes, there is unfortunately room for racial mechanics in RPGs to be interpreted in such ways to reinforce or support racist viewpoints, especially as a lot of fantasy races, not only in D&D, often draw their cultural and aesthetic cues from various real world ethic groups, which can make it easy to take them as dehumanizations of those ethnicities and cultures.

While I don't believe racial mechanics in fantasy RPGs are likely to implant racist beliefs in players, as the first two points I brought up give enough nuance to the issue that most players should understand that they are not reflective of differences between real world races, the last point leads me to believe that they may be readily embraced as legitimization by players who already hold such beliefs. Which, while not on the same level as the game indoctrinating non-racist players with racist beliefs, is still problematic, as it has the potential to (and many may argue, has already led to) make the hobby a refuge for racism and other forms of discrimination that we should not tolerate, especially when combined with the fantasy genre being rife with other tropes that appeal strongly to regressive individuals.

[Unoriginal]

One day i was reading an article about racism in D&D. This was on facebook, and filtered through one of the various ads for content i may enjoy. I did not enjoy this particular article and the angle it was working on table top culture as a whole, but I could say it was a good article based solely on how it got me thinking; why exactly do we put modifiers to a race? At first it seems straight-forward, it's to make that race feel unique and to have a particular, tangible bonus to playing it. Pretty simple.

But the article cited this as racist. Why? It suggests (allegedly) that certain races are better at certain things. Dwarves are better fighters than elves and most are not good wizards, most elves are better wizards or bards, but do less well in melee martial classes in comparison to dwarves or orcs, and so on. This, the article asserted, promotes stereotypes. And while it bugged me, i couldn't refute that it was a valid point.

Lets get to the point though: why DO we assign modifiers to races? It's not like the races as they stand cant have variations within themselves. Can't a drow be strong & hardy, but slow witted? CanCan't a dwarf be smart and wise, but sickly?


Can Dwarves be wizards? Sure. They can be amazing wizards.

Can Drow be big brutes ? Sure, they can be amazing big brutes.

Nothing in the game makes Dwarves better Fighters than elves. And the minor higher maximum Int of the High Elves at the start can be quickly matched up, while Dwarves have other advantages.

Dwarves are on average tougher than most humanoid because they tend to get lost in their work and work hours and hours without end, which build up their CON, and High Elves are on average slightly smarter and more educated than other humanoids because their society values those traits and try to foster them. But you can play a CON 10 Dwarf or a INT 9 High Elf without issue. Same way that your typical, average Dwarf Commoner will have CON 12, your average High Elf Commoner INT 11, and your average Human Commoner 11 in all stats. Doesn't mean there can't be variations in the same species, just that those aren't the norm.

Does it promote stereotypes? Arguably. But more to the point, they promote archetype. The archetypical Dwarf is strudy. The archetypical Drow is charming. Just like the archetypical Kobold worship dragons and the archetypical Halfling is lucky.

It's part of the identity of the species, their societies and cultures, and it only becomes stereotypical if people starts acting as if you can copy/paste any dwarf or elf or gnome once you've seen one and they all act and think the same.

Something that D&D 5e doesn't do, by the way.



I've been playing around with the idea of divorcing modifiers and race in future games, at first as an experiment and then as a practice if it goes well. The races wille retain racial features: humans will still get an extra feat, dragonborn will still have a breath weapon.

But what in your opinion might be the drawbacks or merits of making race a secondary, background element, and allowing players to simply choose their ability score adjustments? (two +2s at creation)
My games are intended to be played with a story focus more than a murderhobo dungeon crawl. The character's race is supposed to serve the character's backstory, not restrict them into a certain class or build, in my opinion, so factor that into your answers

Why would variant humans getting an extra Feat or Dragonborn having a Breath weapon be less "racist" or "stereotyping" that having a racial bonus to certain stats?

Racial stat increases don't restrict characters into certain class or build.

