Let's get rid of races all together

[Atranen]

It was one more in a long line of bad analogies.

I'd say how so again, but I suspect you'll just say "your point was bad" without justification again, so let's leave this.

It I can personally not like something, while still seeing that it might be justified, and then pursue alternatives (like DMsGuild, in the case of my specific example.)

But you can't oppose it --you cannot say "I wish wizards would publish more settings"--without placing yourself firmly against the greater good. (At least, according to the argument you made).

Because your stance isn't reasonable. WotC has said "anything is available, unless you the DM say it isn't." That is the most reasonable approach to take to this issue, because it allows the folks who don't mind to have fun, and the folks who do mind to simply have a conversation with their players and then have fun. You instead seem to want to... I'm not sure, have them declare from on high that X is banned when you already have the power to do so?

Saying "these things are available, others may be, ask your GM" is the most reasonable stance because it allows the folks who don't mind to have fun, and let's the ones who do mind to simply have a conversation with their players and then have fun. You instead seem to want to...I'm not sure, dictate from on high that settings don't matter when you already have the power to do so?

There's simply nothing to this stance; extra words to say "I'm right and you're wrong", with nothing of substance beneath it.

Instead, you seem to want to encourage WotC to continue to try to reach over everyone's books BUT yours and change them around in ways that people believe makes the game worse.

This encapsulates my thoughts as well. I'm all good disagreeing with folks about the game. But what really bothers me is the insinuation that some people are backward, archaic, opposed to the greater good, etc. for not wanting changes that occurred all of a few years ago.

[Psyren]

But you can't oppose it --you cannot say "I wish wizards would publish more settings"--without placing yourself firmly against the greater good. (At least, according to the argument you made).

How is simply having an opinion "opposing" anything? I wish all the books were free too, but that's not reality.

Saying "these things are available, others may be, ask your GM" is the most reasonable stance because it allows the folks who don't mind to have fun, and let's the ones who do mind to simply have a conversation with their players and then have fun.

You mean the thing they literally did?

This encapsulates my thoughts as well. I'm all good disagreeing with folks about the game. But what really bothers me is the insinuation that some people are backward, archaic, opposed to the greater good, etc. for not wanting changes that occurred all of a few years ago.

I'm opposing a stance/belief, not the people behind it. You'll note I'm not the one who called anyone "evil" for disagreeing with me either.

[Just to Browse]

But why do you stop there? Any time you kill a sapient hostile, that's problematic. What right do you have to kill anything intelligent, ever?
...Oh wait that line of thinking kind of ruins the entire design of D&D.

Like I mentioned to Dr. Samurai, there's plenty of discussion about the problems with bioessentialism and race+culture pairings, on this forum and elsewhere. I don't really think this thread is the place to re-hash that conversation. The premise of the thread, per FabulousFizban, is about fixing the problem, not about debating whether it exists. If folks don't think the problem exists, I'm sure they can spin up a thread about that and argue ceaselessly until it devolves into personal attacks and the thread is locked have the relevant conversation there.

EDIT: Especially when one of the followup posts paints this as "D&D is for racists". Doesn't exactly look like ship is flyin' the good faith flag, know what I mean?

[Cheesegear]

Saying "these things are available, others may be, ask your GM" is the most reasonable stance because it allows the folks who don't mind to have fun, and let's the ones who do mind to simply have a conversation with their players and then have fun.

Disagree. Because it creates a feeling of;
Playing what I want, is fun.
Playing something that isn't what I want, isn't.

The second the DM says "No", they are the target of the hurt feelings. The DM has final say to do anything they want...And they're using their final say to be a jerk.

However, if in the book, it said 'There are no Orcs on Krynn, don't even ask.', the onus would now be on WotC. Not on the DM at the table. The ire would be directed to the unknowable company, not towards your friend.

But WotC can't afford to disallow Orcs on Krynn, because that creates 1-out-of-5s for satisfaction.
But also the DM can't disallow anything, otherwise they create hurt feelings; 'The thing standing between me and fun, is the DM (and dice).'

Thus, players can do whatever they want and the DM just has to allow it or potentially lose a player. Which is probably fine, if your player pool and social circle is unlimited (see; Online play).

