# What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?



## Yaarel

D&D will finally discontinue the technical term "Race". Yay!

But what do you prefer replace it?

• Species
• Type
• Form
• Lifeform
• Biology
• Taxonomy
• Taxon
• Genus
• Geneology
• Family
• Parentage
• Ancestry
• Bloodline
• Line
• Lineage
• Pedigree
• Folk
• Kindred
• Kind
• Kin
• Kinfolk
• Descent
• Filiation
• Extraction
• Origin
• Heredity

Nature versus nurture. The previous terms can emphasize biology (or construct). The following terms include learned cultural aspects, such as language, but might work.
• Ethnicity
• Ethnos
• People
• Peoplehood
• Kith
• Heritage

If you think of any other viable terms, I will try add them to the list.

Edit: Added later to the poll are the terms:
• Heritage
• People
• Nature
• Birth

You can choose more than one term.


----------



## aco175

I would vote to keep the word Race.


----------



## Charlaquin

Heritage would also be a good one to add, if you have space in the poll


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

Chose kindred and kind. Kindred as the general term kind as an appendage to specific examples (i.e. Humankind, Gnomekind, Warforgedkind, ect).


----------



## DarkCrisis

Kink.

“What’s your kink?”
“Mmmm Female Dark Elf. In leather,"
"I'm right there with you, dude.  Paint me a picture."

“I’m a Tiefling!”
“Ugh. Not another Tiefling!
“Don’t Kink-shame.”


----------



## Xamnam

Not my thread, obviously, but I'd suggest we keep it + and talk about why we like what we like, and not why other options are bad. Would just be copying the thread these came from otherwise.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Picked Species and Taxon. Most of the other choices is just 'race' with the serial numbers filed off.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

"Species". What it lacks in sounding right in a fantasy context it makes up in clearly meaning the thing that race most prominently means in D&D. It focuses in directly on status as a biologically distinct group and does not encourage the problematic eliding of biological, cultural, and immediate family heritage.

That said, it feels like if we focus in more explictly on species in place of race there should be a separate cultural heritage selecting step.


----------



## Scribe

Parentage​
Ancestry​
Lineage​
Heredity​


----------



## Clint_L

Schmorp


----------



## Charlaquin

Benjamin Olson said:


> "Species". What it lacks in sounding right in a fantasy context it makes up in clearly meaning the thing that race most prominently means in D&D.



I don’t want to drag the thread down, so I won’t belabor the issue, but I just want to say that this is far from an uncontested position. What [the character element formerly known as race] is in D&D is _very_ different than what Species means in real life.


----------



## Clint_L

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t want to drag the thread down, so I won’t belabor the issue, but I just want to say that this is far from an uncontested position. What [the character element formerly known as race] is in D&D is _very_ different than what Species means in real life.



Okay, wait. While I like "schmorp", I now also kind of want "[the character element formally known as race]," but I want it to be a weird little symbol.


----------



## Charlaquin

Clint_L said:


> Okay, wait. While I like "schmorp", I now also kind of want "[the character element formally known as race]," but I want it to be a weird little symbol.



Yes! I change my answer to this!


----------



## DarkCrisis

Okay hear me out.

We go back to making Races as Classes.  Then they are just all called Classes.  "Im a Fighter!"  "Im a Wizard!" "Im an Elf!" 

An Elf of course being a Fighter/Wizard in regular terms. or a Dwarf being a Fighter with some special abilities. Etc.


----------



## Vael

I liked what I originally suggested: Lineage, Ancestry or Origin, but Kind is kinda doing it for me too.


----------



## BookTenTiger

I'm sorry, where is schmorp???


----------



## BookTenTiger

I voted for origin, kindred, heritage, and lineage. I like that they sound old timey.


----------



## Laurefindel

Selected ancestry and lineage. I would have selected “Heritage” first if possible, but my preference is to stay with the word “race”.


----------



## Scribe

BookTenTiger said:


> I like that they sound old timey.




This is the thing. Give me a page with the template from the printed books and give me a print out, full colour, off of D&D Beyond with the pure white sterile background.

You know which one looks better? The one that LOOKS like its old, or has something going on. The one with the pure white page backing? I dont even want to look at it.

Maybe its foolish to some, but to me, it matters a whole lot.


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> Heritage would also be a good one to add, if you have space in the poll



I didnt add Heritage because it includes ethnicity and culture, but I will now.

Edit: Wow, updating the poll is easy!


----------



## DEFCON 1

To be honest I don't actually care what they eventually call it... I'll get used to it pretty quickly whatever it is.  But I voted for the only one that I thought sounded nice, clean, simple, and folksy (which is how I think most of these peoples live out their lives in these pseudo-medieval realms which is still my main D&D jam.)

And that word was *'Kin'*.


----------



## CleverNickName

As I said in the other thread:


CleverNickName said:


> We started using Ancestry last year, and we have no complaints.
> 
> "Let me tell you about my race" - too personal, impolite, at best it sounds like you're talking to your track coach
> "Let me tell you about my species" - weird, clinical, sounds like a bad sci-fi trope
> "Let me tell you about my origin" - vague, elusive, sounds like the start of a long, dull backstory
> "Let me tell you about my ancestors" - mysterious, proud, you order another round of ale because this is going to be an epic story


----------



## Vaalingrade

"Let me tall you about my creation forge" - is a warforged.


----------



## Lycurgon

My preferred terms are Ancestry and Heritage. Both have been used by 3rd parties already and I am happy with either. 

But WotC are already using Ancestry as referring to the specific type of ancestor you are descended from within your species. All of the new species in the latest playtest have Ancestries ie: Draconic Ancestry is which type of dragon your Dragonborn is descended from; Ardlings have Animal Ancestry and Goliaths have Giant Ancestry. 
So if Ancestry was used instead of Species WotC would also have to find a new term to replace what they are using Ancestry for.


----------



## Scribe

CleverNickName said:


> As I said in the other thread:




Thats the one that sold me.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Lycurgon said:


> My preferred terms are Ancestry and Heritage. Both have been used by 3rd parties already and I am happy with either.
> 
> But WotC are already using Ancestry as referring to the specific type of ancestor you are descended from within your species. All of the new species in the latest playtest have Ancestries ie: Draconic Ancestry is which type of dragon your Dragonborn is descended from; Ardlings have Animal Ancestry and Goliaths have Giant Ancestry.
> So if Ancestry was used instead of Species WotC would also have to find a new term to replace what they are using Ancestry for.



Yeah, and it's the same with 'Origin'-- that's what Sorcerers have.

So presuming we take 'Ancestry' and 'Origin' off the table as already having uses in 5E... the only one I would see that might possibly be put in place instead of 'Species' by WotC (if enough people veto'd it in the surveys) would be 'Lineage'.  If I had to bet on the #2 option to be used instead of 'Species', it'd be that.

Still like 'Kin' more than 'Lineage' though.    "Okay folks, choose your Kin, Class, and Background."


----------



## ThrorII

I vote "funny mask". Because many just play humans in funny masks anyway. 
"What's your funny mask?" "I'm an elf, can't you see my prosthetic ears!"


----------



## Clint_L

DarkCrisis said:


> Okay here me out.
> 
> We go back to making Races as Classes.  Then they are just all called Classes.  "Im a Fighter!"  "Im a Wizard!" "Im an Elf!"
> 
> An Elf of course being a Fighter/Wizard in regular terms. or a Dwarf being a Fighter with some special abilities. Etc.



1975 phoned and wants its game back.


----------



## ThrorII

Clint_L said:


> 1975 phoned and wants its game back.



Actually 1981.
1975 had race and class separate (human, elf, half-elf, dwarf, halfling; fighter, magic-user, cleric, thief, ranger, paladin).


----------



## Xamnam

Like I said in the other thread, I'm okay with species, but it's not one I'd advocate for. That seems like it's going to end up being "kick the can down the road for ten years and have to deal with it again"

Fine:
Parentage
Origin
Heritage

Good:
Kinfolk
Kindred
Ancestry
Lineage (this is used in Tasha's for Custom Lineage, so it's pretty close already)

Great:
Kin
Folk
Schmorp


----------



## dragoner

Monster. 
Like "what kind of Monster are you?"
"The best kind."
Actually people works good too, that is what I use.


----------



## Lojaan

The thing I like about species is that it's for the _player_, not the character.

A character would use the term that makes cultural sense to them, be it race, or kin, or parentage or blubberhenal or whatever, but for the player it is explicitly called out that these terms refer to species.


----------



## Galandris

Can I change my vote to Schmorp as well? It will ease to job of translators.


----------



## Clint_L

Do you think we can make schmorp a thing?


----------



## Galandris

5 of us mentionned it in this thread, making it a second tier contender... but it wasn't a proposed choice, so, it's a pretty strong performance. It won't bear any bad connotation _even if language evolves to make future unfortunate associations with words we use_. Nobody can really say he's against Schmorp. It might not win in straight vote, but might the least-disliked option.


----------



## BookTenTiger

Clint_L said:


> Do you think we can make schmorp a thing?



WotC: "We accidentally changed 'species' to 'schmorp' on the latest playtest and it got 80% approval..."


----------



## schneeland

My preference would be (in descending order):

Ancestry
Folk
Kin


----------



## MarkB

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t want to drag the thread down, so I won’t belabor the issue, but I just want to say that this is far from an uncontested position. What [the character element formerly known as race] is in D&D is _very_ different than what Species means in real life.



"Very" is putting it strongly. There are real-life species that can interbreed. And substitute "Species" in your above statement with any of the other poll terms - which of them is it not true of?


----------



## Charlaquin

MarkB said:


> "Very" is putting it strongly. There are real-life species that can interbreed.



That there are, but they are exceptional, whereas in 1D&D all of the PC schmorps can. More importantly though, there are no real-life species that don’t share a common ancestor, whereas there are many shmorps in D&D that don’t. But they can still interbreed despite having absolutely zero genetic connections. Also, genes probably don’t exist.


MarkB said:


> And substitute "Species" in your above statement with any of the other poll terms - which of them is it not true of?



Parentage, ancestry, lineage, folk, kindred, descent… take your pick, honestly.


----------



## Lojaan

Charlaquin said:


> That there are, but they are exceptional, whereas in 1D&D all of the PC schmorps can. More importantly though, there are no real-life species that don’t share a common ancestor, whereas there are many shmorps in D&D that don’t. But they can still interbreed despite having absolutely zero genetic connections. Also, genes probably don’t exist.
> 
> Parentage, ancestry, lineage, folk, kindred, descent… take your pick, honestly.



You know that they're not real yeah? Your science magic doesn't work here witch!


----------



## MarkB

Charlaquin said:


> Parentage, ancestry, lineage, folk, kindred, descent… take your pick, honestly.



Really? Someone points to a cat and asks you what it's parentage is, you're going to assume they're asking you to differentiate between it and a dog or a bird, rather than between it and other cats?

As you point out, there's no true equivalent of the varieties of playable critter in D&D, but those terms are used regularly in the real world to mean things a lot narrower than the difference between humans and elves.


----------



## Charlaquin

Lojaan said:


> You know that they're not real yeah? Your science magic doesn't work here witch!



That’s exactly my point.


----------



## Charlaquin

MarkB said:


> Really? Someone points to a cat and asks you what it's parentage is, you're going to assume they're asking you to differentiate between it and a dog or a bird, rather than between it and other cats?



The difference between cats, dogs, and birds _is_ _not analogous to_ the difference between elves, dwarves, and orcs.


MarkB said:


> As you point out, there's no true equivalent of the varieties of playable critter in D&D, but those terms are used regularly in the real world to mean things a lot narrower than the difference between humans and elves.



Except parentage absolutely accurately describes what D&D “races” actually are. Are your parents elves? You’re an elf. Is one of your parents an elf and the other a centaur? under the current playtest rules, you can pick either the elf mechanical traits or the centaur mechanical traits. Parentage is literally the sole determining factor of what your character’s schmorp is. It’s an infinitely more accurate description than species.


----------



## MarkB

Charlaquin said:


> The difference between cats, dogs, and birds _is_ _not analogous to_ the difference between elves, dwarves, and orcs.



It is to me.


Charlaquin said:


> Except parentage absolutely accurately describes what D&D “races” actually are. Are your parents elves? You’re an elf. Is one of your parents an elf and the other a centaur? under the current playtest rules, you can pick either the elf mechanical traits or the centaur mechanical traits. Parentage is literally the sole determining factor of what your character’s schmorp. It’s an infinitely more accurate description than species.



Except that it can, and in real-world usage does, refer to far narrower things - like nationality, or even just family lines. Two people can have different parentage and both be elves.

Species conveys the sense of the difference between elves and dwarves more clearly than Parentage.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Regatta.


----------



## dragoner

Kinfolk has a certain je ne sais quoi I have to admit.


----------



## Charlaquin

MarkB said:


> It is to me.



But it isn’t. Again with the lack of common ancestor, the ability to interbreed, and not to mention the much greater degree of anatomical similarity.


MarkB said:


> Except that it can, and in real-world usage does, refer to far narrower things - like nationality, or even just family lines. Two people can have different parentage and both be elves.



If both of those people have an elf parent, they both have elf parentage. If one of them does not have an elf parent, they aren’t an elf.


MarkB said:


> Species conveys the sense of the difference between elves and dwarves more clearly than Parentage.



It literally doesn’t though. That’s exactly the problem. Species means something specific, and the difference between elves and dwarves is not that thing. Using the term species for elves and dwarves communicates the wrong idea about what the relationship between elves and dwarves is like.


----------



## MarkB

Charlaquin said:


> If both of those people have an elf parent, they both have elf parentage. If one of them does not have an elf parent, they aren’t an elf.



Again, though, this is not how we use the term in the real world. If someone asks you your parentage, is your answer going to be "human"?

If a DM had an NPC ask, in-character, "what species are you?", would you have any doubt what they were asking?


----------



## Xamnam

I do think whatever term is used in the rulebook doesn't necessarily need to correspond to how folk would talk to each other in game, but personally, it'd be better if it did.


----------



## Shiroiken

Ancestry is probably best, but I'd understand if they didn't want to look like they're copying Piazo's Pathfinder. Lineage works second best, as it already fits their "custom lineage" terminology from Tasha's.


----------



## Yaarel

Comparing Norse nature spirits:

• "humans" (menn*)
•  "corpses" (náir)
• æsir
• jǫtnar
• vanir
• alfar
• dvergar

The jǫtnar divide into:

• trǫll
• risar
• þursar
• huldrar



The terms used for members of these nature spirits are:

• "lineage" (ætt) = literally "direction", heredity, family
• "kind" (kyn) = species
• "kindred" (kyn) = family
• "people" (fólk) = household, people of a home
• "known of" (kunnigr)
• "known one of" (kunnr)
• "kith" (kunni) = friends and family, loved one


*Note: Properly, menn means "humans", including males and females. The term for "adult males" is karlar.


----------



## Hriston

I prefer _people _and would vote for it if it were on the poll.