People who say that it IS restricting just don't understand how having a bonus the to-hit/save DC score one point lower than the possible maximum at character creation is not something handicapping by any mean.

You can play a STR Fighter Halfling and not get overshadowed by a STR Fighter Half-Orc.




Also, isn't this topic a massive can of worms?

Give it a ground movement speed and you'll have a classic monster ready for the brawl.

[Shackled Slayer]

All excellent arguments on the potentially racist or non-racist aspects of modifiers.

To Talamere, potentially yes lol i was hesitant to post this at all.

But i suppose i gave the question too much backstory. I was wondering specifically what the mechanical implications of allowing everyone to treat their characters like variant humans would be, applying the modifiers wherever a player felt like regardless of race (or seperate species as Wryte pointed out), if any could be foreseen.

[Naanomi]

Mechanically? A few races get stronger (mountain dwarves with their armor as a caster, tortles similarly, yuan-ti with a physical stat instead of two caster stats); and you have to plan for what to do with the races that don’t get +2/+1 Stats (mountain dwarf, half elf, humans, orc, Kobold, triton)

And a few archetypes get... more dangerous... when not pinned to a certain set of stats. An aarakocra Barbarian with +2 STR/+1 CON is looking much more inviting to pick people up and drop them than they were with the ‘normal’ stats

At the end of the day you probably don’t break the game, but it will have an effect

[Sigreid]

That said, I think the question of whether the things we enjoy and even love have the capacity to support unfortunate viewpoints is an important one, that we need to ask ourselves and answer honestly. And yes, there is unfortunately room for racial mechanics in RPGs to be interpreted in such ways to reinforce or support racist viewpoints, especially as a lot of fantasy races, not only in D&D, often draw their cultural and aesthetic cues from various real world ethic groups, which can make it easy to take them as dehumanizations of those ethnicities and cultures.


I disagree with this. We have no responsibility to other people's personal views and neither does the game. If the most hateful person I could ever meet loves D&D, that's fine. I don't care. He or she is just not doing it at my table. There's no reason to try to connect real world politics or social views into a hobby that is often just about killing monsters and taking their loot.

[mephnick]

Racial stats in D&D always get slammed but then people turn around and have no problem picking a race in a video game that has inherent bonuses. There were never big articles written about like..all blood elves in WoW being good enchanters, or races in Divinity getting certain stats or whatever..

[Coffee_Dragon]

The most racist game is an anthro RPG where sharks get a bonus to smelling blood underwater and parrots get a bonus to sitting in trees and calling for crackers. PCs are supposed to be extraordinary! My sloth is just as fast as your goddamn cheetah!

[Vaz]

Why is there a problem with having low intelligent orcs hunting Buffalo?

[Naanomi]

Why is there a problem with having low intelligent orcs hunting Buffalo?
It isn’t just one thing, but when your inhuman racially stupid monster race is a clear expy for a real group in your fantasy counterpart culture (often Africans or Polynesians, or Mongolians... in this case I was referencing native Americans because I am one, though in full disclosure not much of plains tribe in me so buffalo doesn’t even make sense really) it has unfortunate implications and tone at the very least

[Vaz]

It isn’t just one thing, but when your inhuman racially stupid monster race is a clear expy for a real group in your fantasy counterpart culture (often Africans or Polynesians, or Mongolians... in this case I was referencing native Americans because I am one, though in full disclosure not much of plains tribe in me so buffalo doesn’t even make sense really) it has unfortunate implications and tone at the very least

In 5e, only the Kobold has a penalty to an ability score. In previous editions, even though an Orc may have an Intelligence penalty of -2, an Orc Wizard can still have an Intelligence of 16 using Point Buy, 13 with Elite Array, and at worst 11, with the NPC array, all of which are viable options.

The issue comes when someone wants to play an Orc Wizard, but gets told that they can't boost their intelligence higher than 8, because they're an Orc, but the generic Orc who is wandering around hunting Buffalo quite possibly has a low intelligence, mitigated by their Proficiency in Survival. Where is the line between "This is racist out of game" and "This is racist in game"?