"Ask the DM." is awful game design for what is essentially, a social game. Because in a social game, the DM can't say "No.", if the players are actually willing to walk away.

But what really bothers me is the insinuation that some people are backward, archaic, opposed to the greater good, etc. for not wanting changes that occurred all of a few years ago.

What really bothers me is that non-children, non-mentally ill people, can't discern the difference between fiction and reality, and that fiction must conform to reality, otherwise other non-children, non-mentally ill people, might see fiction as reality, too.

'D&D causes violence.' True story. That happened.
'D&D is for satanists.' True story. That happened.
'D&D is for racists.' is the same thing, with a new coat of paint.

[MonochromeTiger]

How is simply having an opinion "opposing" anything? I wish all the books were free too, but that's not reality.

Having and sharing an opinion is stating a preference, by extent those in disagreement with that preference are opposed to that opinion and vice versa.

I'm opposing a stance/belief, not the people behind it. You'll note I'm not the one who called anyone "evil" for disagreeing with me either.

Bolded for emphasis of the earlier point.

Also from what I read, and those who posted it please correct me if I'm wrong here, the argument of "for the greater good" was what was being called evil. Your continued use of it aligned you with that argument but the implication that anyone in the disagreement is "evil" was entirely hinged on continued use of or distancing from that argument which could be done at any time. It does come across as a method of limiting your options with the penalty of making you associate with that label if you don't accept that limitation but it's also your choice whether or not to do so and hard to take a stance of personal indignation when you made that choice.

[KorvinStarmast]

Charm spells are demonstrably Evil - capital E.
But haha, isn't the Glamour Bard so affable and charming. Isn't it funny to play a Bard?

I mentioned this hypocrisy in my feedback to WotC on the OGL, and in the thread discussing that, as regards their morality clause. They enable murderhobo behavior and ideation, with their game, and somehow that's OK? It is even worse when you look at how originally, Oathbreaker Paladin and Death Cleric were DMG domains only, with one being only fired up when a paladin failed by breaking their oath. That's a negative thing, not a positive thing. And then we get the Conquest paladin whose very schtick is hard domination of others along the lines you mention above. And the Whispers bard is over the top mind control/evil in flavor.

I would remove all Charm spells from the game before removing Species. There are many, many worse things in the game than bioessentialism. Many of those things, the players are encouraged to do.

Yep.

You said it much less angrily and better than I was going to. So I'll just say "this."

The premise of the thread, per FabulousFizban, is about fixing the problem, not about debating whether it exists.

That is an assertion, and an assumption, rather than a fact.
It actually isn't a problem unless one makes it one by their own actions and choices.
Almost 50 years of the game's success and play speak to the position that it is not a problem.
It's one of those "the only evil here is the evil you bring in with you" deals.
(I think that might have been a line used in Lothlorien when the Fellowship came there. I'd need to go back and check my books. It may have been some other story I read a long time ago).

[Millstone85]

Really, the correct term to use in D&D wouldn't be species/race/ancestry/family/kind...
It would be... morphology. What are your physical characteristics. That way we steer clear of 'noun-ifying' (which is where racism really lies).

Morphology is also a noun, but I like it.

Maybe the PHB could have a set of generic morphologies for playable characters, like:

Morphology	Setting-Dependent Examples
bestial - type I	lizardfolk, minotaur, tabaxi
bestial - type II	centaur, drider, merfolk
constructed	autognome, glitchling, warforged
draconic	draconian, dragonborn, kobold
elemental	azer, genasi, goliath
fey	elf, gnome, goblin
material	dwarf, halfling, human
numinous	aasimar, gith, tiefling
umbral	deathless, dhampir, revenant

[PhoenixPhyre]

Also from what I read, and those who posted it please correct me if I'm wrong here, the argument of "for the greater good" was what was being called evil. Your continued use of it aligned you with that argument but the implication that anyone in the disagreement is "evil" was entirely hinged on continued use of or distancing from that argument which could be done at any time. It does come across as a method of limiting your options with the penalty of making you associate with that label if you don't accept that limitation but it's also your choice whether or not to do so and hard to take a stance of personal indignation when you made that choice.