I also think _folk _and _kind _are okay but not as good as _people._

ETA: In the same vein as _kind, _I think _type _would work just as well and has precedent as the term used in _Chainmail._


----------



## Charlaquin

MarkB said:


> Again, though, this is not how we use the term in the real world. If someone asks you your parentage, is your answer going to be "human"?



Again, the difference between smorps is not analogous to the difference between species, so this question is a nonsequitur.


MarkB said:


> If a DM had an NPC ask, in-character, "what species are you?", would you have any doubt what they were asking?



No, but nor would I have any doubt if they asked that of any of these things, if they were to replace the term race.


----------



## Jack Daniel

For standard D&D, I like "species" a lot, if only because of how it undermines the "get your science outta my fantasy!" attitude. (The argument could be made that it's just doubling down on the bioessentialism, but that's not a problem with the word chosen, that's a problem with properly sorting abilities between species and background.)

That said, in my own campaigns, I use the term "kindreds" for most playable nonhumans, because "kindred" has sort of a fairytale feel to it. Or rather, it has a sort of pseudo hippie new age occult-section-in-a-Barnes-&-Noble neo-pagan modern edgy retcon-the-fae feel to it. And that's the vibe I want to shoot for with my elves, dwarves, goblins, ogres, centaurs, etc.


----------



## Tonguez

Lineage is my favourite as it allows tracing of traits from parents (for half races), Ancestry for similar reasons. Kin is okayish and works with Kinsfolk*

i like Heritage for cultural background packages

Folk would be okay if not for Volkisch and Kindred has WoD baggage


----------



## Yaarel

With regard to D&D "ancestries" (?), I think of them in the exact same way that I think of Artificial Intelligence. In some ways, strictly not human, but in other ways, quite human.

If achieving actual consciousness, then whatever taxonomy hypothetically applies to future "species" of AI entities, would also apply to the D&D "ancestries".


----------



## Cadence

RE: Ancestry

Is "ancestry" also commonly used to describe national origins IRL?   So "I'm of German ancestry."   But a  person of German ancestry (maybe 3/4 of whose ancestors emigrated from Germany a century and a half ago and the rest are from somewhere else) might very well not consider themselves German, but rather whatever their new country is.  Saying one is of Elvish ancestry in this context would mean that they actually are an Elf, right?  Or maybe Half-Elf I guess?   Is the half-Elf of Elvish and Human ancestry?  Or are they of Half-Elvish ancestry?


----------



## Clint_L

The funny thing is, I bet this same debate played out on an email string at WotC.

Too bad they didn't know about schmorp.


----------



## Tonguez

Cadence said:


> RE: Ancestry
> 
> Is "ancestry" also commonly used to describe national origins IRL?   So "I'm of German ancestry."   But a  person of German ancestry (maybe 3/4 of whose ancestors emigrated from Germany a century and a half ago and the rest are from somewhere else) might very well not consider themselves German, but rather whatever their new country is.  Saying one is of Elvish ancestry in this context would mean that they actually are an Elf, right?  Or maybe Half-Elf I guess?   Is the half-Elf of Elvish and Human ancestry?  Or are they of Half-Elvish ancestry?




eg Dalelands human with elfish ancestry?

My Ancestry is Durpari Asmodean Tiefling-Sapphire Dragonborn with hagblood Lineage.


----------



## Charlaquin

BookTenTiger said:


> WotC: "We accidentally changed 'species' to 'schmorp' on the latest playtest and it got 80% approval..."



I think that would become a Boaty McBoatface situation.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> RE: Ancestry
> 
> Is "ancestry" also commonly used to describe national origins IRL?   So "I'm of German ancestry."   But a  person of German ancestry (maybe 3/4 of whose ancestors emigrated from Germany a century and a half ago and the rest are from somewhere else) might very well not consider themselves German, but rather whatever their new country is.  Saying one is of Elvish ancestry in this context would mean that they actually are an Elf, right?  Or maybe Half-Elf I guess?   Is the half-Elf of Elvish and Human ancestry?  Or are they of Half-Elvish ancestry?



Assuming the term Ancestry were to get adopted, I’d say they’re “mixed ancestry,” but in game jargon terms, their Ancestry would be the one the player chose the ancestry features from.


----------



## glass

Charlaquin said:


> That’s exactly the problem. Species means something specific, and the difference between elves and dwarves is not that thing.



It is exactly that thing.



Charlaquin said:


> but in game jargon terms, their Ancestry would be the one the player chose the ancestry features from.



This is the issue with all the terms on the list except species; they are jargon. Whereas species is what they are in plain English, which makes it the clear winner IMNSHO. Now I have no problem with jargon, but 5e is supposed to be the natural language edition....


----------



## King Babar

For me, Ancestry edges out Species because it has a good adjective form with Ancestral. And because it sounds a bit more fantastic.

Then again I never really had problems with Race, but I'm not going to mourn it's removal.


----------



## Charlaquin

glass said:


> It is exactly that thing.
> This is the issue with all the terms on the list except species; they are jargon. Whereas species is what they are in plain English, which makes it the clear winner IMNSHO. Now I have no problem with jargon, 5e is supposed to be the natural language edition....



Species is also jargon. No matter what term you use, it’s shorthand for “the game element that gives you a particular package of abilities.” And no, the word species, in English, does not mean what they are in the fiction. Again, real-world taxonomy doesn’t apply to D&D.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Species is also jargon. No matter what term you use, it’s shorthand for “the game element that gives you a particular package of abilities.” And no, the word species, in English, does not mean what they are in the fiction. Again, real-world taxonomy doesn’t apply to D&D.




Do any of the words suggested mean exactly what race was used for in D&D?  It feels like they don't, which makes me want to ask which is closest.

I get that species sounds too science/sci-fi for some. But I'm still a bit befuddled on what confusion "species" would cause someone playing D&D (assuming they knew that hybridization and interbreeding between some IRL species in the same genus is fairly common IRL)?  I get that someone who doesn't know the IRL science would be confused (but then learning some science might be a good thing). And I get that what divisions between some species (or lack of division) are things scientists who specialize in that argue about (which is also something that is probably good if everyone knew).

What are mules in your D&D world and why?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Species I think captures the meaning of race in D&D most. I still think it sounds a little odd in a fantasy setting to me, but stuff life ancestry and bloodlines, that seems to get just as bad as the problems people have with race (personally I think the word race is being used differently in D&D so it doesn't bother me, but I understand where the discomfort around it comes from: I just think if race bothers you other stuff that has been used by racists and racialist science should also be a potential issue for you). Something like bloodline gets very much into the idea of human breeding for example (reminds me of the racist character in the Great Gatsby). But to me the bigger issue than the term is what the term signifies. I have always felt it indicated something more like the different between humans and neanderthals, so having mechanics to back up that difference makes sense and keeps the world interesting. But things seem to be moving it more towards a meaning like culture, where there isn't any kind of real physiological differences that are expressed in a mechanical way, just differences that are more close to cultural differences and vary more from individual groups of elves, dwarves, etc. I don't play 5E so I might be misunderstanding the direction things have gone in the latest announcements. I am sort of looking at this from the outside. But for me, whatever they call it, I prefer it to remain mechanically the way it was before where being a halfling gave you certain modifiers and abilities, being an elf gave you certain modifiers and abilities, etc. Some kind of mechanical distinction that keeps choosing your race and your class as these simple but meaningful choices at character creation.


----------



## glass

Charlaquin said:


> And no, the word species, in English, does not mean what they are in the fiction.



You can keep saying that, but it won't make it any more true.



Charlaquin said:


> Again, real-world taxonomy doesn’t apply to D&D.



True, but irrelevant. The word species predates "real-world taxonomy" as it is currently understood by centuries. And real-world taxonomies only do not cover things like shardminds and gibbering mouthers because they do not exist. If they did, they would absolutely be called species in plain English, if not in technical cladistic terms.


----------



## Bedrockgames

glass said:


> You can keep saying that, but it won't make it any more true.
> 
> 
> True, but irrelevant. The word species predates "real-world taxonomy" as it is currently understood by centuries. And real-world taxonomies only do not cover things like shardminds and gibbering mouthers because they do not exist. If they did, they would absolutely be called species in plain English, if not in technical cladistic terms.




I think its fine. I mean it might have more particular meanings scientifically, but as an indication for a game of large differences between humanoids it seems fine to me (my quibbles about it feeling a bit off for fantasy aside, which are probably more a legacy of its long usage in the genre). Like I said in my last post, I think of dwaves and elves as different from one another and from humans, as humans were from neanderthals. My understanding, which could be wrong as I am not particularly knowledgeable about biology, is humans and neanderthals were the same genus but different species. So it seems to align okay. I do get there is debate around that, and some of it has to do with the definition of species. But I also think for a game that involved scientific debate isn't really that important if we are just trying to find a way of classifying different human-like options


----------



## Corinnguard

I choose Ancestry, Bloodline, Lineage and Heritage. To me, replacing the word Race with Species sounds like a pretty odd to do for a fantasy setting like D&D. The name change is more appropriate for a science fiction setting like Star Trek or a Sci Fantasy setting like Starfinder. As for the four I picked here, they don't just refer to a given population of humans, elves, etc as a whole, they are also more personal for the character. If you are playing a human, then your ancestors were _obviously _human (given the number of beings humans can breed with in D&D). If you are a Noble person, Bloodline and Lineage mean a lot to you socially and culturally. Ditto if you are a sorcerer with a Sorcerous Bloodline. As for Heritage, it's like Ancestry. It's something you inherited from your parents. 

That said, I think One D&D should go for Heritage or Ancestry.


----------



## Galandris

MarkB said:


> Really? Someone points to a cat and asks you what it's parentage is, you're going to assume they're asking you to differentiate between it and a dog or a bird, rather than between it and other cats?




I'd assume I am asked about his pedigree and I'll show the documentation about it.


----------



## Scars Unseen

Species is so awkward for any use other than its noun form.  "Special" is the adjective form, but referring to "special abilities" would get confusing really quickly.  Which I suppose is on brand for 5E.

I begrudgingly acknowledge that "ancestry" has _almost_ as much utility as "race" for both in-world and game jargon purposes.  I still think "race" is more plainly understood, but if it's got to change to something, "ancestry" is my second choice.


----------



## Galandris

Cadence said:


> Is "ancestry" also commonly used to describe national origins IRL?   So "I'm of German ancestry."   But a  person of German ancestry (maybe 3/4 of whose ancestors emigrated from Germany a century and a half ago and the rest are from somewhere else) might very well not consider themselves German, but rather whatever their new country is.  Saying one is of Elvish ancestry in this context would mean that they actually are an Elf, right?  Or maybe Half-Elf I guess?   Is the half-Elf of Elvish and Human ancestry?  Or are they of Half-Elvish ancestry?




Or a human could be of Elvish ancestry. Ar-Pharazon has Elvish ancestry, yet he's definitely considered human. Or Isildur, about whom Elrond says : "Men are weak. The race of Men is failing." While a little off with regard to the vocabulary, he could have said "The species of Men is failing". I am not convinced he could have says "The Ancestry of Men is failing" or "Those whose Ancestry is Human are failing." Especially in his particular situation.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Do any of the words suggested mean exactly what race was used for in D&D?  It feels like they don't, which makes me want to ask which is closest.



I stand by parentage meaning exactly the way race was used. But I do think ancestry sounds better. People also works pretty perfectly.


Cadence said:


> I get that species sounds too science/sci-fi for some.



The problem for me isn’t that it sounds too sci-fi, it’s that the word species is part of a system that organizes life forms by their evolutionary branch from a common ancestor, which just isn’t how it works in D&D.


Cadence said:


> But I'm still a bit befuddled on what confusion "species" would cause someone playing D&D (assuming they knew that hybridization and interbreeding between some IRL species in the same genus is fairly common IRL)?



I don’t think confusion is the problem. I think the problem is that the word species implies something about the relationships between the peoples of D&D that isn’t lore-accurate. Dwarves are not to elves as dogs are to cats.


Cadence said:


> I get that someone who doesn't know the IRL science would be confused (but then learning some science might be a good thing). And I get that what divisions between some species (or lack of division) are things scientists who specialize in that argue about (which is also something that is probably good if everyone knew).
> 
> What are mules in your D&D world and why?



The interbreeding thing really isn’t the problem, it’s just _illustrative of_ the problem. This is why I keep bringing up the common ancestor thing. All life on Earth is related through evolution from a single common ancestor. Life forms that are more distantly related are _typically_ less similar (though there are cases of convergent evolution where very distantly related species develop similar traits), and it is usually only very closely related species that can interbreed. In D&D? None of that is the case. Life forms are directly created by gods or magic, and have no evolutionary relationship to other created life forms, yet they can interbreed freely. The entire taxonomic system just makes absolutely no sense to apply to D&D.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> I think it’s fine. I mean it might have more particular meanings scientifically, but as an indication for a game of large differences between humanoids it seems fine to me (my quibbles about it feeling a bit off for fantasy aside, which are probably more a legacy of its long usage in the genre). Like I said in my last post, I think of dwaves and elves as different from one another and from humans, as humans were from neanderthals. My understanding, which could be wrong as I am not particularly knowledgeable about biology, is humans and neanderthals were the same genus but different species. So it seems to align okay. I do get there is debate around that, and some of it has to do with the definition of species. But I also think for a game that involved scientific debate isn't really that important if we are just trying to find a way of classifying different human-like options



The thing is, elves, dwarves, and humans wouldn’t even be different genera. They wouldn’t even be different _kingdoms._ They would be entire different _trees of life_ because they don’t share a common ancestor.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

I favor "People" (as in : "The Free Peoples of Central Earth"). But not on the poll, so would take Ancestry or Heritage.

Or, you know, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling classes.  Though you have to rename the last two since they define themselves in relation to humans, which is specist.


----------



## Charlaquin

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> I favor "People" (as in : "The Free Peoples of Central Earth"). But not on the poll, so would take Ancestry or Heritage.
> 
> Or, you know, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling classes.  Though you have to rename the last two since they define themselves in relation to humans, which is specist.



People would also be my first choice, but it is a bit more unwieldy. What’s the adjective form, popular?


----------



## Lidgar

BookTenTiger said:


> I'm sorry, where is schmorp???



This.


----------



## Hriston

Charlaquin said:


> People would also be my first choice, but it is a bit more unwieldy. What’s the adjective form, popular?



Yes, _popular _in the sense of _societal_, _public_, or _group _(used as an adjective), not in the sense of "well liked".


----------



## Charlaquin

Hriston said:


> Yes, _popular _in the sense of _societal_, _public_, or _group _(used as an adjective), not in the sense of "well liked".



Yeah, that’s what I thought. Has the same problem as species -> special, in that both are correct but are likely to call to mind their more common meanings. You could get around that by saying “features granted by your species/people” instead of “youe special/popular features.” But “Your ancestral features” is definitely cleaner.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> The problem for me isn’t that it sounds too sci-fi, it’s that the word species is part of a system that organizes life forms by their evolutionary branch from a common ancestor, which just isn’t how it works in D&D.