Steven Hawking is an exception within Western Society as a whole, but simply replacing XYZ with generic fantasy race has long been a trope. We're currently robbing tombs of an ancient egyptian influenced Lizardmen race (with certain castes , while a war is currently ongoing with a Greek influenced Elves.

Look at Warhammer Fantasy; the world is based around not-Germany, not-France, and not-Russia fighting off against stereotyped demon-worshipping Vikings, all the while fighting stereotype Goatmen Barbarians and Greenskin Barbarians influenced by rampaging, pillaging stereotype Gothic tribes, while not-Egypt and not-Hungary fight over different sides of the same coin. Meanwhile Not-Greece fights not-Rome, and not-Italy fights against not-Arabs and not-Spanish. The not-mexicans fight against the not-japanese, and the not-mongols fight against the not-persians. Meanwhile the not-scottish inhabit the mountains.

In Dragon's Age, the Elves are treated as slaves, and everyone is racist as all hell towards them. Why is that racism okay, and another one isn't?

[strangebloke]

I'm a big fan of putting whatever races into your setting that you want, making the race a pure fluff choice, and then letting the player have three ASI's to put wherever they want from level 1. (I would sort the feats and say, only one super-good feat, at least one kinda weak feat)

This allows for certain builds to come online earlier, and allows for players to build individuals rather than 'just another gnome.'

It doesn't work so well if everyone is munchkin Mcgee.


Exceptional individuals can still be quite smart.

Other games use real-world analogues.

In-game species are racist to each other.

Apologies if my paraphrasing is off, but that's a summary of what I read.

1. If I say that on average, black people are 10% stupider than whites, but that there are still some smart black people (who are dumber than the smartest whites), that's a racist statement, right? I would say so. If I say that orcs are 10% stupider than humans, or that humans are 5% smarter than orcs, that's not racist, because orcs and humans are seperate species, and orcs aren't real in any case. Tolkein used orcs as a way of tallking about a certain kind of mentality humans can adopt, hence his quote that "We were all orcs in the great war." If you're using them like that, it's fine to make orcs always chaotic evil and stupid.

If, however, your orcs are clearly just an analogue for black people, saying that orcs are stupid and always chaotic evil has implications.

2. Well, half of this is that no one really has any bad blood about the whole viking thing anymore. If Warhammer Fantasy was about a holy crusade to wipe out murderous sand people, the series might get some flack, but nobody gets angry about the Viking era. (Don't you dare say that Warhammer Orcs are a turkish/arabian analogue)

The other half of this is that the distinctions between the human factions are primarily religious and cultural. A Brettonian peasant probably doesn't look that much different from an imperial one. Making comparative statements about cultures and religions is fine. It's always been fine. It's when you're saying that this species is inherently stupid" that people get upset. Cultures can have genuine issues that needed to be changed, you can say that someone's culture had problems, especially if that culture has been dead for a thousand years. Saying that someone's race is inferior is on another level entirely.

3. The elves in Dragon Age are treated in a racist manner. There is no suggestion that this racism is anything more or less than simple racism. There is no suggestion that elves are incapable or particularly stupid, nor is there any suggestion that they deserve their treatment. Not applicable.

[Vaz]

RE point 3; Why is being racist in game not applicable? Why is that Racism okay, but another form of racism isn't?

Edit; essentially the paraphrasing was spot on; I'm not sure why you're ignoring the last point though, claiming it as irrelevant racism.

[strangebloke]

RE point 3; Why is being racist in game not applicable? Why is that Racism okay, but another form of racism isn't?

It's fine to have racist characters. Racist PCs, even. It's a real thing that people in that time did. If I'm playing a crusader from the HRE in a medieval campaign, he's going to be racist as all heck against the Turks. That's just a form of realism.

It's another thing to have the descriptions of the objective truth of the setting confirm that such racism is justified. (IE, orcs are inherently a bit dimmer, or humans are inherently a bit smarter.)