I'll say that personally, I'd be much more accepting of the "well, it sucks for some people but it has to be done for the health of the communal game environment" argument...if the people making it were the ones who were losing out on it. If they were accepting something negative because they believed it was for the improvement of the community.

It rings really hollow, facile, and even condescending to be told by someone who benefits from it that "you all over there have to suffer, it's for the best. I, on the other hand, get what I want." Doesn't exactly come across as fair minded. Comes across more as "I got mine, sucks to be you." And yet that's the only argument I've really heard on this matter. Vague pronouncements about data, none of which is actually in evidence and the details of which we're just supposed to trust (both existence and content), sure. Actual arguments? Mostly just ipse dixit and "I like it better this way" arguments from taste. Neither of which really persuade very well.

I mentioned this hypocrisy in my feedback to WotC on the OGL, and in the thread discussing that, as regards their morality clause. They enable murderhobo behavior and ideation, with their game, and somehow that's OK? It is even worse when you look at how originally, Oathbreake Paladin and Death Cleric were DMG domains only, with one being only fired up when a paladin failed. We then got the Conquest paladin whose very schtick is hard domination of others along the lines you mention above.
Yep.


It actually isn't a problem unless one makes it one by their own actions and choices. Almost 50 years of the game's success and play speak to the position that it is not a problem.
It's one of those "the only evil here is the evil you bring in with you" deals.
(I think that might have been a line used in Lothlorien when the Fellowship came there. I'd need to go back and check my books. It may have been some other story I read a long time ago).

Seconding all of this as well. Including about charm and dominate effects. I'd take hard race-locked classes (which I don't like, to be clear) as much less offensive and "bad" than the encouragement of mind control for kicks and giggles.

[KorvinStarmast]

Morphology is also a noun, but I like it.

Maybe the PHB could have a set of generic morphologies for playable characters, like:

Morphology	Setting-Dependent Examples
bestial - type I	lizardfolk, minotaur, tabaxi
bestial - type II	centaur, drider, merfolk
constructed	autognome, glitchling, warforged
draconic	draconian, dragonborn, kobold
elemental	azer, genasi, goliath
fey	elf, gnome, goblin
material	dwarf, halfling, human
numinous	aasimar, gith, tiefling
umbral	deathless, dhampir, revenant

Interesting post, but this is a game, and they were trying to get away from stuff like that and do a bit of KISS principle with this edition. And I find creature type, as is, to be a 'good enough' system for a game.

[False God]

Interesting post, but this is a game, and they were trying to get away from stuff like that and do a bit of KISS principle with this edition. And I find creature type, as is, to be a 'good enough' system for a game.

I mean, they kinda threw KISS out the window when they said "hey there's a million species and they can all have babies!

[Cheesegear]

as much less offensive and "bad" than the encouragement of mind control for kicks and giggles.

There's a spell that lets you force someone to attack - and kill - their own friends.
Wow. That's pretty hardcore. Only a pretty powerful, Evil Wizard would ever use such a thing.
No. My Wizard is Neutral Good. Also Crown of Madness? I got it at Level 3. It's actually really easy to get.

[Atranen]

How is simply having an opinion "opposing" anything? I wish all the books were free too, but that's not reality.

You mean the thing they literally did?

At this point we're knee deep into a semantic argument that's well beside the point. It may take pages to nail down. So I'm going to drop this conversation.

Disagree. Because it creates a feeling of;
Playing what I want, is fun.
Playing something that isn't what I want, isn't.

The second the DM says "No", they are the target of the hurt feelings. The DM has final say to do anything they want...And they're using their final say to be a jerk.

However, if in the book, it said 'There are no Orcs on Krynn, don't even ask.', the onus would now be on WotC. Not on the DM at the table. The ire would be directed to the unknowable company, not towards your friend.

Yeah, I agree and this is closer to my viewpoint. I put forward "ask the GM" as a compromise option, because it'd be an improvement on what we have.