Species used to designate different types of animals predates Darwin by over two centuries.  I assume it is used by most of the 40% (or whatever) of Americans who don't believe mankind arose by evolution?  If it works as a term for Lamarck, Darwin, and many modern  creationists, it felt ok for whatever is going on in D&D to me.  Once told the Dwarves were created by Moradin, it doesn't feel to me like calling them species would make people think they weren't evolved from something else.  [Insert link to digression on "kind" vs. "species"].




> All life on Earth is related through evolution from a single common ancestor.




I'm guessing that's disputed by the approx 40% of Americans I mention above. 




> Life forms are directly created by gods or magic, and have no evolutionary relationship to other created life forms, yet they can interbreed freely. The entire taxonomic system just makes absolutely no sense to apply to D&D.




In your D&D world and Tolkien's.  And in our world to some.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> The thing is, elves, dwarves, and humans wouldn’t even be different genera. They wouldn’t even be different _kingdoms._ They would be entire different _trees of life_ because they don’t share a common ancestor.



I would say that is setting specific. And a lot of scientific categorizing probably falls apart in a fantasy setting where you have magic, you probably don't even have natural selection (or at least it might not exist) and origins are often mythic rather than biological. But either way, I just think the basic point of having a term people grasp as meaning the difference between creatures like Neanderthals and humans in our planet, is one that works for what demihumans are meant to be. Species seems to do that. I guess my point here is elves and humans aren't different in the way existing human groups are different on earth, they are more like the difference between a chimpanzee and a gorilla. The issue is we don't live in a world where there are multiple sapient humanoid species. It is something of a creative leap to imagine what that means. I think race had become the established term for what that was, though I always saw it as separate from the real world meanings of race (clearly an elf isn't meant to be something like a different human racial or ethnic group as we've historically thought of). So if the idea is race is an issue and they need a new word, species seems the closest approximation. The issue with words like ancestry is then you are just basically drawing on a fairly minor and superficial difference between human groups (like the difference between being born in Italy versus England, or China versus Spain). To me that doesn't quite capture how different elves are meant to be than humans.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> I stand by parentage meaning exactly the way race was used. But I do think ancestry sounds better. People also works pretty perfectly.




Ancestry sounds better to me in terms of actual sound.  But I wonder if it's common use in genealogy (going with nationality or ethnicity) will end up being problematic.  And so I wonder if that's one the sensitivity readers will nike.

Parentage is growing a tiny bit on me, but things can share being an Elf or Dwarf or Human without having common parents anywhere along the way.  (Unless Moradin just made two dwarves to start.  I know that's not how it worked in Tolkien).  

People sounds better than parentage to me, and has the benefit of seeming like it grants a moral status.  (Although it then leaves non-people not having that).   Is people often used for ethnicities too?


----------



## Xamnam

Parentage also gets a little thorny the second you start thinking about adoption or found families. There are people who would not want that word to intrinsically mean biological.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Cadence said:


> People sounds better than parentage to me, and has the benefit of seeming like it grants a moral status.  (Although it then leaves non-people not having that).   Is people often used for ethnicities too?




People or people is used for ethnicities and national groups usually, and can also indicate tribes or people who live in a particular area.


----------



## glass

Scars Unseen said:


> Species is so awkward for any use other than its noun form. "Special" is the adjective form, but referring to "special abilities" would get confusing really quickly



"Species" itself works fine as an adjective form. "Species traits" etc.



Charlaquin said:


> The thing is, elves, dwarves, and humans wouldn’t even be different genera. They wouldn’t even be different _kingdoms._ They would be entire different _trees of life_ because they don’t share a common ancestor.



Maybe in you campaign, but that is not universally true. And even if it was, it would still be irrelevant, because you are focusing on one highly technical (and probably slightly outdated) sense of the word "species", when there are other senses that fit exactly.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Species is fine. It sounds a tad too modern, but it actually isn't and we'll get used to it. And whilst not perfect, it actually communicates pretty well what we are talking about. Heritage, ancestry, lineage, bloodline, parentage etc all communicate far narrower concept, and connote some sort of human ethnicity or cultural group which is_ the exact thing we are trying to avoid.  _


----------



## Bedrockgames

Crimson Longinus said:


> Species is fine. It sounds a tad too modern, but it actually isn't and we'll get used to it. And whilst not perfect, it actually communicates pretty well what we are talking about. Heritage, ancestry, lineage, bloodline, parentage etc all communicate far narrower concept, and connote some sort of human ethnicity or cultural group which is_ the exact thing we are trying to avoid.  _




And I don't have any issue with those terms or the term race if people can understand the distinction between how they are used in fantasy RPGs and literature versus how they are used in regular speech, but I agree, if the point is race is a problem because it gets confused with real world race, then I don't understand why ancestry, heritage, bloodline, lineage etc would be considered an improvement. Species (or at least a term that broad) seems far more appropriate and more accurate to what demihumans are.


----------



## Scribe

Crimson Longinus said:


> Species is fine. It sounds a tad too modern, but it actually isn't and we'll get used to it.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I don't want any 'jargon' to replace it. I will be content with a word.


----------



## Bill Zebub

King Babar said:


> For me, Ancestry edges out Species because it has a good adjective form with Ancestral. And because it sounds a bit more fantastic.
> 
> Then again I never really had problems with Race, but I'm not going to mourn it's removal.




What about:

"What's the actual difference between elves and dwarves?"
"It's specious."


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Species used to designate different types of animals predates Darwin by over two centuries.  I assume it is used by most of the 40% (or whatever) of Americans who don't believe mankind arose by evolution?  If it works as a term for Lamarck, Darwin, and many modern  creationists, it felt ok for whatever is going on in D&D to me.  Once told the Dwarves were created by Moradin, it doesn't feel to me like calling them species would make people think they weren't evolved from something else.  [Insert link to digression on "kind" vs. "species"].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that's disputed by the approx 40% of Americans I mention above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your D&D world and Tolkien's.  And in our world to some.



Those people are provably wrong, and I don’t think we should feel any obligation to cater our language use to them.


----------



## delericho

I went for 'folk'. I would tend to prefer it _not _be something like 'ancestry', 'heritage', 'lineage', or the like, as these all imply a line of progenitors - which doesn't fit for warforged and similar.

That said, I'm sure I can live with whatever is chosen.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> I would say that is setting specific. And a lot of scientific categorizing probably falls apart in a fantasy setting where you have magic, you probably don't even have natural selection (or at least it might not exist) and origins are often mythic rather than biological. But either way, I just think the basic point of having a term people grasp as meaning the difference between creatures like Neanderthals and humans in our planet, is one that works for what demihumans are meant to be. Species seems to do that.



That’s exactly the problem. The difference between elves and dwarves is not like the difference between Neanderthals and humans.


Bedrockgames said:


> I guess my point here is elves and humans aren't different in the way existing human groups are different on earth, they are more like the difference between a chimpanzee and a gorilla.



They aren’t like either, which is exactly why both terms fail.


Bedrockgames said:


> The issue is we don't live in a world where there are multiple sapient humanoid species. It is something of a creative leap to imagine what that means. I think race had become the established term for what that was, though I always saw it as separate from the real world meanings of race (clearly an elf isn't meant to be something like a different human racial or ethnic group as we've historically thought of). So if the idea is race is an issue and they need a new word, species seems the closest approximation. The issue with words like ancestry is then you are just basically drawing on a fairly minor and superficial difference between human groups (like the difference between being born in Italy versus England, or China versus Spain). To me that doesn't quite capture how different elves are meant to be than humans.



It very literally captures the difference. If your ancestors were elves, you’re an elf. If your ancestors were dwarves, you’re a dwarf. It is very much like the differences between human groups in that way.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Those people are provably wrong, and I don’t think we should feel any obligation to cater our language use to them.




I wasn't going for whether it is right or wrong, just that the term has a long and ongoing history of not being used for what you say it must be.  If it patently went hundreds of years not meaning common descent to most folks (it feels like otherwise Darwin's title was a nothing burger) and still doesn't to a huge chunk of people, the maybe the word isn't that bad?

Will anyone who is told Dwarves were created by Moradin by the DM still insist they're phylogentically related to Elves?  Do several folks on here who weren't told Halflings were specially created want them to be just short.humans or variant gnomes even though race is used?


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> It very literally captures the difference. If your ancestors were elves, you’re an elf. If your ancestors were dwarves, you’re a dwarf. It is very much like the differences between human groups in that way.




And ascribing far reaching physical or mental traits or abilities based on ancestry, such as ethnicity or nationality or "race" IRL is usually bad, right? (His ancestors are dwarves, they're built for mining because they can sense stone.  His ancestors are elves, they're innately magical because they come from faeirie,.  His ancestors are real world ethnic group, <bail out, bail out>.)

And so ancestry is feeling worse and worse to me the more it comes up once it doesn't have race standing next to it stealing all the spotlight

I guess you're making me kind of like parentage more since it only goes back one generation. Is that a bit Lamarckian?


----------



## GMMichael

XP for the extensive list.  Schmorp should be added to it.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> And ascribing far reaching physical or mental traits or abilities based on ancestry, such as ethnicity or nationality or "race" IRL is usually bad, right? (His ancestors are dwarves, they're built for mining because they can sense stone.  His ancestors are elves, they're innately magical because they come from faeirie,.  His ancestors are real world ethnic group, <bail out, bail out>.)



I mean, if that’s a problem then inborn features in general are a problem. It doesn’t matter what you call it, that’s how [not-race] works in D&D.


Cadence said:


> And so ancestry is feeling worse and worse to me the more it comes up once it doesn't have race standing next to it stealing all the spotlight



I don’t see the issue, personally.


Cadence said:


> I guess you're making me kind of like parentage more since it only goes back one generation. Is that a bit Lamarckian?



I mean yeah, but [not-race] _is_ a bit Lamarckian.

I’m actually starting to think heritage may be the best option. That’s ultimately what we’re talking about, right? WotC had already only been using the word “race” to refer to the package of mechanical abilities. The ones that the character _inherited_ from one or both of their parents.


----------



## Hriston

@Yaarel, would it be too much to ask to put _People _on the poll as an option? It tied for third with _Folk _on this poll two years ago behind _Species _and _Ancestry. _There were 139 respondents 36 of which chose _People _as one of their preferred terms.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> I wasn't going for whether it is right or wrong, just that the term has a long and ongoing history of not being used for what you say it must be.  If it patently went hundreds of years not meaning common descent to most folks (it feels like otherwise Darwin's title was a nothing burger) and still doesn't to a huge chunk of people, the maybe the word isn't that bad?
> 
> Will anyone who is told Dwarves were created by Moradin by the DM still insist they're phylogentically related to Elves?  Do several folks on here who weren't told Halflings were specially created want them to be just short.humans or variant gnomes even though race is used?



I dunno, people who are advocating for the use of species keep saying the relationship between elves and dwarves is like that between dogs and cats. So there definitely seems to be a correlation between using the term species for [not-races] and misunderstanding their relationship.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> I dunno, people who are advocating for the use of species keep saying the relationship between elves and dwarves is like that between dogs and cats. So there definitely seems to be a correlation between using the term species for [not-races] and misunderstanding their relationship.



It is like cats and dogs. Sure, in a fantasy worlds cats and dogs might have been created rather than evolved, but that's really besides the point.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> I mean, if that’s a problem then inborn features in general are a problem. It doesn’t matter what you call it, that’s how [not-race] works in D&D.




Different species IRL have different inborn features.  It feels like different IRL nationalities, cultures, and ethnicities having them is a bad road.

Except for implying to you common descent and sounding too sci-fi, does species have any other flaws? (If it is ok except for those two it gives me a direction to ponder).




> I’m actually starting to think heritage may be the best option. That’s ultimately what we’re talking about, right? WotC had already only been using the word “race” to refer to the package of mechanical abilities. The ones that the character _inherited_ from one or both of their parents.




I wonder if "heritage not hate' about the confederate battle flag  has left that one a bit charged (at least enough a sensitivity reader might flag it)?[/QUOTE]


----------



## Charlaquin

Crimson Longinus said:


> It is like cats and dogs. Sure, in a fantasy worlds cats and dogs might have been created rather than evolved, but that's really besides the point.



It isn’t though. Like, at all. Cats and dogs share a common ancestor, elves and dwarves don’t. Cats and dogs can’t interbreed, elves and dwarves can. Cats and dogs have significant anatomical differences, elves and dwarves are broadly anatomically similar, with only a slight difference in average size and a few minor superficial differences. Apart from the common ancestor part, elves and dwarves are more like different breeds of dog than like cats and dogs.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Different species IRL have different inborn features.  It feels like different IRL nationalities, cultures, and ethnicities having them is a bad road.



D&D [not-races] aren’t like species or ethnicities. They’re their own, fantasy thing.


Cadence said:


> Except for implying to you common descent and sounding too sci-fi, does species have any other flaws? (If it is ok except for those two it gives me a direction to ponder).



Yes, because it either implies that the evil, dark-skinned drow are an entirely different species than the good, pale-skinned high elves, or that they’re both subspecies of elf. Either way, it’s a gross implication.


Cadence said:


> I wonder if "heritage not hate' about the confederate battle flag  has left that one a bit charged (at least enough a sensitivity reader might flag it)?



I dunno, nobody seems to have a problem with PF2 using the word heritage for its sub-ancestries.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> It isn’t though. Like, at all. Cats and dogs share a common ancestor, elves and dwarves don’t. Cats and dogs can’t interbreed, elves and dwarves can. Cats and dogs have significant anatomical differences, elves and dwarves are broadly anatomically similar, with only a slight difference in average size and a few minor superficial differences. Apart from the common ancestor part, elves and dwarves are more like different breeds of dog than like cats and dogs.



Elves and dwarves might have common ancestor and cats and dogs might be created depending on the setting's lore. Also, elves and dwarves traditionally do not interbreed. But sure, both are probably hominids, so it might be more analogous to tigers and lions etc. 

In any case, I really don't get what your hung-up is. It has been stated many times that the term species to describe groups of living creatures is fat older than the current taxonomical system.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> Yes, because it either implies that the evil, dark-skinned drow are an entirely different species than the good, pale-skinned high elves, or that they’re both subspecies of elf. Either way, it’s a gross implication.



I agree with you on this. I really think they should do away with "subspecies" and write the main species to be flexible and let them have different ethnicities and cultures. Drow are just dark skinned elves that live underground. They don't need to be "subspecies" any more than different human cultures and ethnicities. It has always bugged be how cultural and ethnic diversity among non-humans is handled super weirdly in D&D and would be highly inappropriate if the same was applied to humans.


----------



## Charlaquin

Crimson Longinus said:


> Elves and dwarves might have common ancestor and cats and dogs might be created depending on the setting's lore.



Well in real life, cats and dogs do have a common ancestor, and in the lore in the D&D PHB, elves and dwarves don’t.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Also, elves and dwarves traditionally do not interbreed.



It’s entirely possible under the rules in the playtest.


Crimson Longinus said:


> But sure, both are probably hominids, so it might be more analogous to tigers and lions etc.



Probably a closer analogy.


Crimson Longinus said:


> In any case, I really don't get what your hung-up is. It has been stated many times that the term species to describe groups of living creatures is fat older than the current taxonomical system.