It's another thing yet to say that the racism is justified and that the 'stupid' race is an analogue for a real-world race. (this is where the problem comes in)

I mean, who are the elves in DA even supposed to be analogues for? Native Americans? Africans? Travellers? They've got elements of all of those 'races'. Additionally, there's no hint that the racism against them is justified in any way beyond: "We can beat them up and take their stuff."

[Coffee_Dragon]

I'm a big fan of putting whatever races into your setting that you want, making the race a pure fluff choice, and then letting the player have three ASI's to put wherever they want from level 1. (I would sort the feats and say, only one super-good feat, at least one kinda weak feat)

This allows for certain builds to come online earlier, and allows for players to build individuals rather than 'just another gnome.'

It doesn't work so well if everyone is munchkin Mcgee.

This is a bit off-topic, but why would you relax the character generation system to allow for more optimization and then disapprove of the outcome?

[Morty]

Racial ability modifiers aren't racist, whatever that's supposed to mean here, but they are a pretty bad mechanical element that should have been dropped a while ago. Unfortunately, if you remove racial ability modifiers, it becomes evident that some races' other abilities are way more distinct than others'. So you might want to come up with some new ones.

[ZorroGames]

The most racist game is an anthro RPG where sharks get a bonus to smelling blood underwater and parrots get a bonus to sitting in trees and calling for crackers. PCs are supposed to be extraordinary! My sloth is just as fast as your goddamn cheetah!

Grrrr! Race?

[Coffee_Dragon]

Grrrr! Race?

Let me... get my... sneakers...

*drops out of tree*

[strangebloke]

This is a bit off-topic, but why would you relax the character generation system to allow for more optimization and then disapprove of the outcome?

Yeah that statement merits clarification. I don't have a problem with optimization, so long as it doesn't get in the way of your character being interesting.

My concern would be that a player would make something that's antithetical to a race's fluff, because they like the fluffy benefits of being a member of that race.

IE: say we have noble elves as a race, and they rule over humans. I have had players who would immediately seize upon that as the 'optimal fluff' since that makes them more powerful on the social side of things. So they're playing a barbarian with the pirate background (because pirate is the best background, clearly) but they also want to be able to claim noble privilege and be a big deal at social events, and they write a really silly-convoluted backstory to justify their nonsense. It isn't that such a character concept couldn't work, it's that they don't put any effort into making it work because they don't really care.

:smallsigh: I've had some crappy players in my time. Some really good ones, too, but...

[mephnick]

Racial ability modifiers aren't racist, whatever that's supposed to mean here, but they are a pretty bad mechanical element that should have been dropped a while ago. .

Disagree. They reinforce fantasy archetypes in a game entirely about reinforcing fantasy archetypes. I'd say it's actually a perfect mechanic for D&D. Whether you like D&D or not is a different matter.

[strangebloke]

Disagree. They reinforce fantasy archetypes in a game entirely about reinforcing fantasy archetypes. I'd say it's actually a perfect mechanic for D&D. Whether you like D&D or not is a different matter.

Racial determinism is part of DnD, and therefore, racial determinism is part of DnD. It's a tautology!

People can like elements of DnD without liking everything. I like the combat system as it's very complicated and lets you feel powerful and is at least somewhat attached to reality. I don't like characters whose identity is: "Dwarf," because interesting interactions between characters is a large part of the fun of any roleplaying game. That's not why I play DnD, but I still like it mixed in with my DnD.

[mephnick]

Racial determinism is part of DnD, and therefore, racial determinism is part of DnD. It's a tautology!

No it's an intentional design decision based on what the system is meant to accomplish.

[strangebloke]

No it's an intentional design decision based on what the system is meant to accomplish.

To reinforce fantasy racial stereotypes, sure, but specifically the DND stereotypes. That's fine, but if you're modding the game to support the social pillar better, it helps to have characters who aren't just "dwarf fighter."