Also from what I read, and those who posted it please correct me if I'm wrong here, the argument of "for the greater good" was what was being called evil. Your continued use of it aligned you with that argument but the implication that anyone in the disagreement is "evil" was entirely hinged on continued use of or distancing from that argument which could be done at any time. It does come across as a method of limiting your options with the penalty of making you associate with that label if you don't accept that limitation but it's also your choice whether or not to do so and hard to take a stance of personal indignation when you made that choice.

I read "the changes are for the greater good" to imply "those who oppose the changes oppose the greater good, i.e. want something bad".

I'll say that personally, I'd be much more accepting of the "well, it sucks for some people but it has to be done for the health of the communal game environment" argument...if the people making it were the ones who were losing out on it. If they were accepting something negative because they believed it was for the improvement of the community.

It rings really hollow, facile, and even condescending to be told by someone who benefits from it that "you all over there have to suffer, it's for the best. I, on the other hand, get what I want." Doesn't exactly come across as fair minded. Comes across more as "I got mine, sucks to be you." And yet that's the only argument I've really heard on this matter. Vague pronouncements about data, none of which is actually in evidence and the details of which we're just supposed to trust (both existence and content), sure. Actual arguments? Mostly just ipse dixit and "I like it better this way" arguments from taste. Neither of which really persuade very well.

Agreed. It would be fine to say "hey, I guess we disagree about this issue". But there's "your preferences are ridiculous and bad for the game" added in.

[Goobahfish]

Morphology is also a noun, but I like it.

Maybe the PHB could have a set of generic morphologies for playable characters, like:

Morphology	Setting-Dependent Examples
bestial - type I	lizardfolk, minotaur, tabaxi
bestial - type II	centaur, drider, merfolk
constructed	autognome, glitchling, warforged
draconic	draconian, dragonborn, kobold
elemental	azer, genasi, goliath
fey	elf, gnome, goblin
material	dwarf, halfling, human
numinous	aasimar, gith, tiefling
umbral	deathless, dhampir, revenant

This is close to what I mean. I would suggest that each 'race' would just be a collection of morphology traits (which it is at the moment sort of). That way when you veer outside the bubble of each 'race', it would be a case of swapping or changing morphology traits. Like having wings. Or being stocky. Each of the above would work well in the creation of those races. I guess, it would be nice to play a short stocky elf and having it be a short-stocky, fey-touched, meditating character.

Interesting post, but this is a game, and they were trying to get away from stuff like that and do a bit of KISS principle with this edition. And I find creature type, as is, to be a 'good enough' system for a game.

Yeah, my use of the word 'Morphology' was really trying to isolate the idea of "you are your parts" rather than "you are the sum of your parts". For example... having wings describes your morphology. It is totally the wrong word linguistically for D&D.

The way I would prefer it to work would be:

[1] Here is the pre-fabbed bears for the default D&D campaign settings.
[2] Here is the build-a-bear system for races for DMs.

[Psyren]

Also from what I read, and those who posted it please correct me if I'm wrong here, the argument of "for the greater good" was what was being called evil.

Anytime anyone invokes "the greater good", it's a sure sign they're evil and the outcome will be horrific. That goes for in-game and out of game.

"Anyone" doesn't seem to be referring to "arguments" to me.

[Atranen]

Morphology is also a noun, but I like it.

Maybe the PHB could have a set of generic morphologies for playable characters, like:

Morphology	Setting-Dependent Examples
bestial - type I	lizardfolk, minotaur, tabaxi
bestial - type II	centaur, drider, merfolk
constructed	autognome, glitchling, warforged
draconic	draconian, dragonborn, kobold
elemental	azer, genasi, goliath
fey	elf, gnome, goblin
material	dwarf, halfling, human
numinous	aasimar, gith, tiefling
umbral	deathless, dhampir, revenant

Interesting suggestion. It is a nice way to systematize things; I like the numinous especially, I think tieflings and aasimar should be subspecies of the same base species. In some cases it grafts on less nicely though, like for material.

[Just to Browse]

\That is an assertion, and an assumption, rather than a fact.
It actually isn't a problem unless one makes it one by their own actions and choices.
Almost 50 years of the game's success and play speak to the position that it is not a problem.
It's one of those "the only evil here is the evil you bring in with you" deals.