Because it doesn’t matter what the history of the term is. There’s a specific way it’s used now, and that way does not accurately describe what the thing we’re renaming from race is. Moreover, it creates really strange and uncomfortable implications, like drow and high elves being different species.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Yes, because it either implies that the evil, dark-skinned drow are an entirely different species than the good, pale-skinned high elves, or that they’re both subspecies of elf. Either way, it’s a gross implication.




Aren't there cities of non-evil drow now?  I assume there are cities of evil pale skin high ones somewhere?

In any case, it feels like Drow being the "dark skinned evil ones" isn't somehow less problematic because their parents, heritage, or ancestry involves being dark skinned and evil?



> I dunno, nobody seems to have a problem with PF2 using the word heritage for its sub-ancestries.




I imagine there are lots of smaller games that don't draw the fire D&D does.  For any of the articles bringing up something problematic shared across a bunch of ttrpgs, do the articles and blogs usually target D&D or do they usually cast a wider net?  It feels like a lot of issues hit the big time when a big enough blogger or podcaster or scholar gets traction, and that happens a lot more with the more popular products?


----------



## Charlaquin

Crimson Longinus said:


> I agree with you on this. I really think they should do away with "subspecies" and write the main species to be flexible and let them have different ethnicities and cultures. Drow are just dark skinned elves that live underground. They don't need to be "subspecies" any more than different human cultures and ethnicities. It has always bugged be how cultural and ethnic diversity among non-humans is handled super weirdly in D&D and would be highly inappropriate if the same was applied to humans.



Traditionally, these sub-groups have different features than each other. To make that work mechanically, they need a different construct to deliver the appropriate package of mechanics. I think this is part of why WotC has taken to using the term “race” only to refer to that game construct rather than to the in-universe group. Because whatever you call it, you can’t avoid uncomfortable implications of the mechanical construct is tied to an in-universe line of descent.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Aren't there cities of non-evil drow now?  I assume there are cities of evil pale skin high ones somewhere?



Sure. Drop the “evil” and “good,” and what you’re left with separating high elves from dark elves is akin tone. And that makes them different species? No. That’s not better.


Cadence said:


> In any case, it feels like Drow being the "dark skinned evil ones" isn't somehow less problematic because their parents, heritage, or ancestry involves being dark skinned and evil?



If heritage or ancestry refers to the package of mechanical traits, literally inherited from the character’s parents, as “race” currently refers to, yeah.


Cadence said:


> I imagine there are lots of smaller games that don't draw the fire D&D does.  For any of the articles bringing up something problematic shared across a bunch of ttrpgs, do the articles and blogs usually target D&D or do they usually cast a wider net?  It feels like a lot of issues hit the big time when a big enough blogger or podcaster or scholar gets traction, and that happens a lot more with the more popular products?



I dunno, I think Pathfinder is big enough to draw attention. Maybe I’m wrong about that.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> Well in real life, cats and dogs do have a common ancestor, and in the lore in the D&D PHB, elves and dwarves don’t.



But do cats and dogs in D&D have common ancestor? Are you also opposed referring cats and dogs in D&D as being different species?



Charlaquin said:


> It’s entirely possible under the rules in the playtest.



It probably is just simplification to cover all sort of "wizard did it" cases and custom lore. But in established settings half-dwarves are not a thing, except in Dark Sun and they explicitly are sterile.


Charlaquin said:


> Probably a closer analogy.



Some species are more closely related, some more distantly related. Doesn't really change the utility of the term. 



Charlaquin said:


> Because it doesn’t matter what the history of the term is. There’s a specific way it’s used now, and that way does not accurately describe what the thing we’re renaming from race is.



It does reflect it_ far more accurately_ than the other proposed terms.



Charlaquin said:


> Moreover, it creates really strange and uncomfortable implications, like drow and high elves being different species.



That is unfortunate, but really not improved by alternate terms. The issue with the drow really isn't about semantics.



Charlaquin said:


> Traditionally, these sub-groups have different features than each other. To make that work mechanically, they need a different construct to deliver the appropriate package of mechanics. I think this is part of why WotC has taken to using the term “race” only to refer to that game construct rather than to the in-universe group. Because whatever you call it, you can’t avoid uncomfortable implications of the mechanical construct is tied to an in-universe line of descent.



And that's why they should stop doing this. Write the species rules to be flexible so that they can reflect different subgroups.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Sure. Drop the “evil” and “good,” and what you’re left with separating high elves from dark elves is akin tone. And that makes them different species? No. That’s not better.




I agree.  If species is used, I'd do in the subgroup distinctions of all the classic D&D races. Describe their variety of appearances like the variety of human appearance should be described. [Edit: And probably if any other term is used to.]



> If heritage or ancestry refers to the package of mechanical traits, literally inherited from the character’s parents, as “race” currently refers to, yeah.




As you note words have real world uses and connotations.  Hispanic heritage month and Native American heritage month are both things in the US (presidential proclamations and all).  I'm pretty sure we aren't going to ask what mechanical trait differences people classified as Hispanic or Native American get for their heritages.   I have to believe one of the sensitivity readers will at least bring it up.


----------



## Charlaquin

Crimson Longinus said:


> But do cats and dogs in D&D have common ancestor?



Who cares?


Crimson Longinus said:


> Are you also opposed referring cats and dogs in D&D as being different species?



No.


Crimson Longinus said:


> It probably is just simplification to cover all sort of "wizard did it" cases and custom lore. But in established settings half-dwarves are not a thing, except in Dark Sun and they explicitly are sterile.



I don’t think it’s implied anywhere that any particular combination needs to be through non-sexual means.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Some species are more closely related, some more distantly related. Doesn't really change the utility of the term.



No, but the term’s utility does not, in my opinion, extend to describing D&D [not-races].


Crimson Longinus said:


> It does reflect it_ far more accurately_ than the other proposed terms.



It really, _really_ doesn’t though.


Crimson Longinus said:


> That is unfortunate, but really not improved by alternate terms. The issue with the drow really isn't about semantics.



Sure it is. A Drow character literally does have different parents, ancestors, and inherited traits than a high elf does.


Crimson Longinus said:


> And that's why they should stop doing this. Write the species rules to be flexible so that they can reflect different subgroups.



Maybe. I think some of the differences we currently have would be hard to execute that way, but maybe it would be worth a try.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> Who cares?



Not me, but given that you care about whether elves and dwarves do, I'd assume you would.



Charlaquin said:


> No.



Why? They after all might not have common ancestor in this world, and might even been created by different gods, thus according to you rendering the term species inaccurate!



Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think it’s implied anywhere that any particular combination needs to be through non-sexual means.



I don't think there is sufficient lore or though to go by to make any extensive conclusions. This is matter of setting lore anyway.



Charlaquin said:


> No, but the term’s utility does not, in my opinion, extend to describing D&D [not-races].
> 
> It really, _really_ doesn’t though.



And I disagree. It is a word that describes groups of creatures with significant physical differences. That's what we are really dealing with here.



Charlaquin said:


> Sure it is. A Drow character literally does have different parents, ancestors, and inherited traits than a high elf does.



But one high elf also has different parents and possibly different ancestors than another high elf. Though if we go far enough back they will have same ancestors than the drow! If I was asked about my parentage, ancestry or heritage, I would not answer human. If I was asked about my species I would.



Charlaquin said:


> Maybe. I think some of the differences we currently have would be hard to execute that way, but maybe it would be worth a try.



Considering how radically they're rewriting the species rules it would be pretty simple, especially as there is no reason that every exact rule minutiae needs to be retained.


----------



## Hriston

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, that’s what I thought. Has the same problem as species -> special, in that both are correct but are likely to call to mind their more common meanings. You could get around that by saying “features granted by your species/people” instead of “youe special/popular features.” But “Your ancestral features” is definitely cleaner.



I suppose one could sub in _folk _as the adjective used in association with _people, _e.g.: "Your character's people grants certain folk traits." _Folk _doesn't really have a singular noun usage in common English, contrary to what this poll suggests. It isn't correct in English to speak of "a folk". It's always plural.

My dislike of using _ancestry _as the term to replace _race _is it's a bit vague exactly what it's describing. Some people might share so-and-so as a common ancestor and thus share that part of their ancestry with one another, but might also identify with and belong to entirely different ethnic groupings.


----------



## Cadence

I kind of wonder if the escape is to have everything be people, but have it where someone can be plane/spirit/magic touched by one thing if they want.  If you want something like an elf pick fae-touched; genasi, tiefling, ardling, and aasimar are just what they are; not sure what a dwarf was touched by, ale?

[I mean, yes, it changes the whole game, but I'm wondering if that works at all.]


----------



## overgeeked

I prefer ancestry to species but prefer species to the rest, including race.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Cadence said:


> I kind of wonder if the escape is to have everything be people, but have it where someone can be plane/spirit/magic touched by one thing if they want.  If you want something like an elf pick fae-touched, genasi, tiefling, ardling, and aasimar are easy, not sure what a dwarf was touched by, ale?
> 
> [I mean, yes, it changes the whole game, but I'm wondering if that works at all.]



I was thinking at some point that genasi should be a feat. This of course would require that everyone gets a feat at first level. There could be other "origin feats" too that you can choose to layer on top of your species for extra weirdness.


----------



## Cadence

Crimson Longinus said:


> I was thinking at some point that genasi should be a feat. This of course would require that everyone gets a feat at first level. There could be other "origin feats" too that you can choose to layer on top of your species for extra weirdness.



I mean, why can't there be a genasi dragonborn or tiefling gnome?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Cadence said:


> I mean, why can't there be a genasi dragonborn or tiefling gnome?



Yeah, exactly!


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> That’s exactly the problem. The difference between elves and dwarves is not like the difference between Neanderthals and humans.




I would disagree. There is certainly a greater degree of variation to be found (elves living for hundreds to thousands of years for example). To me a dwarf and human are roughly approximate to that kind of difference. Obviously this is in a world where magic exists, so supernatural differences also exist here.


----------



## Jack Daniel

I vote against "schmorp." Sounds too much like _Hello from the Magic Tavern's_ Smorps.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> It very literally captures the difference. If your ancestors were elves, you’re an elf. If your ancestors were dwarves, you’re a dwarf. It is very much like the differences between human groups in that way.




But the difference between elves and humans isn't like the difference between human ancestries. There isn't really a substantive difference between people who are born here or born over there; there is a substantive difference between humans and elves. Also this argument could work for anything.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> They aren’t like either, which is exactly why both terms fail.



Again, I would disagree. They aren't similar to gorillas and chimpanzees, but the difference between them is similar to the difference between those two species. We can quibble obviously. My point is it works to describe the kind of difference we are talking about between the different demihuman races. I mean you are talking about groups with vastly different physical characteristics, age limits, senses, inherent magical abilities etc. That is a kind of difference that is more akin to the difference between species than it is to the differences between human groups (who don't really have differences: you wouldn't give modifiers based on ethnicity for example, but you might give a modifier for someone being a Neanderthal rather than a human of our type).


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> But the difference between elves and humans isn't like the difference between human ancestries. There isn't really a substantive difference between people who are born here or born over there; there is a substantive difference between humans and elves.



Is there? Elves are, what, a bit slimmer on average and have pointy ears?


Bedrockgames said:


> Also this argument could work for anything.



Doesn’t work for species.


----------



## Scribe

Cadence said:


> I mean, why can't there be a genasi dragonborn or tiefling gnome?




There used to be options similar as I'm sure you are aware. At this point, with the proliferation and continued refinement of the various options present, its starting to look like 'custom X' is going to be the solution for such unions.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> Is there? Elves are, what, a bit slimmer on average and have pointy ears?




Yes elves lives way longer than humans do. In most editions of the game they have senses such as infra vision, magic resistance, better physical dexterity than humans, etc. I mean if you just want to reduce elves to being slim humans with pointy ears, you can do that. But that is kind of boring in my opinion.


----------



## Cadence

Scribe said:


> There used to be options similar as I'm sure you are aware. At this point, with the proliferation and continued refinement of the various options present, its starting to look like 'custom X' is going to be the solution for such unions.



I was not (or if I was, I forgot!).  Do you have a favorite I can go google up?  (And probably embarrassedly say I have a copy on my book shelf).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> Doesn’t work for species.




I think at this point, we are just going to disagree on whether this argument works for species. My point wasn't about species by ancestry. You can say anything in the world that evolved, is what it is because its ancestors were what it is, but that feels almost just like a tautology to me. But more importantly, I would say the difference between human ancestors and different species of human, is vast. Ancestry is something people think of as being more like ethnicity. And like I said before, if the point here is to move away from race because that is causing issue for people, then choosing ancestry as the term seems just as bad, if not worse, because it beings you more into blood and soil territory. Again, I am not personally worried about terms like race and ancestry here because I think most people can distinguish between their use in a fantasy RPG and how those terms are used in the real world. I am just saying if we concede race needs to be changed because of its connotations, surely things that also have those kinds of negative connotations would be just as bad (especially if those things suggest, as ancestry would, that the difference between humans and elves, which is vast, is similar to the difference between humans of different ethnicities, which is not vast).


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> Yes elves lives way longer than humans do. In most editions of the game they have senses such as infra vision, magic resistance, better physical dexterity than humans, etc.



So, magical features.


----------



## Scribe

Cadence said:


> I was not (or if I was, I forgot!).  Do you have a favorite I can go google up?  (And probably embarrassedly say I have a copy on my book shelf).




Things like Wisplings.









						Wispling
					

Wisplings were planetouched descended from the breeding of halflings and demons. Wisplings were of apparently normal halfling size and shape, with light brown skin and bright red hair, as well as angular features. They typically preferred to wear brightly colored clothing. Wisplings were...




					forgottenrealms.fandom.com
				












						Planetouched
					

Planetouched was a general term used to described mortal creatures whose lineages traced back to an outsider of some kind, causing them some unusual characteristics that persisted in the bloodline for several generations. Planetouched were not as dramatically different as a true hybrid (i.e. a...




					forgottenrealms.fandom.com


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> So, magical features.




Why are infrafvision and long life span and great physical dexterity "magical" within the game world? ( "Oh no, it's an Orc.  Watch out they're magical they have infravision"?)

I'm not sure it matters if they're magical or not for the conversation if they're inherited from the parents?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> So, magical features.




Some are magic some are not. Like I said it is a world with magic so that introduces new things but the differences are still significant (whereas the differences between humans aren't)


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Why are infrafvision and long life span and great physical dexterity "magical" within the game world? ( "Oh no, it's an Orc.  Watch out they're magical they have infravision"?)



It’s magical in the same way dragons flying is magical - it’s not a spell, but it’s not actually physically possible. (Yes, there are animals that can detect infrared light. It doesn’t work the way darkvision or the old infravision do. And _probably_ wouldn’t work in warm-blooded animals; we’re not yet sure exactly how vampire bats’ infrared sense works).


Cadence said:


> I'm not sure it matters if they're magical or not for the conversation if they're inherited from the parents?



Fair enough.


----------



## squibbles

Regarding the long back and forth about 'species', I think it's fine. Not good, _fine_; good enough. @Charlaquin is right that it's technically incorrect... but 'race' was always technically incorrect, the problem with it was the cultural baggage it connoted and not its exact meaning.