[Naanomi]

To reinforce fantasy racial stereotypes, sure, but specifically the DND stereotypes. That's fine, but if you're modding the game to support the social pillar better, it helps to have characters who aren't just "dwarf fighter."
Background have done more to prevent that sort thing than anything you could do with racial traits

[strangebloke]

Background have done more to prevent that sort thing than anything you could do with racial traits

Backgrounds are great! I just think they're small compared to the effect of race. 3 feats for race compared with 1 for background.

[Vogie]

I think the issue is actually one of metagaming. If you, as a person, you're building a, say, charisma-based caster, why wouldn't you want to choose a race with a charisma bonus? If you're planning on a Hexblade warlock specifically, why wouldn't you choose a Tiefling that gives both a charisma bonus AND the ability to cast darkness without using a spell slot? That makes sense on a meta level, but hinges a lot on the racial benefits of that pairing.

I think if characters were created without race in mind - you just choose your class & background - and the race was chosen in a different manner, that would likely be better on that level. Perhaps the playgroup decides what they're going to play, and then the DM assigns races based on starting location or plot hooks.

Obviously, that style has issues, especially if it's random- Player A gets a race with abilities or ASIs that benefit them, while Player B does not. Player C's Intimidation-based character gets assigned a gnome, while Player D's sneaky character gets assigned a goliath. It can certainly become unfair especially if players don't believe it's random, the table meta of who likes whom more. However, that can be mitigated across several games, where random can truly be random.

Other ways of getting around the disparity - declaring ahead of time that this campaign will be locked into a certain zone or small collection of races. This is an All-Triton setting, or a only-small-race campaign, or only elf-variants campaign. You can also do a Misfit campaign, where you're actually required to pick a race whose ASIs are the opposite of the ones your character wants.

[Harleytrypp]

Racial Modifiers are not racist.... Racism by definition is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Racial Modifiers give balanced(ish) Advantages and Disadvantages to a given species of Fantasy based characters. I have no time for Social Justice Warriors trying to make me feel bad about my game.

[Theodoxus]

My problem - well, that's too harsh... my meh-fueled rage monkey regarding racial modifiers is it's so bland. 5E specifically, in the name of balance, basically says 'your tiny halfling, with enough time/monster killing, can be exactly as strong as this might half-orc.'

I think it'd be FAR more interesting (if completely unbalancing) if the game took a more "Seth McFarlane's Orville character/race Lt Alara of the Xelayan race" tact. I'd much rather my half-orcs have the equivalent of a 30 str in relation to a halfling's 30 dex. A bit of a call out to AD&D, but perhaps go back to racial maximums... HOrcs are super strong but can't be smarter than 14 Int. Halflings are super dexterous but can't be stronger than a 14 Str. If each race went in a similar bent (super smart elves, but max 14 Con; super healthy dwarves but max 14 Dex (or Cha, depending)...

Then let humans be capable of obtaining a 20 in any and all stats, as their "thing".

It's getting boring having a "Shannara" style racial choices... everything essentially came from the same progenitor genes, so there's only so much variation. We're basically all playing dog breeds. Just halflings are chihuahuas and horcs are rottweilers and dragonborn are some weird winter wolf crossbreed...

[Luccan]

Regarding potential issues: it helps that Dwarves and Elves and Orcs don't actually exist. If they're being used as analogues for real human cultures, that's a problem (just as there would be if human-expy groups got certain bonuses or drawbacks). But that isn't something D&D has ever supported, AFAIK. I've always had more of a problem with Elder Scrolls as a result, since it groups Men as if they were different species (not that I think that's the intent, but it seems way more applicable).

I look at it like this: since the "races" are actually different species, they have different physical advantages. Just like actual species are different, fantasy species aren't homogeneous.