As noted in the comment you replied to, I'm confident you can start a thread that tells people they are making bad assumptions and bringing in evil with them or whatever, but it's a different discussion from the one that started this thread.

One note I would like to add, though, is that "50 years of the game's success" rides on the back of thousands of decisions. I'd argue that the game has lasted 50 years because it has changed.

[greenstone]

The fundamental problem is that races/species/whatever are an intrinsic part of the setting.

That's a really good point.

The list of allowed peoples should be in a worldbook, not a core rulebook.

Personally, I'm a fan of species-specific game features, especially if those features affect the gameworld.

For example, elves are on average more agile than other races (+2DEX). Because of this, elven settlements don't have any safety railings or protection, which scares the deity out of visitors.

For example, dwarves can see well in the dark, which means visitors to their settlements always complain that they are dim and gloomy, and get lost a lot because they can't read street signs.

[Dr.Samurai]

The bits of bioessentialism that relate to real life are the only bad bits, like I mentioned in my first post here.

{scrubbed}

Firebreathing, wings, endless age are all fine. To add my own ideas to the list: fur, scales, fangs, extra eyelids, green blood, magic powers. I'm totally cool w/all of that.

It's not a coincidence that multiple peoples' go-to example of a counterpoint race is the dragonborn, because their defining features are all 💯💯💯. There isn't a dragonborn feature that labels them inherently "savage", "menacing", or "aggressive" -- terms that can (and have!) been used to describe human beings. Let's get rid of that bad stuff but keep the good stuff like fire breathing.

My go to is not dragonborn. My go to is "your position is arbitrary and inconsistent, and the rest of us shouldn't experience the game changing for such a weak argument".

Forgive me if I missed something, but all this seems to be about whether to use the word species, and something about the Psyren guy? I'm not interested in one particular word or word substitution or whatever. I'm just arguing my original point about how we should throw out one subset of species-associated abilities instead of getting rid of the whole thing.

Correct, and your reasons for doing so are because it's "problematic", and that can apply to virtually anything, so we should just ignore it and leave "race" the same and not throw out any subset of racial abilities.

And this is where I go back to my stance of just calling them races. It's in our gamer blood, going back to Tolkien. We're not going to please everyone - and the more we try to cherry pick, the more we isolate.

Agreed. I'm playing D&D. What do I care how other people use a word or what they think about? I'm rolling dice and finding treasure and getting XPs.

But why do you stop there? Any time you kill a sapient hostile, that's problematic. What right do you have to kill anything intelligent, ever?
...Oh wait that line of thinking kind of ruins the entire design of D&D.

I can play a game where I can freely murder anyone I want, at any time. Animate their corpse, and have "them" do menial tasks indefinitely.
I can destroy someone's soul.
I can alter people's thoughts, feelings and memories - even the ones that include me. Against their will.

But let me tell you why bioessentialism ruins everything.

QFT

May as well throw the whole game out the window if you want to be consistent and taken seriously.

Because one of those is highly detached from reality.
The other is much closer to real-world things.

Very true. Murder, looting, manipulation... none of these things are close to real world stuff...

[JNAProductions]

I would sincerely hope that no one on this forum has first-hand experience with murder.
I would hope the same for racism-but I know that's much less likely.

[Goobahfish]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

My go to is not dragonborn. My go to is "your position is arbitrary and inconsistent, and the rest of us shouldn't experience the game changing for such a weak argument".

Correct, and your reasons for doing so are because it's "problematic", and that can apply to virtually anything, so we should just ignore it and leave "race" the same and not throw out any subset of racial abilities.

Agreed. I'm playing D&D. What do I care how other people use a word or what they think about? I'm rolling dice and finding treasure and getting XPs.

I mean... the context of terminology in the broader culture is not relevant? That makes sense for... I dunno, here is a book written by such and such and this book was written in the 1900's and so is filled with highly questionable and problematic content. Fine. Don't burn it but it is what it is and is useful in that context.

Here is a sequel, which follows on from the 1900's story, but in 2023. We have very different values today. This book is racist. Why are you writing a racist book? (Note, not a book with racist characters, a book whose themes exemplify the benefits of racism).