The big issue with picking a word to describe [the category formerly known as race] is that, in the way it's always been used, it's a fuzzy category. It was never a biological category, it was always biology + culture. But the degree of biology versus culture differs between, say, centaurs (almost entirely about biology), githzerai (almost entirely about culture), and elves (a mix of both).



Charlaquin said:


> Traditionally, these sub-groups have different features than each other. To make that work mechanically, they need a different construct to deliver the appropriate package of mechanics. I think this is part of why WotC has taken to using the term “race” only to refer to that game construct rather than to the in-universe group. Because whatever you call it, you can’t avoid uncomfortable implications of the mechanical construct is tied to an in-universe line of descent.



I'm not certain I'm using 'construct' in the same way as you are... but I feel like WotC should outright switch constructs. Instead of using a new word to describe the one that's already in use, switch to a new paradigm entirely.

And I thought they _were already doing that_, based on the choices they made in Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse, where, for example, eladrin, sea elf, and shadar kai--as well as githzerai and githyaki--are different 'races' instead of different 'sub-races'. That, to my thinking, meant they were going to recognize the incoherence of the term 'race' and change to a different type of categorization--with a word that describes the new categorization system, and not just a new word for the old one.

But, too bad, because they already seem to have walked that back as of the character origins playtest packet.



Hriston said:


> I prefer _people _and would vote for it if it were on the poll.
> 
> I also think _folk _and _kind _are okay but not as good as _people._
> 
> ETA: In the same vein as _kind, _I think _type _would work just as well and has precedent as the term used in _Chainmail._



I think 'people' is best for the new categorization I outlined above, in that it conveys a coherent community that treats itself as a group. A people could be be organized by biology, or by culture, or by some combination of both. I would also agree with @Jack Daniel that 'kindred' is pretty good, due to its fairytale feel. Folk and kin are good too. I don't particularly like 'kind' because it is synonymous with class in common usage, potentially leading to confusion among those unfamilliar with D&D jargon.

And I don't care for ancestry, bloodline, lineage, parentage etc. because they are individual, they don't convey a sense of groupness.



Bedrockgames said:


> People or people is used for ethnicities and national groups usually, and can also indicate tribes or people who live in a particular area.



exactly!

And taking this a step further:

There would be no reason to remove features like elf weapon training if we could accept that high elf, wood elf, etc. refer to culture _and_ biology. Moreover, we might be able to rethink human being the blandest of all [the categories formerly known as race] by letting them have some features tied to culture--i.e. why couldn't a society of humans have universal weapon training.


----------



## Bedrockgames

squibbles said:


> exactly!
> 
> And taking this a step further:
> 
> There would be no reason to remove features like elf weapon training if we could accept that high elf, wood elf, etc. refer to culture and biology. Morever, we might be able to rethink human being the blandest of all [the categories formerly known as race] by letting them have some features tied to culture--since a society of human couldn't have universal weapon training.




To be clear here, I wasn't advocating for the use of the term people or peoples. I think the difference between human groups is not at all like the difference between demi humans in fantasy.


----------



## Baron Opal II

Currently Ancestry, with Bloodline for special cases.

Not Kin, as that's a word I commonly use.


----------



## SanjMerchant

I'm inclined to just go with species.  Call the dang thing what it is, rather than distorting some other word, which will only serve to confuse people new to the hobby.  Humans and Klingons are different species, Humans and Dwarves are different species.  Same concept, same term.

Yeah, it "sounds more sci-fi than fantasy" but that's just a matter of habituation.  It's not like D&D wants for anachronisms anyway.


----------



## Cadence

Nevermind, google is my friend.


----------



## Baron Opal II

Charlaquin said:


> That’s exactly the problem. The difference between elves and dwarves is not like the difference between Neanderthals and humans.



Well, that depends on the campaign. In mine, humans, dwarves, and halflings are explicitly humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovians. But that's me. That's in part why I like ancestry and bloodline. You may have human ancestry, but if you are a River Daughter (water genasi) then you are of the bloodline of they Wyrwood river spirit.

But, eh, WotC decided to pick species and I can live with it. It will be different in my rulebook and everyone's happy.


----------



## Charlaquin

Baron Opal II said:


> But, eh, WotC decided to pick species and I can live with it. It will be different in my rulebook and everyone's happy.



Well, WotC said that while race is out, species isn’t necessarily in, and they’ll gather feedback on that too. That’s why I’m advocating for a different term, because I don’t think species is a good one.


----------



## Yaarel

Hriston said:


> @Yaarel, would it be too much to ask to put _People _on the poll as an option? It tied for third with _Folk _on this poll two years ago behind _Species _and _Ancestry. _There were 139 respondents 36 of which chose _People _as one of their preferred terms.



Ok, I am updating the poll to include People.

People can update votes too.


----------



## squibbles

Bedrockgames said:


> To be clear here, I wasn't advocating for the use of the term people or peoples. I think the difference between human groups is not at all like the difference between demi humans in fantasy.



Right. I understood that you weren't advocating it and didn't intend to misrepresent your view.

I quoted you because you stated one of the common usages of 'people' in a very clear way--it just so happens that that usage, which (if I understood correctly) you think is a reason 'people' _shouldn't_ replace 'race', is also a reason that I think it _should_.


----------



## Baron Opal II

Charlaquin said:


> Well, WotC said that while race is out, species isn’t necessarily in, and they’ll gather feedback on that too. That’s why I’m advocating for a different term, because I don’t think species is a good one.



Oh, well that explains things. Didn't realize that. Good luck!


----------



## Yaarel

When people think of the term "*species*", they probably have Darwin in mind, directly or indirectly. His _On the Origin of the Species_ is modern, from the 1800s.

But Darwin himself used the term "species" because that is term in use since centuries earlier.

Linnaeus was already innovating the scientific names for species during the 1700s. He used the term species because that is the term.



The word species is Latin. It literally means "a look", either looking at something or the way that something looks. The verb is specere, "to look". It relates to words like spectator, spectacles, spectacular, speculate, inspect, and so on.

In the Medieval Period, in the 1300s, species came mean to mean things that have a similar look, namely a type, class, or kind.

By the Renaissance Period in the 1500s, even the English language was using this Medieval term, and by about year 1600 used it to refer to different species of animals.



For D&D, the term species belongs in the same game that has renaissance rapiers and full plate. Really the term is even earlier and medieval.


----------



## Yaarel

Baron Opal II said:


> Currently Ancestry, with Bloodline for special cases.
> 
> Not Kin, as that's a word I commonly use.



Im curious. In what contexts do you use "kin"?

For me, I mainly tend to use it in academic contexts relating to tribal kinship systems. Even then I might instead use the term "family" with the understanding of extended family.


----------



## Yaarel

The term *Ancestry* can mean "species".

For example, in reallife, if one asked who ones ancestor is, some groups might say, "Adam".

The name Adam literally means "Humanity" as separate species. Humans are the "descendants of Adam".

In Norse traditions, there is reference to Askr and Embla as the ancestor of humans. Dvalinn as one of dvergar. Ýmir as the one of jǫtnar. Búri as the one of æsir. And so on. 

Ancestry seems to do double duty, to refer to both "species" and "lineage".

Ancestry can even refer to nonbiological lineage, such as that of immaterial Elf and construct Warforged.


----------



## Yaarel

There are now 100 votes. Currently the top votes are:

56% Ancestry
37% Species
27% Lineage
27% Heritage
25% Folk
23% Kin
20% Origin
14% Kindred
11% Kind
09% Bloodline


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> The problem for me isn’t that it sounds too sci-fi, it’s that the word species is part of a system that organizes life forms by their evolutionary branch from a common ancestor, which just isn’t how it works in D&D.



Hypothetically,

If we found radically distinct extraterrestrial lifeforms, or new understandings of life, such as an entire planet being collectively alive, or different kinds of artificial life whether DNA splicing or synthetic forms,

scientists would still probably use the term "species" for them, in order to include these into the current scientific taxonomy.


----------



## Blue Orange

'Ancestry' or 'lineage', it describes who the character's ancestors are, and avoids all the messes with hybridization of some of the groups like humans and elves or orcs (there are apparently cases where species A can breed with B and B with C but not A with C). 'Species' also does sound a little more sci-fi than fantasy. I still like it better than, say, 'folk', which could refer to a specific geographic population of one group, 'kin' which similarly refers to a more immediate family, 'heritage' which could be cultural too, 'origin' which is kind of vague, 'kind' which is even vaguer (aren't wizards also a 'kind'), or 'bloodline' which to me refers to a specific family--the bloodline of the Targaryens or something.


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> Hypothetically,
> 
> If we found radically distinct extraterrestrial lifeforms, or new understandings of life, such as an entire planet being collectively alive, or different kinds of artificial life whether DNA splicing or synthetic forms,
> 
> scientists would still probably use the term "species" for them, in order to include these into the current scientific taxonomy.



Yes, it would. And our relationship to them
would still be vastly unlike that between elves and dwarves.


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> Yes, it would. And our relationship to them
> would still be vastly unlike that between elves and dwarves.



Referring to Elf,

The original Celestial Elf is a thought construct.

The Fey Elf is something like a force construct.

Hypothetically, a synthetic artificial lifeform could resemble something like either of these.

These would be "species".

I consider the Halfling to be a Human ethnicity. But suppose the Halfling is more analogous to a hominid species, like Homo floresiensis.

The Homo floresiensis alongside a synthetic force lifeform, would be analogues of a Halfling alongside an Elf. Scientists would taxonomize both as two different species.


----------



## Hriston

Just wanted to mention that, like _Chainmail, _D&D Vol. 1, _Men & Magic _seems to use _type _for what later became _race. _The first occurrence is on page 6 in the sentence "This will be dealt with in the paragraphs pertaining to each non-human type." Then on page 8, there's a section with the heading "Other Character Types" which is the section stating that a PC can be any kind of creature, even a dragon.

_Class _is also used in the section under "Languages", on page 12, which speaks of "language particular to a creature class".

The Monster Manual (1977) speaks of the "racial" tongues or languages of bugbears, gnolls, gnomes, and hobgoblins and of the "six major races of giants". Ixitxachitl, ki-rin, locathah, night hags, troglodytes, and xorn are also referred to as races.

The MM also says it's rumored that "leprechauns are a species of halfling with a strong strain of pixie."


----------



## Mistwell

I want this:

Creature Type: Humanoid (Mountain Dwarf)

That's it. Same for NPCs and PCs.


----------



## Branduil

IMO there are two separate uses for a term here, and they don't need to be the same.

1. The metagame term used by players when they are creating or thinking about their characters. In this case, we are thinking about the inherited traits our characters receive from their parents. In this case, Ancestry, Heritage, Lineage, Line, Origin, etc. all work well. It clearly communicates the idea behind the choice, since what we're focused on is what the character we're creating receives from the past.

2. The diegetic term that would be used in the world itself, by both NPCs and PCs. In this case, the aforementioned terms are a bit more awkward, because they could refer to a character's specific circumstances more than a much larger group. In this case, terms like Form, Folk, Kin, Kindred, Kind, Kinfolk, Peoples, etc. all work well and communicate the necessary idea of a large group with similar traits.

I suspect WotC went with a term like "species" because it can work in both cases, and this is technically true, but to me it's a very cold, clinical, and somewhat alien way to think about this. People have pointed out species is a fairly old term, and that's true, but it's commonly used in the context of scientific research. It doesn't feel like a term people would use about themselves, especially in the context of a community. And I don't think it's really necessary to choose a single word for every usage, any more than we need to reduce all words for humanity down to a single every-use term.


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> Referring to Elf,
> 
> The original Celestial Elf is a thought construct.
> 
> The Fey Elf is something like a force construct.
> 
> Hypothetically, a synthetic artificial lifeform could resemble something like either of these.
> 
> These would be "species".
> 
> I consider the Halfling to be a Human ethnicity. But suppose the Halfling is more analogous to a hominid species, like Homo floresiensis.
> 
> The Homo floresiensis alongside a synthetic force lifeform, would be analogues of a Halfling alongside an Elf. Scientists would taxonomize both as two different species.



Except for the part where there are only minor cosmetic differences between then and they can make babies together.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> Except for the part where there are only minor cosmetic differences between then and they can make babies together.



You mean exactly like Modern Humans and Neanderthals, two different species?


----------



## Hriston

Crimson Longinus said:


> You mean exactly like Modern Humans and Neanderthals, two different species?



There is no scientific consensus that neanderthals constitute a separate species from moderns. They are classified as _Homo neanderthalensis_ or _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_, either as a separate species within our genus or as a subspecies of our own species.

ETA: IMO, the evidence of successful interbreeding between neanderthals and moderns would point to the correctness of the subspecies classification.


----------



## Charlaquin

Crimson Longinus said:


> You mean exactly like Modern Humans and Neanderthals, two different species?



Which unlike elves and halflings, do share a common ancestor - a fairly recent one at that.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hriston said:


> There is no scientific consensus that neanderthals constitute a separate species from moderns. They are classified as _Homo neanderthalensis_ or _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_, either as a separate species within our genus or as a subspecies of our species.




I am no scientist and I don't think the involved scientific debate about it is terribly relevant (especially since it looks like there are scientist who would classify them as a distinct species). But just looking it up it does appear that they are more typically thought of as a separate species but there is still some ongoing debate. Either way, species or a subspecies, to me that distinction between neanderthals and humans, and between those two and denisovans, seems comparable enough to the kind of difference you have in fantasy worlds between demihuman races for it to basically be species. Again, I think race works too and probably sounds better for fantasy (because I don't think it is being used in the way we use it when we talk race among humans) but if the word is an issue and needs to be changed, species seems to most accurately capture the difference to me between a dwarf and human or a human and an elf. Obviously though it isn't going to connect cleanly to a scientific classification because these are worlds with magic that often rely on mythic explanations of things.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> Which unlike elves and halflings, do share a common ancestor - a fairly recent one at that.