The real problem is mental scores, but I think, as others have said, that can usually be attributed to divine interference and cultural values. In fact, I think one feeds into the other. Gnomes were created to be curious and creative, so their societies value learning and craft. Thus, bonus to Int. High elves also value learning, though usually magical, while Wood elves value survival skill and instinct and Drow value influence over others. Then we come to the Half-Elf. My take on it is that the natural graces of elves, instilled into their very being by Correlan or whoever, is tempered by humanity's ability to get along well with neighbors. It's not great, but to be fair, half-elves didn't used to have bonuses to Charisma.

[Shackled Slayer]

"My meh-fueled rage monkey"

After much thought i have decided you have won the discussion, for a phrase almost entirely unrelated to the topic but still amazing.

[Arkhios]

Somewhat related:

I agree that 'Race' as the term we use to differentiate creatures of entirely different origins and arguably even genetics (some races can't reproduce with each other but for some reason others can; For example, Humans can reproduce with Elves and Orcs (half-elves and half-orcs, respectively), but elves and orcs can't reproduce with each other, because....???)

Anyway, one of the biggest improvements I will credit for Paizo having the courage to do with their upcoming Pathfinder 2nd edition is: Race as the term is GONE. Replaced by the term Ancestry. Ancestry is still very fantasy-ish term, without suggesting racism. This is a bold change. One that I wholeheartedly support. Since I don't know the specifics yet, I can't tell if this system could be easily ported from system to another, but since Pathfinder is a d20 system, I'm hopeful that it's going to be fairly easy, at least within other d20 systems.

[Naanomi]

I agree that 'Race' as the term we use to differentiate creatures of entirely different origins and arguably even genetics (some races can't reproduce with each other but for some reason others can; For example, Humans can reproduce with Elves and Orcs (half-elves and half-orcs, respectively), but elves and orcs can't reproduce with each other, because....???)
Even when used genuinely, race generally refers to subspecies not species; so breeding potential isn’t really the factor to consider... rather morphological and genetic traits that are unique in one group compared to the larger species’ breeding pool

Orcs and Elves can’t breed because their creator-Gods decided it was that way, not due to genetic incompatibility... And, for what it is worth, there are several examples in real-life nature with similar arrangements... Coast range and Sierra Nevada populations of salamanders (in California) cannot breed, but both are able to reproduce with populations in the valley between them.

[Unoriginal]

Somewhat related:

I agree that 'Race' as the term we use to differentiate creatures of entirely different origins and arguably even genetics (some races can't reproduce with each other but for some reason others can; For example, Humans can reproduce with Elves and Orcs (half-elves and half-orcs, respectively), but elves and orcs can't reproduce with each other, because....???)

Anyway, one of the biggest improvements I will credit for Paizo having the courage to do with their upcoming Pathfinder 2nd edition is: Race as the term is GONE. Replaced by the term Ancestry. Ancestry is still very fantasy-ish term, without suggesting racism. This is a bold change. One that I wholeheartedly support. Since I don't know the specifics yet, I can't tell if this system could be easily ported from system to another, but since Pathfinder is a d20 system, I'm hopeful that it's going to be fairly easy, at least within other d20 systems.

There is nothing courageous nor bold in this change at all, and it does little to nothing to not suggest racism.

It's not like people will blow a fuse if another term is used instead of "races", as if it was sacro-saint. The term used is pretty much irrelevant on its own.

Though I agree that "ancestry" is technically more accurate than "race", it also doesn't carry the same meaning. For example, an half-elf is just as much of elven ancestry than an elf. And an half-orc is just as much of human ancestry than a human.

RPGs should just call them "species", since it's what they are, and be done with it.

[Pelle]

I'm a big fan of putting whatever races into your setting that you want, making the race a pure fluff choice, and then letting the player have three ASI's to put wherever they want from level 1. (I would sort the feats and say, only one super-good feat, at least one kinda weak feat)


Sure, remove the racial stat bonuses if you want. But then giving everyone free ASIs doesn't make any sense. Just increase the points for Point Buy if you want, or just assign your rolled stats however you want. Giving out ASI's on top is just redundant.