D&D is no different to this example. If you want to play 1980's D&D with its problematic terms. Fine. But if you are a company trying to create a new product in 2023... why are you keeping these things the same? That is a deliberate decision and 'because it used to be that way' isn't an argument.

Nothing in the D&D manuals references murdering hill-giant babies. That is a decision for the table. There is a reason it isn't in the core rules. Your hyperbolic characterisation of people 'whinging' about not being able to play the game they want to play is childish. Anyone who plays D&D who says 'my game will be ruined if' is being silly. It is D&D. Play it how you like.

[NichG]

This is discursal debt, accumulated from decades of bad faith arguments and in turn countering those bad faith arguments by not unraveling the actual reason they are such, but instead finding the quickest and easiest counterattack to 'win'.

Responses like mockery just pile that debt up deeper, bit by bit. So does just making topics or concepts taboo rather than situating them in what we wish to do with those concepts as a society.

[Dr.Samurai]

D&D is no different to this example. If you want to play 1980's D&D with its problematic terms. Fine. But if you are a company trying to create a new product in 2023... why are you keeping these things the same? That is a deliberate decision and 'because it used to be that way' isn't an argument.

WotC is choosing to change it because online hysteria can cause them problems. That's it. Compliance is forced. It's not for any actual reasons that align with your interpretation of "what is racist".

Anyone who plays D&D who says 'my game will be ruined if' is being silly. It is D&D. Play it how you like.

I love how the people that tell you you're playing D&D bad always fall back on "do whatever you want" lol.

We're trying. Other people want to change the game to suit their narrow and misinformed perspective on... issues.

This is discursal debt, accumulated from decades of bad faith arguments and in turn countering those bad faith arguments by not unraveling the actual reason they are such, but instead finding the quickest and easiest counterattack to 'win'.

Responses like mockery just pile that debt up deeper, bit by bit. So does just making topics or concepts taboo rather than situating them in what we wish to do with those concepts as a society.

*shrugs*

No one wants to define where the line is drawn, why one thing is problematic and another isn't. They just keep saying it's wrong it's wrong it's wrong. Not sure the "argument" deserves to be taken more seriously. The point is made. Murder, assassination, child abuse, thievery, etc etc etc is all okay. But +2 to Strength from race is not. That's not a mockery, that's the actual position people have taken.

[Psyren]

I mean... the context of terminology in the broader culture is not relevant? That makes sense for... I dunno, here is a book written by such and such and this book was written in the 1900's and so is filled with highly questionable and problematic content. Fine. Don't burn it but it is what it is and is useful in that context.

Here is a sequel, which follows on from the 1900's story, but in 2023. We have very different values today. This book is racist. Why are you writing a racist book? (Note, not a book with racist characters, a book whose themes exemplify the benefits of racism).

D&D is no different to this example. If you want to play 1980's D&D with its problematic terms. Fine. But if you are a company trying to create a new product in 2023... why are you keeping these things the same? That is a deliberate decision and 'because it used to be that way' isn't an argument.

Nothing in the D&D manuals references murdering hill-giant babies. That is a decision for the table. There is a reason it isn't in the core rules. Your hyperbolic characterisation of people 'whinging' about not being able to play the game they want to play is childish. Anyone who plays D&D who says 'my game will be ruined if' is being silly. It is D&D. Play it how you like.

This.

This is discursal debt, accumulated from decades of bad faith arguments and in turn countering those bad faith arguments by not unraveling the actual reason they are such, but instead finding the quickest and easiest counterattack to 'win'.

Responses like mockery just pile that debt up deeper, bit by bit. So does just making topics or concepts taboo rather than situating them in what we wish to do with those concepts as a society.

Well, it's difficult to not have them be taboo when going to any degree of depth or real-world parallels invites wrath of mod. So maybe this has run its course.

WotC is choosing to change it because online hysteria can cause them problems. That's it. Compliance is forced. It's not for any actual reasons that align with your interpretation of "what is racist".

When you label any possible objection to a problematic subject as "hysteria" and any possible motivation for wanting to improve things as "forced compliance" then there's really nowhere to go. The arc of progress is long, but it tends to leave such viewpoints behind.