Again this is setting specific. You can easily have a world where all the demihumans have a common ancestor. Some worlds will operate that way, some will be more mythic (i.e. the god of dwarves made the dwarves in some kind of creation myth). Again these are fantasy worlds they aren't going to connect cleanly to scientific terms that describe how life evolved on earth (since every fantasy world is essentially its own thought experiment in that respect).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Also I am just going by the wikipedia page here, so take with the appropriate grain of salt, but this the section on classification of neanderthals and common ancestors with humans and denisovans. Just so people have a point of reference:



> Neanderthals are hominids in the genus _Homo_, humans, and generally classified as a distinct species, _H. neanderthalensis_, although sometimes as a subspecies of modern human as _H. sapiens neanderthalensis_. This would necessitate the classification of modern humans as _H. sapiens sapiens_.[8]
> 
> A large part of the controversy stems from the vagueness of the term "species", as it is generally used to distinguish two genetically isolated populations, but admixture between modern humans and Neanderthals is known to have occurred.[8][129] However, the absence of Neanderthal-derived patrilineal Y-chromosome and matrilineal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in modern humans, along with the underrepresentation of Neanderthal X chromosome DNA, could imply reduced fertility or frequent sterility of some hybrid crosses,[86][130][131][132] representing a partial biological reproductive barrier between the groups, and therefore species distinction.[86] In 2014 geneticist Svante Pääbo summarised the controversy, describing such "taxonomic wars" as unresolvable, "since there is no definition of species perfectly describing the case".[8]
> 
> Neanderthals are thought to have been more closely related to Denisovans than to modern humans. Likewise, Neanderthals and Denisovans share a more recent last common ancestor (LCA) than to modern humans, based on nuclear DNA (nDNA). However, Neanderthals and modern humans share a more recent mitochondrial LCA (observable by studying mtDNA). This likely resulted from an interbreeding event subsequent to the Neanderthal/Denisovan split which introduced another mtDNA line. This involved either introgression coming from an unknown archaic human into Denisovans,[89][90][128][133][134] or introgression from an earlier unidentified modern human wave from Africa into Neanderthals.[135]


----------



## Bedrockgames

squibbles said:


> Right. I understood that you weren't advocating it and didn't intend to misrepresent your view.
> 
> I quoted you because you stated one of the common usages of 'people' in a very clear way--it just so happens that that usage, which (if I understood correctly) you think is a reason 'people' _shouldn't_ replace 'race', is also a reason that I think it _should_.




Fair enough. I think I object to people on a few grounds. One it humanizes orcs and elves, but they aren't meant to be human. The magic of fantasy is that you have non-human races. Doesn't mean they aren't sapient and don't have internal interesting lives as species but I always loved the thought experiment aspect of fantasy and science fiction of you have humanoids and intelligent sapient species with different biology, drives, etc than humans and the writers thinking those through logically to develop different cultures, etc. The other reason is I do think if the point here (and not saying I agree with the point as I think most people can make distinctions like race is used one way in a game and another in real life, or that race has multiple meanings in general and D&D is relying on one of those meanings not the other), is to avoid the problems inherent in the term race, then terms like peoples also are bogged down with those problems (probably even more than race because with terms like ancestry, bloodline and peoples you can really get into that kind of blood and soil problem that connects a lot more directly to the kind of thinking that was going on in nazi germany but also in a lot of the racialist science of the early 20th century (because that was often about this idea of human bloodlines and peoples being able to be breed like dog-breed, and some of us were categorized as poodles or pugs, others as German shepherds or bloodhounds). Again, I think most people can see the term people and not assume that is the implied use, but if the concern is people do that sort of thing, then you probably want to pick a more neutral term. And the last reason would be that I don't think peoples captures what demihumans are. Peoples are just differences of culture and ancestry: you are from this place and belong to this nation or have this culture or are part of this tribe so you belong to the X peoples. There is no real difference, besides superficial ones there. But the differences between a dwarf and elves are deep, more like the difference between species. 

Now that said, you can change that. You can make races/species in fantasy just different shades of human (like someone said elves are just slender humans with pointy ears), so the differences are no more than human differences like eye color, skin color, hair color, etc. And if you did, sure peoples would be accurate. I just think that would be very dull for a fantasy setting, and especially dull for D&D (where the point of choosing race and class at the start is both for flavor but also for game purposes of having simple but mechanically meaningful choices during character creation).


----------



## Scott Christian

While I like origin, I can already see the next sunrise, where that word too, will create a problem.

Like most, species is great for sci-fi, but not fantasy. That goes for many of the words, like taxonomy, that are on the list. 

Kin to me is too related to family; therefore, it doesn't seem broad enough. This also is true for parentage and family.

Pedigree sounds like you are breeding dogs.

Type and form are way too vague to carry any connotative meaning. This is especially damaging, since the game relies heavily on connotation.


----------



## Hriston

Bedrockgames said:


> I am no scientist and I don't think the involved scientific debate about it is terribly relevant (especially since it looks like there are scientist who would classify them as a distinct species). But just looking it up it does appear that they are more typically thought of as a separate species but there is still some ongoing debate. Either way, species or a subspecies, to me that distinction between neanderthals and humans, and between those two and denisovans, seems comparable enough to the kind of difference you have in fantasy worlds between demihuman races for it to basically be species. Again, I think race works too and probably sounds better for fantasy (because I don't think it is being used in the way we use it when we talk race among humans) but if the word is an issue and needs to be changed, species seems to most accurately capture the difference to me between a dwarf and human or a human and an elf. Obviously though it isn't going to connect cleanly to a scientific classification because these are worlds with magic that often rely on mythic explanations of things.



I was responding to an assertion that they are separate species which was made as if it was a settled fact. It is not, as evidenced by the ongoing debate.


----------



## Scribe

Mistwell said:


> I want this:
> 
> Creature Type: Humanoid (Mountain Dwarf)
> 
> That's it. Same for NPCs and PCs.




I'd actually prefer this, or even "Type" to species. It still feels super clinical, but whatever.

Species is just not it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Scott Christian said:


> While I like origin, I can already see the next sunrise, where that word too, will create a problem.
> 
> Like most, species is great for sci-fi, but not fantasy. That goes for many of the words, like taxonomy, that are on the list.
> 
> Kin to me is too related to family; therefore, it doesn't seem broad enough. This also is true for parentage and family.
> 
> Pedigree sounds like you are breeding dogs.
> 
> Type and form are way too vague to carry any connotative meaning. This is especially damaging, since the game relies heavily on connotation.




I think part of the problem here is if you want a flavorful real world term that connotes fantasy (which really just means it feels vaguely ancient, vaguely medieval, not modern, etc), you are going to have a hard time finding one that isn't laden with issues at some point  in this discussion. They will all likely have the same problem that the word race has in some form. If you choose a more scientific then you have the issues that people have brought up with that not cleanly connecting to a fantasy world of magic and myth. If you choose a term like type those are accurate but have no feel to them (they aren't especially evocative). That is the thing about evocative language, it often has other connotations and associations. Same with colorful and punchy language. My personal view is it is better for individuals to be able to critically understand the intent and the meaning, so we don't have to always have these conversations (rather than for the the designers and writers to constantly vet and critique the terms until they find something no one can possibly object to). But if they are committing to it never being misconstrued for a real world term that has the potential to be seen through that kind of lens, they probably need to stick with neutral terms or scientific ones (and even those are going to be objected to by some folks).


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> Again this is setting specific. You can easily have a world where all the demihumans have a common ancestor. Some worlds will operate that way, some will be more mythic (i.e. the god of dwarves made the dwarves in some kind of creation myth). Again these are fantasy worlds they aren't going to connect cleanly to scientific terms that describe how life evolved on earth (since every fantasy world is essentially its own thought experiment in that respect).



Well since we’re talking about the PHB, I’m going with the lore written there.


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> Except for the part where there are only minor cosmetic differences between then and they can make babies together.



Hypothetically, near future transhumanism:

A consciousness could exist in a virtual reality − a thought construct without flesh and blood. Then print out a body, and transfer the consciousness from the virtual reality to the new body.

The material body can have a human DNA, and be a human-species construct, and sexually reproduce offspring with natural humans.

But the virtual reality consciousness would be a nonhuman species.

In other words, a conscious mind can immigrate from one species to become a member of a different species.

A more competent scientific understanding of how consciousness itself works might come with its own implications about what a lifeform is.



This hypothetical transhumanism is actually closer to how Norse animism works.

The natural world is conscious. Just like a human body is a feature of nature that has its own consciousness, every phenomenon of nature is its own body with a consciousness. A mountain is conscious, a field, a lake, the sky, the sun, etcetera.

It is possible for a member of one kind of nature being to emigrate to become an other kind of nature being. For example, at death, the consciousness of a human nature being immigrates to become a member of the corpse nature beings. But it is also possible to become a member of the æsir nature beings in the sky as one of the einherjar among the clouds. There are examples of humans becoming vanir, jǫtnar becoming humans, and so on. Immigration from any species of nature being to become a member of any other species of nature being is possible. Essentially, this is a transfer of consciousness.



This Norse animistic worldview influences my perception of D&D fantasy settings. For example, the original Elf is a Celestial thought construct, whose consciousness translated into Fey force, and even Material body. The High Elf is an example of a Material Elf culture. The High Elf body is humanlike and can even sexually reproduce with humans. In other words, the body that Elf materializes actually is a human body with human D&D. The High Elf actually transfers the Elf consciousness into the human genepool. At the same time, the Elf maintains an affinity with the other modes of consciousness, including Fey and Celestial. The Elf consciousness has the potential to revert back to the nonhuman species. Perhaps the Elf Trance feature is a method to maintain the immaterial aspects of Elf consciousness.

Likewise, it is possible for a human consciousness to immigrate to an immaterial species, to become a Fey spirit-force consciousness among the Eladrin Elf, or a thought construct among the Celestial Elf. Perhaps an aspect of this Human-to-Eladrin consciousness maintains an affinity with the material species of humanity.



I like the One D&D approach. A character can be an entanglement of any combination of magical creatures. But pick one of these species for the mechanical stats for the character.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> Well since we’re talking about the PHB, I’m going with the lore written there.




I am not familiar with the 5E demihuman entries (I don't play 5E). Does it specify things like elves don't come from a common ancestor? 

Either way though, and maybe this is my 2E era showing, I tend to look at the PHB as starting points but see the demihumans and classes always being subject to the specifics of the individual world.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Well since we’re talking about the PHB, I’m going with the lore written there.



Since they're talking about a potentially substantial revision to the books they could change the lore written there ;-)

But seriously, I'm not imagining they will, but I assume they will give everything a fresh run through by the sensitivity readers and with a look to their future design goals.  And going with the current as the default for other things, like you did, is certainly the most parsimonious for discussion.


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> Hypothetically, near future transhumanism:
> 
> A consciousness could exist in a virtual reality − a thought construct without flesh and blood. Then print out a body, and transfer the consciousness from the virtual reality to the new body.
> 
> The material body can have a human DNA, and be a human-species construct, and sexually reproduce offspring with natural humans.
> 
> But the virtual reality consciousness would be a nonhuman species.
> 
> In other words, a conscious mind can immigrate from one species to become a member of a different species.
> 
> A more competent scientific understanding of how consciousness itself works might come with its own implications about what a lifeform is.
> 
> 
> 
> This hypothetical transhumanism is actually closer to how Norse animism works.
> 
> The natural world is conscious. Just like a human body is a feature of nature that has its own consciousness, every phenomenon of nature is its own body with a consciousness. A mountain is conscious, a field, a lake, the sky, the sun, etcetera.
> 
> It is possible for a member of one kind of nature being to emigrate to become an other kind of nature being. For example, at death, the consciousness of a human nature being immigrates to become a member of the corpse nature beings. But it is also possible to become a member of the æsir nature beings in the sky as one of the einherjar among the clouds. There are examples of humans becoming vanir, jǫtnar becoming humans, and so on. Immigration from any species of nature being to become a member of any other species of nature being is possible. Essentially, this is a transfer of consciousness.
> 
> 
> 
> This Norse animistic worldview influences my perception of D&D fantasy settings. For example, the original Elf is a Celestial thought construct, whose consciousness translated into Fey force, and even Material body. The High Elf is an example of a Material Elf culture. The High Elf body is humanlike and can even sexually reproduce with humans. In other words, the body that Elf materializes actually is a human body with human D&D. The High Elf actually transfers the Elf consciousness into the human genepool. At the same time, the Elf maintains an affinity with the other modes of consciousness, including Fey and Celestial. The Elf consciousness has the potential to revert back to the nonhuman species. Perhaps the Elf Trance feature is a method to maintain the immaterial aspects of Elf consciousness.
> 
> Likewise, it is possible for a human consciousness to immigrate to an immaterial species, to become a Fey spirit-force consciousness among the Eladrin Elf, or a thought construct among the Celestial Elf. Perhaps an aspect of this Human-to-Eladrin consciousness maintains an affinity with the material species of humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> I like the One D&D approach. A character can be an entanglement of any combination of magical creatures. But pick one of these species for the mechanical stats for the character.



You lost me


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> Which unlike elves and halflings, do share a common ancestor - a fairly recent one at that.



I still don’t understand why you think this matters. You had no problem with calling dogs and cats living in D&D land different species even though they might be created too.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not familiar with the 5E demihuman entries (I don't play 5E). Does it specify things like elves don't come from a common ancestor?



Well, elves are Fey and halflings aren’t, so there’s that. I’m not sure off the top of my head how much of the PHB goes into the elf creation myth, but I’m pretty sure it mentions them having been created by Corellon.


Bedrockgames said:


> Either way though, and maybe this is my 2E era showing, I tend to look at the PHB as starting points but see the demihumans and classes always being subject to the specifics of the individual world.



Sure, a DM can change whatever they want. But by the same token they can change the word species too. I think the default term and the default lore should agree with each other.


----------



## Charlaquin

Crimson Longinus said:


> I still don’t understand why you think this matters. You had no problem with calling dogs and cats living in D&D land different species even though they might be created too.



It matters because the entire system of taxonomy just doesn’t apply in a world of gods and magic. None of it makes any sense in that context. Since dogs and cats exist in real life, it’s acceptable to use the same term we use in real life to describe them, much as it’s acceptable to, for example, call the metal mercury by its name, even though it’s named after a god that doesn’t exist in the setting, because we’re describing a real thing that exists and has been ported over to the fictional setting. Elves and halflings aren’t a real thing that exists, and their relationship to each other is not analogous to the relationship between different real-world species, so species is not an effective term to use to describe them.


----------



## glass

_EDIT: On second thoughts, that was probably unwise._


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> It matters because the entire system of taxonomy just doesn’t apply in a world of gods and magic. None of it makes any sense in that context. Since dogs and cats exist in real life, it’s acceptable to use the same term we use in real life to describe them, much as it’s acceptable to, for example, call the metal mercury by its name, even though it’s named after a god that doesn’t exist in the setting, because we’re describing a real thing that exists and has been ported over to the fictional setting. Elves and halflings aren’t a real thing that exists, and their relationship to each other is not analogous to the relationship between different real-world species, so* species is not an effective term* to use to describe them.




It's not effective _for you_; it's apparently perfectly effective for lots of other people.  Trying to parse how many are in each camp, and how strong their objections are, is something I'm glad WotC has to do and not me!

No matter what term is used, it feels really odd to me to think that wizards and the like wouldn't do some sort of taxonomy on living things in their bestiaries and theories (What does "Charm Person" affect?  "Charm Monster"? What can one be reincarnated into?  What can be turned by a cleric?  How do we classify these things?).  Just as it didn't for Linnaeus, a taxonomic system for living creatures doesn't need to be explicitly based on phylogenetics - it just needs some set of principles.

Are the fourteen types of creatures in DnD part of a taxonomic system?  Is whatever grouping they decide on for the thing formerly known as race part of one too?

In any case, I completely agree with you that instantiating phylogeny into the game isn't a route to go.

[And now I have to really avoid reading Are the Linnean and Phylogenetic Nomenclatural Systems Combinable? Recommendations for Biological Nomenclature so that I can get and the like and get my work done!! Augh!  Why can't work be as fun as message board conversations!?!?]