[ahyangyi]

The bits of bioessentialism that relate to real life are the only bad bits, like I mentioned in my first post here. Firebreathing, wings, endless age are all fine. To add my own ideas to the list: fur, scales, fangs, extra eyelids, green blood, magic powers. I'm totally cool w/all of that.

It's not a coincidence that multiple peoples' go-to example of a counterpoint race is the dragonborn, because their defining features are all 💯💯💯. There isn't a dragonborn feature that labels them inherently "savage", "menacing", or "aggressive" -- terms that can (and have!) been used to describe human beings. Let's get rid of that bad stuff but keep the good stuff like fire breathing.

The problem is, I read the 5E SRD about dragonborn, there isn't a single mention of "savage", "menacing", or "aggressive" at all.

All the mechanic effects of being a dragonborn are: ASI, weight, a matching pair of breath weapon and energy resistance, and the draconic language. And most people here agree that a fixed ASI is probably bad enough for mechanic reasons anyways. And even if dragonborns mechanically do have more strength, that does not translate to "aggressive" or "savage" at all.

If your game group decides that all dragonborns must be savage, menacing or aggressive, then perhaps it's just your game group's problem?

I would sincerely hope that no one on this forum has first-hand experience with murder.
I would hope the same for racism-but I know that's much less likely.

I saw how actual racists make bad analogy to apply fantasy tropes to the real world situations, and I spent much time recently writing stuff arguing why they are bad analogies.

However, it seems to me that, the way to fix the problems is definitely not "make all fantasy races mechanically the same, so everyone can feel free to make more bad analogies".

[Dr.Samurai]

The problem is, I read the 5E SRD about dragonborn, there isn't a single mention of "savage", "menacing", or "aggressive" at all.

All the mechanic effects of being a dragonborn are: ASI, weight, a matching pair of breath weapon and energy resistance. And most people here agree that a fixed ASI is probably bad enough for mechanic reasons anyways.

If your game group decides that all dragonborns must be savage, menacing or aggressive, then perhaps it's just your game group's problem?

I believe the point Just to Browse is making is that they don't find "all" aspects of bioessentialism problematic. So the Dragonborn example that is brought up doesn't bother them because none of the traits are named after traits that some people associate with bad things, such as "savage", "menacing", or "aggressive".

So breathing fire is good. But the Orc's "Aggressive" trait is bad because... aggression is... bad, I guess? And it's harmful to describe a race of people as... aggressive? Because then you're saying they are... bad, according to some people...

When you label any possible objection to a problematic subject as "hysteria" and any possible motivation for wanting to improve things as "forced compliance" then there's really nowhere to go.

Oh, forgive me. I didn't realize we were heading someplace. Let me jump on board the "we repeat the same multi-syllabic words over and over again" train. Let's see, shall I ride in the Problematic car? Or maybe the Bioessentialism caboose? Where exactly were we going again? I haven't seen any of you say anything other than "it's problematic".

Also... I could have sworn I remember someone accusing everyone that disagreed with him of wearing "hysteria hats" but I may be mistaken. I'm sure I'm misremembering...

The arc of progress is long, but it tends to leave such viewpoints behind.

*Dear Diary, today I continued calling everything racist. The arc of progress moves ever forward...*

[NichG]

*shrugs*

No one wants to define where the line is drawn, why one thing is problematic and another isn't. They just keep saying it's wrong it's wrong it's wrong. Not sure the "argument" deserves to be taken more seriously. The point is made. Murder, assassination, child abuse, thievery, etc etc etc is all okay. But +2 to Strength from race is not. That's not a mockery, that's the actual position people have taken.

The discursal debt is that certain ideas are expressed in a manipulative way, and then anything that 'sounds like the kind of thing that sort of person would say' becomes a sign of possible bad faith behavior. Mockery, using 'enlightened' as a slur, feeds this. And eventually no one can talk about anything adjacent because it's all charged.

Well, it's difficult to not have them be taboo when going to any degree of depth or real-world parallels invites wrath of mod. So maybe this has run its course.

The taboo I refer to is having biological differences between equal members of a society in a TTRPG in this case.

[Psyren]

Oh, forgive me. I didn't realize we were heading someplace.

The industry is, certainly.

*Dear Diary, today I continued calling everything racist. The arc of progress moves ever forward...*

It does. Both the word "race" and mandatory stat penalties are now gone from both of the largest TTRPGs on the market. Tired tropes like the savage savage or equally tired "playing against type" ones like the noble savage are no longer baked into the fabric of any particular... species. And though some may rage against the dying of the light, more such advances will occur in the coming years. It's a great time to be a gamer.

[ahyangyi]

I believe the point Just to Browse is making is that they don't find "all" aspects of bioessentialism problematic. So the Dragonborn example that is brought up doesn't bother them because none of the traits are named after traits that some people associate with bad things, such as "savage", "menacing", or "aggressive".

So breathing fire is good. But the Orc's "Aggressive" trait is bad because... aggression is... bad, I guess? And it's harmful to describe a race of people as... aggressive? Because then you're saying they are... bad, according to some people...

Good point.

I do see orcs, along with goblins, kobolds, and the like, always having the problem of getting designed as a non-playable race in the beginning of every edition, but always turned into some sort of playable race later. And they are generally evil by lore, which indeed a problem when people start to see them as "races" at all.

I wonder if the situation could be better if:

1. They are designed as a playable race in the beginning; or
2. They are never allowed as a playable race.

Drows are also among the "generally evil" races, but either due to the popularity of a certain Drow ranger character, or that they are elves with a different skin color, they are handled with much more sensitivity.

Anyways, if people are having problems with the mechanics, especially the wordings of these "generally evil" races, then I think that's completely reasonable.

[Dr.Samurai]

The discursal debt is that certain ideas are expressed in a manipulative way, and then anything that 'sounds like the kind of thing that sort of person would say' becomes a sign of possible bad faith behavior. Mockery, using 'enlightened' as a slur, feeds this. And eventually no one can talk about anything adjacent because it's all charged.

I think you are giving some people a lot more credit than may be deserved.

A large part of the reason that "no one can talk about anything" is because some people just think you are a bad person for holding the opinion you hold. There's very little common ground to hold together when a person thinks you're a racist or bigot or stupid and need to be educated to their level.

Using "enlightened" as a slur is pointing out the lunacy in educated people armed with studies and articles putting forth some really terrible ideas. I'm tired of modern day intellectuals poisoning everyone with really bad and dangerous notions. Being smart can be very overrated, and usually just means you're creative enough to convince yourself of something stupid. And thanks to social media, we get to hear all the really bad ideas repeated ad nauseum by people that think they're going to usher in the utopia because they're the first people in history to figure it all out.

So you can reduce the slur to a simple mockery, but the point still stands. Don't be so easily convinced that you're a smart rational person with the right answers. Maybe the ideas you have, that you think come from a good place and are well-intentioned, are actually bad. And maybe, despite how well read and informed you are, you might still make a mistake and get it wrong. We'd be better off if more people considered this, rather than talked down to everyone else.

The industry is, certainly.

It's gained popularity. This happens to coincide with a certain zeitgeist. As much as you like to think the two are related, they aren't.

And if it keeps moving in the direction you want, which is that the game should somehow mirror your perfect ideal of real life, eventually there won't be anything to do in D&D except... hang around.

This high ground that you think you're on for "making progress" is a complete figment of your imagination. You can't pluck "race" out of a game that centers around murdering people and taking their treasure and think you've done some good in the world. It's an outlandish idea.

It's a great time to be a gamer.

I suspect that all the gamers that came before you and actually focused on playing the game felt the same in their time.

[Psyren]

And if it keeps moving in the direction you want, which is that the game should somehow mirror your perfect ideal of real life, eventually there won't be anything to do in D&D except... hang around.

This high ground that you think you're on for "making progress" is a complete figment of your imagination. You can't pluck "race" out of a game that centers around murdering people and taking their treasure and think you've done some good in the world. It's an outlandish idea.

People who are against racial conflict in a game, are not against all conflict. I want to oppose that Drow cult - violently if necessary - because all of its members are Lolthite slavers, not merely because they're Drow. In short, I'm judging them on their actions and goals, not their biology.