----------



## Bedrockgames

Cadence said:


> It's not effective _for you_; it's apparently perfectly effective for lots of other people.  Trying to parse how many are in each camp, and how strong their objections are, is something I'm glad WotC has to do and not me!
> 
> No matter what term is used, it feels really odd to me to think that wizards and the like wouldn't do some sort of taxonomy on living things in their bestiaries and theories (what does "Charm Person affect?  What can one be reincarnated into?  What can be turned by a cleric?  How do we classify these things?).  Just as it didn't for Linnaeus, a taxonomic system for living creatures doesn't need to be explicitly based on phylogenetics - it just needs some set of principles.
> 
> Are the fourteen types of creatures in DnD part of a taxonomic system?  Is whatever grouping they decide on for the thing formerly known as race part of one too?
> 
> In any case, I completely agree with you that instantiating phylogeny into the game isn't a route to go.




I know this term was brought up before but I think race and class in D&D never really were meant to be diegetic. I remember there was a Drizzt book, and I think many other TSR novels around that time, where they had characters speaking about class and it was really strange (someone said to Drizzt something like "you know what you are, you are a ranger"). And it wasn't just dialog. It was a plot point about Drizzt coming to understand himself and what he was deep down. But it always struck me as something the writers might have been instructed to do in order to make those terms diegetic (though I doubt anyone was using that particular term at the time at TSR). 

For how wizards do these things in game, I think looking to something like Aristotle.


----------



## Bedrockgames

glass said:


> My guess: Because "species" sounds off to them, but "it sounds off" is a poor counter to "sensitivity readers have said 'species' is the least problematic term", so they are reaching for something else to justify their preferences.




Species sounds off to my ears as well, and I think there can also be an issue with revising language too much (where it makes it more difficult to understand editions over time). Like I said, I think it is better if we put the critical engagement on the reader end so writers and designers can more freely use evocative and colorful language, provided these things are not intentionally being used in a way that is meant to advocate real world evils. But given that they have established this is a problem they want to address, I do think species is the best term because it has the least amount of the issues they are trying to avoid (next to type, which is probably too neutral) and it most accurately captures what race meant in D&D in the first place: which is something like the difference between a human and neanderthal (maybe a slightly larger difference due to the presence of magic, but essentially that analogy is sound IMO).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> Well, elves are Fey and halflings aren’t, so there’s that. I’m not sure off the top of my head how much of the PHB goes into the elf creation myth, but I’m pretty sure it mentions them having been created by Corellon.
> 
> Sure, a DM can change whatever they want. But by the same token they can change the word species too. I think the default term and the default lore should agree with each other.




I do think the presence of magic, the fact that this is a fantasy setting where in many or most settings something like evolution probably isn't even a thin*g (EDIT: *Misspelled Thing as Think), these scientific categories are not going to be precise matches. Still I think it is a perfectly accurate term in terms of what it conjures up in peoples minds, and I think using the word species in a setting where things might have different origins due tot he nature of the worlds in question works (humans and elves are analogous enough to humans and neanderthals, and species is used enough to distinguish those two things, that I think it is fair). If you do want a term that absolutely holds up in every circumstance, type is probably your best bet. But the problem with that is it is so uninspiring and bland.


----------



## Cadence

Bedrockgames said:


> I know this term was brought up before but I think race and class in D&D never really were meant to be diegetic. I remember there was a Drizzt book, and I think many other TSR novels around that time, where they had characters speaking about class and it was really strange (someone said to Drizzt something like "you know what you are, you are a ranger"). And it wasn't just dialog. It was a plot point about Drizzt coming to understand himself and what he was deep down. But it always struck me as something the writers might have been instructed to do in order to make those terms diegetic (though I doubt anyone was using that particular term at the time at TSR).
> 
> For how wizards do these things in game, I think looking to something like Aristotle.




I read a short story in a collection recently that had lots of game terms in it, wow... it was painful.

On the other hand, the different groupings of elves in Tolkien, always, seems pretty natural.  As do different fields of magic study in Earthsea and others.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Cadence said:


> I read a short story in a collection recently that had lots of game terms in it, wow... it was painful.
> 
> On the other hand, the different groupings of elves in Tolkien, always, seems pretty natural.  As do different fields of magic study in Earthsea and others.




I think part of D&D's problem, which isn't really a problem but more like something that makes this uniquely challenging, is it isn't a little general, not really built around a specific. I do think the language of middle earth works very well. One reaction I always have to Tolkien (and I am not a Lord of the Rings uber fan but I like to re-read it once in a while) is the langauge and world building. I also find Tolkien's prose very engaging and warm. I get what you mean on Earthsea. Personally I always had a bit of trouble with Le Guin's writing style (not that it was bad, just her prose technique, which seemed deliberate, created a bit of a barrier for me as a reader). I think what those have that D&D doesn't is, their settings, their stories, and their terms are pretty unified wholes. A lot of fantasy RPGs are like that, their mechanics are specific to one particular world. D&D might have default cosmologies, even default pantheons and settings, but there is always the understanding that those need to be generic enough or not interwoven enough, that you can for example cut out the pantheon and replace it with your own, play in a different world, etc. Every world, unless you revise the mechanics and core components, is going to have a certain D&D feel, but it is a longstanding tradition that you make your own setting. I think that is why diegetic stuff gets weird. It even gets weird when they try to create an in game lexicon sometimes (I remember hating "The Weave" when that first started showing up in novels) and I remember all the jumping through hoops when characters would talk around concepts like levels, spell memorization, etc and try to use other words or in world explanations for those things. My favorite is a conversation Victor Modenheim had with a magic user in a novel, think the title of the book was just Mordenheim. The character of Victor Mordenheim doesn't believe in magic, because he is a man of science, and they had to preserve that in the story despite him encounter a spell caster who visibly cast spells. So he started calling magic "The New Science".


----------



## Charlaquin

glass said:


> My guess: Because "species" sounds off to them, but "it sounds off" is a poor counter to "sensitivity readers have said 'species' is the least problematic term", so they are reaching for something else to justify their preferences.



It’s she, and I have objected to the use of “species” to describe the playable humanoids of D&D since long before this announcement on these same grounds. On these very forums, among other places. So, no, your guess is incorrect.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> It’s she, and I have objected to the use of “species” to describe the playable humanoids of D&D since long before this announcement on these same grounds. On these very forums, among other places. So, no, your guess is incorrect.




Which term were you in favor of using (I am losing track of peoples positions on that)?


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> I know this term was brought up before but I think race and class in D&D never really were meant to be *diegetic*. I remember there was a Drizzt book, and I think many other TSR novels around that time, where they had characters speaking about class and it was really strange (someone said to Drizzt something like "you know what you are, you are a ranger"). And it wasn't just dialog. It was a plot point about Drizzt coming to understand himself and what he was deep down. But it always struck me as something the writers might have been instructed to do in order to make those terms diegetic (though I doubt anyone was using that particular term at the time at TSR).
> 
> For how wizards do these things in game, I think looking to something like Aristotle.



Diegetic − nice word!



"Class" can be an in-world term. Each class is a different kind of combat fighting style, whether fighting with swords or spells. That an army refers to different "classes" of warfare approaches, sounds plausible to me.

"Species" or some synonym is a likely in-world term.


----------



## Hriston

Although _species _in its non-biological sense is a fine substitute for _race _or its predecessor _type, _the dominance of the biological definition in the public consciousness makes it an unsuitable term to describe fantasy races, in my opinion, because it makes everything about biology, whereas _race/type, _as a game term in D&D, has always encompassed more than just biological difference and has done so at a level of abstraction that leaves it up to the user to imagine which traits are attributable to nature and which to nurture. This can be seen up to and including the recent playtest where the Ardling is given proficiency in Perception. It isn't stated whether they are naturally more aware due to their biology or if this is something in which they have been trained, and that's the way I prefer it because it makes the rules more flexible in the imagined fiction they support.

In my games, elves are biologically "one race" with humans, as J.R.R. Tolkien states in his letter #153. My elves don't even have pointy ears. The differences between humans and elves (in my game) are spiritual and cultural rather than biological. Attributing those differences to speciation would seem to run counter to that preference in a way other terms wouldn't.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> It's not effective _for you_; it's apparently perfectly effective for lots of other people.  Trying to parse how many are in each camp, and how strong their objections are, is something I'm glad WotC has to do and not me!



Well, other people are clearly fine with it. And if it’s what WotC ends up going with it, I’ll live with it just as I’ve lived with them using race. But I don’t think it paints an accurate, nor flattering picture of the way D&D handles these groups.


Cadence said:


> No matter what term is used, it feels really odd to me to think that wizards and the like wouldn't do some sort of taxonomy on living things in their bestiaries and theories (What does "Charm Person" affect?  "Charm Monster"? What can one be reincarnated into?  What can be turned by a cleric?  How do we classify these things?).  Just as it didn't for Linnaeus, a taxonomic system for living creatures doesn't need to be explicitly based on phylogenetics - it just needs some set of principles.
> 
> Are the fourteen types of creatures in DnD part of a taxonomic system?  Is whatever grouping they decide on for the thing formerly known as race part of one too?



Well of course they’d have some system of categorization. And yes, I do think the creature types fit that bill, to an extent. I just don’t think “species” is a good choice of words to describe individual types of humanoid within that system, whatever it may be.


Cadence said:


> In any case, I completely agree with you that instantiating phylogeny into the game isn't a route to go.



Interesting that you agree with me on that but still don’t seem to have a problem with using phylogenic terms in the game.


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> It matters because the entire system of taxonomy just doesn’t apply in a world of gods and magic. None of it makes any sense in that context. Since dogs and cats exist in real life, it’s acceptable to use the same term we use in real life to describe them, much as it’s acceptable to, for example, call the metal mercury by its name, even though it’s named after a god that doesn’t exist in the setting, because we’re describing a real thing that exists and has been ported over to the fictional setting.



I dont understand the argument: "it doesnt exist in reallife".

Because − hypothetically − if Elf, Dwarf, Celestial, etcetera did exist in reallife, then reallife science would probably use the term "species" to classify and taxonomize them.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> I do think the presence of magic, the fact that this is a fantasy setting where in many or most settings something like evolution probably isn't even a thin*g (EDIT: *Misspelled Thing as Think), these scientific categories are not going to be precise matches.



We agree on that much.


Bedrockgames said:


> Still I think it is a perfectly accurate term in terms of what it conjures up in peoples minds, and I think using the word species in a setting where things might have different origins due tot he nature of the worlds in question works (humans and elves are analogous enough to humans and neanderthals, and species is used enough to distinguish those two things, that I think it is fair).



This is the fundamental point of disagreement. Certainty, I think if the relationship between humans and elves was meaningfully analogous to that between humans and Neanderthals, species would be a perfectly cromulent way to describe them. But I do not think it is meaningfully analogous, because of the point above on which we agree.


Bedrockgames said:


> If you do want a term that absolutely holds up in every circumstance, type is probably your best bet. But the problem with that is it is so uninspiring and bland.



I don’t think it needs to absolutely hold up in every circumstance, I just think it needs to adequately describe what these groups _are_. They aren’t the furthest ends of the branches of a tree of life, they’re groupings of traits a character inherits from one or both of their parents. As @Cadence observed earlier, it’s more Lamarckian than Darwinian. I would call them heritages, or ancestries, or parentages, or something to that effect, communicating that the relevant factor is descent from parent to child, not phylogenic category.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Interesting that you agree with me on that but still don’t seem to have a problem with using phylogenic terms in the game.



Because I'm fine with species and taxonomy predating phylogeny and being able to be used separately of it still today.  ::  It looks like the article I linked talks about reconciling the two in light of how phylogeny is going and how it doesn't fit nicely with the Linnaean classic taxonomic levels. (Although I don't vouch for my fast skimming of the first page).


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> Which term were you in favor of using (I am losing track of peoples positions on that)?



There are a few I’d be fine with. Currently I think heritage would be the most accurate, but I would be fine with ancestry, which seems to be the top contender next to species, at least in this specific poll. People would actually be my first choice.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> , it’s more Lamarckian than Darwinian. I would call them heritages, or ancestries, or parentages, or something to that effect, communicating that the relevant factor is descent from parent to child, not phylogenic category.




And now I'm resisting the urge to look up what term Lamarck used for his animal groups.  Did he call them (or have them translated at that time) as species?


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> I just don’t think “species” is a good choice of words to describe individual types of humanoid within that system, whatever it may be.






Charlaquin said:


> There are a few I’d be fine with. Currently I think heritage would be the most accurate, but I would be fine with ancestry, which seems to be the top contender next to species, at least in this specific poll. People would actually be my first choice.



In other words, you want a term that absolutely doesnt mean biology, and specifically means culture?

I can understand that.


----------



## glass

Charlaquin said:


> It’s she, and I have objected to the use of “species” to describe the playable humanoids of D&D since long before this announcement on these same grounds. On these very forums, among other places. So, no, your guess is incorrect.



Apologies for missing that you list your pronouns.

That said, you are still using nonsense arguments to try to dress your subjective dislike as objective problems with the term. That you have been using the same arguments for a while makes does not make them any less spurious.


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> I dont understand the argument: "it doesnt exist in reallife".
> 
> Because − hypothetically − if Elf, Dwarf, Celestial, etcetera did exist in reallife, then reallife science would probably use the term "species" to classify and taxonomize them.



If they existed in real life as they do in D&D, our entire phylogenic system would be overturned, because it would be definitive proof against the theory of evolution by natural selection. And of the existence of multiple gods, which would throw a lot of other things into question.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> And now I'm resisting the urge to look up what term Lamarck used for his animal groups.  Did he call them (or have them translated at that time) as species?



I think he did. But I don’t think that matters. Modern people have a concept of what the word species means, which is informed by how it’s used in their everyday lives, not how it has been historically used. I believe that concept is at odds with how the groupings of PC races function in D&D, and therefore, using that term will miscommunicate what they are and how they work.


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> In other words, you want a term that absolutely doesnt mean biology, and specifically means culture?
> 
> I can understand that.



It’s not that I don’t want a term that refers to biology at all, it’s that I don’t want a term that suggests these traits were developed by process of adaptation due to pressures of natural and sexual selection.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> We agree on that much.
> 
> This is the fundamental point of disagreement. Certainty, I think if the relationship between humans and elves was meaningfully analogous to that between humans and Neanderthals, species would be a perfectly cromulent way to describe them. But I do not think it is meaningfully analogous, because of the point above on which we agree.
> 
> I don’t think it needs to absolutely hold up in every circumstance, I just think it needs to adequately describe what these groups _are_. They aren’t the furthest ends of the branches of a tree of life, they’re groupings of traits a character inherits from one or both of their parents. As @Cadence observed earlier, it’s more Lamarckian than Darwinian. I would call them heritages, or ancestries, or parentages, or something to that effect, communicating that the relevant factor is descent from parent to child, not phylogenic category.




I definitely have a different view on this (and I think we've both clearly stated why we feel how we feel so there is no point in offering additional points of debate) but I do understand your opinion more fully now.


----------



## Charlaquin

glass said:


> Apologies for missing that you list you pronouns.



It’s all good


glass said:


> That said, you are still using nonsense arguments to try to dress your subjective dislike as objective problems with the term. That you have been using the same arguments for a while makes does not make them any less spurious.



I’m not trying to present my dislike of the term as objective, I’m trying to express the reason for my dislike of the term. That you don’t find my reasoning compelling doesn’t mean it’s nonsense.


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> If they existed in real life as they do in D&D, our entire phylogenic system would be overturned, because it would be definitive proof against the theory of evolution by natural selection. And of the existence of multiple gods, which would throw a lot of other things into question.



That I agree with. If Elf etcetera existed in reallife, then the scientific taxonomy would necessarily require kinds of species that are nonphylogenetic (namely have zero evolutionary relationship to each other).

I anticipate that this will precisely happen in the near future because of gene splicing and artificial intelligence.



I am comfortable with many of the names that are in the poll of the original post.

I hate the term "race". The problem with "race" is, it means: 1) species and 2) ethnicity, whence 3. other ethnicities are nonhuman or subhuman. The term race is inherently problematic, and occasionally vividly offensive.

So there are actually two ways to avoid the problematic of "race". 1) Pick a term that can only mean biology and cannot mean culture. 2) Pick a term that can only mean culture and cannot mean biology.

From what I am understanding, you prefer the second option. So, in the context of the D&D "Humanoid", never refer to biology, because every Humanoid is too human. It is problematic to "other" the Humanoid.


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> That I agree with. If Elf etcetera existed in reallife, then the scientific taxonomy would necessarily require kinds of species that are nonphylogenetic (namely have zero evolutionary relationship to each other).
> 
> I anticipate that this will precisely happen in the near future because of gene splicing and artificial intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> I am comfortable with many of the names that are in the poll of the original post.
> 
> I hate the term "race". The problem with "race" is, it means: 1) species and 2) ethnicity, whence 3. other ethnicities are nonhuman or subhuman. The term race is inherently problematic, and occasionally vividly offensive.
> 
> So there are actually two ways to avoid the problematic of "race". 1) Pick a term that can only mean biology and cannot mean culture. 2) Pick a term that can only mean culture and cannot mean biology.
> 
> From what I am understanding, you prefer the second option. So, in the context of the D&D "Humanoid", never refer to biology, because every Humanoid is too human. It is problematic to "other" the Humanoid.



Nah, it’s not about biology vs. culture to me, and in fact I prefer that “race” features be entirely inborn* rather than cultural.

*I prefer “inborn” over “biological” here for much the same reason I prefer “people” over “species” - in a world of gods and magic, our modern scientific understanding of the term “biology” isn’t applicable. To use another analogy, I wouldn’t call the process by which a dead titan’s body forms a mountain “geologic.”


----------



## Hriston

Yaarel said:


> That I agree with. If Elf etcetera existed in reallife, then the scientific taxonomy would necessarily require kinds of species that are nonphylogenetic (namely have zero evolutionary relationship to each other).
> 
> I anticipate that this will precisely happen in the near future because of gene splicing and artificial intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> I am comfortable with many of the names that are in the poll of the original post.
> 
> I hate the term "race". The problem with "race" is, it means: 1) species and 2) ethnicity, whence 3. other ethnicities are nonhuman or subhuman. The term race is inherently problematic, and occasionally vividly offensive.
> 
> So there are actually two ways to avoid the problematic of "race". 1) Pick a term that can only mean biology and cannot mean culture. 2) Pick a term that can only mean culture and cannot mean biology.
> 
> From what I am understanding, you prefer the second option. So, in the context of the D&D "Humanoid", never refer to biology, because every Humanoid is too human. It is problematic to "other" the Humanoid.



I'm comfortable with both. A fantasy people can have both biological and cultural differences from other peoples, but it doesn't have to have one or the other. There can also be biological and/or cultural diversity within a people.


----------



## glass

Charlaquin said:


> If they existed in real life as they do in D&D, our entire phylogenic system would be overturned, because it would be definitive proof against the theory of evolution by natural selection



If you have anything like resembling real humans (and dogs, etc), who take after their parents but are not identical to them, then you have heredity with random mutation. If you have anything at all which makes it more likely that some creatures will survive to produce viable offspring than others, you have selection pressure.

If you have heredity with random mutation and selection pressure, then you have evolution by means of natural selection, even if it is not the only game in town.



Charlaquin said:


> Modern people have a concept of what the word species means, which is informed by how it’s used in their everyday lives, not how it has been historically used.



Most modern people are not evolutionary biologists. I am reasonably confident that to most English-speaking people, "species" means nothing more precise that "category for living creatures, like 'cat' or 'dog'". And this thread ably demonstrates that many of those who think they know a more precise definition are wrong.


----------



## Charlaquin

glass said:


> If you have anything like resembling real humans (and dogs, etc), who take after their parents but are not identical to them, then you have heredity with random mutation.



Do you? Certainly you have heredity, but in a world where gods exist, the changes you describe as mutations may not be random at all, and the mechanism behind their transference and alteration may be divine intervention rather than genetic mutation.


glass said:


> If you have anything at all which makes it more likely that some creatures will survive to produce viable offspring than others, you have selection pressure.



Not if something other than survival to produce offspring determines what traits get passed along. Again, divine will throws a monkey wrench in this theory.


glass said:


> If you have heredity with random mutation and selection pressure, then you have evolution by means of natural selection, even if it is not the only game in town.



But you have not demonstrated that you have those things in D&D’s multiverse.


glass said:


> Most modern people are not evolutionary biologists. I am reasonably confident that to most English-speaking people, "species" means nothing more precise that "category for living creatures, like 'cat' or 'dog'". And this thread ably demonstrates that many of those who think they know a more precise definition are wrong.



Yes, and I maintain that elf and dwarf are not categories “like cat or dog,” which means that the word species will communicate the wrong thing to the average English speaker about these categories.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Do you? Certainly you have heredity, but in a world where gods exist, the changes you describe as mutations may not be random at all, and the mechanism behind their transference and alteration may be divine intervention rather than genetic mutation.
> 
> Not if something other than survival to produce offspring determines what traits get passed along. Again, divine will throws a monkey wrench in this theory.
> 
> But you have not demonstrated that you have those things in D&D’s multiverse.




We do have rules about falling damage and healing rates and material strengths and carrying capacity.  And now I want a "science book" for D&D worlds if we assume nothing necessarily works like IRL unless spelled out in the rules.  



> Yes, and I maintain that elf and dwarf are not categories “like cat or dog,” which means that the word species will communicate the wrong thing to the average English speaker about these categories.




I wish I had your optimism about the biological knowledge of the average English speaker!


----------



## Clint_L

Charlaquin said:


> I maintain that elf and dwarf are not categories “like cat or dog,” which means that the word species will communicate the wrong thing to the average English speaker about these categories.



Will it? Will it really? I am very confident that the average English speaker will understand what is meant and will not think about it twice. They will get that it means that a dwarf is a different thing than an elf, and they should choose one. I think they won't worry about these irrelevant, pedantic points at all. They will have better things to do.

I am very, very confident that 99.9% of readers will not immediately wonder, "gee, do you think that this means that elves and dwarves are different like cats and dogs are different? Or are they more like different breeds of dogs? Or should I say wolves, because technically dogs and wolves are still one species, though according to the most recent paper that may not be as clear cut as once thought? But then when we factor in genetic drift..."

Yeah, I am confident that the average English speaker is not going to have that problem. They will pick an elf or a dwarf (or whatever) and move on.

Edit: I want to clarify that I don't really care much what term issued, as long as it solves the inadvertent racism issue. Species: fine. Ancestry: whatever. Kindred: sure. Schmorp: _absolutely_. WHO CARES?


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> We do have rules about falling damage and healing rates and material strengths and carrying capacity.  And now I want a "science book" for D&D worlds if we assume nothing necessarily works like IRL unless spelled out in the rules.



I don’t assume that. On the contrary, I assume things work like they do in real life unless otherwise indicates. I would consider the presence of gods creating beings fully formed is sufficient indication that adaptation does not work like in real life.


Cadence said:


> I wish I had your optimism about the biological knowledge of the average English speaker!



 my concern stems from _pessimism_ about the biological knowledge of the average English speaker.


----------



## Scott Christian

Charlaquin said:


> I think he did. But I don’t think that matters. Modern people have a concept of what the word species means, which is informed by how it’s used in their everyday lives, not how it has been historically used. I believe that concept is at odds with how the groupings of PC races function in D&D, and therefore, using that term will miscommunicate what they are and how they work.



Off Subject: I often think about this in terms of how the game changes on a table/world building level. How words and even available abilities, such as how common flights are or the ability to gather information, changes the mindset of newer players, especially ones that have not seen how hard travel is or how difficult information used to be to find. To me, it's an interesting observation. There is probably a correlative paper in there somewhere.   

Anyway, sorry about the sidestep. Carry on.


----------



## Charlaquin

Clint_L said:


> Will it? Will it really? I am very confident that the average English speaker will understand what is meant and will not think about it twice. They will get that it means that a dwarf is a different thing than an elf, and they should choose one. I think they won't worry about these irrelevant, pedantic points at all. They will have better things to do.



Certainly I agree that the average player won’t put much critical thought into it. I think it is therefore all the more important that thought be put into it now, before a term is settled on.


----------



## glass

Charlaquin said:


> Nah, it’s not about biology vs. culture to me, and in fact I prefer that “race” features be entirely inborn* rather than cultural.



I have strongly disagreed with pretty much everything you have said in this thread, and with hindsight, I have maybe been a little harsh in expressing that. But this OTOH, I completely agree with!

With my homebrew setting, every character picks a Culture in addition to their Species/Ancestry/whatever, and which separates out things like languages, weapon training, and other non-inborn characteristics.



Charlaquin said:


> But you have not demonstrated that you have those things in D&D’s multiverse.



TBF you're right, in rebutting your claim I overstated my case. What I should have said was that you _can _have evolution in the presence of active divinities, not that you necessarily _do_. Either way, the presence of active divinities who can do create species from whole cloth do not prove that evolution by means of natural selection is not also occurring.



Charlaquin said:


> Yes, and I maintain that elf and dwarf are not categories “like cat or dog,”



The ways that they are (in some settings) unalike are not ways that would matter or even be noticeable to the vast majority of people.


----------



## glass

Charlaquin said:


> my concern stems from _pessimism_ about the biological knowledge of the average English speaker.






Charlaquin said:


> Certainly I agree that the average player won’t put much critical thought into it. I think it is therefore all the more important that thought be put into it now, before a term is settled on.



Is it your contention that using "species" for categories of created beings might lead more people than currently do to believe that real-world species are also created? Because that was not coming across before, and might be something to be concerned about. I'd like to dismiss it out of hand, but unlike your previous arguments I cannot - it does bear thinking about at least!


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t assume that. On the contrary, I assume things work like they do in real life unless otherwise indicates. I would consider the presence of gods creating beings fully formed is sufficient indication that adaptation does not work like in real life.[/quite]
> 
> It feels like children having a good chance at their parents traits doesn't depend on special creation vs. evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my concern stems from _pessimism_ about the biological knowledge of the average English speaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe they would learn that things of different species can interbreed in some cases and then have arguments about if D&D races should be one.  (Distracting them from politics into science for the win?)
> 
> But, I do trust that any choice will lead to some level of debacle. :-(
Click to expand...


----------



## Yaarel

"Gods" are merely an other species, with the Creature Type, Celestial.


----------



## Charlaquin

glass said:


> I have strongly disagreed with pretty much everything you have said in this thread, and with hindsight, I have maybe been a little harsh in expressing that. But this OTOH, I completely agree with!



I appreciate you saying that.


glass said:


> With my homebrew setting, every character picks a Culture in addition to their Species/Ancestry/whatever, and which separates out things like languages, weapon training, and other non-inborn characteristics.



This would be my ideal way of doing it too!


glass said:


> TBF you're right, in rebutting your claim I overstated my case. What I should have said was that you _can _have evolution in the presence of active divinities, not that you necessarily _do_. Either way, the presence of active divinities who can do create species from whole cloth do not prove that evolution by means of natural selection is not also occurring.



Very true, and I like to imagine at least creatures of the Beast type did arise through evolution.


glass said:


> The ways that they are (in some settings) unalike are not ways that would matter or even be noticeable to the vast majority of people.



I agree. But it does matter quite a lot to me, hence my position.


----------



## Charlaquin

glass said:


> Is it your contention that using "species" for categories of created beings might lead more people than currently do to believe that real-world species are also created? Because that was not coming across before, and might be something to be concerned about. I'd like to dismiss it out of hand, but unlike your previous arguments I cannot - it does bear thinking about at least!



Not as such, but I suppose in a roundabout way? I think a lot of modern science skepticism arises from a disconnect between the way we use scientific language and the way the same language is often used colloquially. I therefore find it important to be intentional and precise with language, especially scientific language.


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> "Gods" are merely an other species, with the Creature Type, Celestial.



If so, they seem to be a species with the power to create other species _ex nihilo_


----------



## SkidAce

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t assume that. On the contrary, I assume things work like they do in real life unless otherwise indicates. I would consider the presence of gods creating beings fully formed is sufficient indication that adaptation does not work like in real life.



Just because a god did it once (twice, etc,) does not mean that adaptation and/or evolution is not taking place.


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> If so, they seem to be a species with the power to create other species _ex nihlo_.



Something like that.

Albeit more precisely: thought construct → force construct → matter construct

So the Celestial species start with thought as a preexisting kind of medium.

Humans too are a species that can create other species, at least in principle.


----------



## Charlaquin

SkidAce said:


> Just because a god did it once (twice, etc,) does not mean that adaptation and/or evolution is not taking place.



True. But it is evident that evolution is not the process by which many of the playable character types arose.


----------



## SkidAce

Charlaquin said:


> True. But it is evident that evolution is not the process by which many of the playable character types arose.



Fair.


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> Something like that.
> 
> Albeit more precisely: thought construct → force construct → matter construct
> 
> So the Celestial species start with thought as a preexisting kind of medium.
> 
> Humans too are a species that can create other species, at least in principle.



I don’t think “species” would be the right word to describe, for example, varieties of artificially intelligent constructs.


----------



## Clint_L

NO ONE WILL CARE!

Edit: this argument is dumb! This is a nothing burger! This is a mountain out of a molehill! And there is no perfect answer (except "schmorp"). There is no "right." Why? Why keep arguing about it?


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think “species” would be the right word to describe, for example, varieties of artificially intelligent constructs.



That will be a coming-soon scientific controversy!


----------



## Yaarel

I am adding the term: Nature and Birth to the poll in the original post.

What about Nativity and Inbirth?


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> That will be a coming-soon scientific controversy!



I’m skeptical it’s coming all that soon, but fair enough


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> I’m skeptical it’s coming all that soon, but fair enough



I expect computers to pass the Turing Test around 2025.

Full on autonomous AI around 2045.

They might not be "conscious", but they might be "organisms" and extremely intelligent.


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> I am adding the term: Nature and Birth to the poll in the original post.
> 
> What about Nativity and Inbirth?



I think nativity would conjure imagery of wise men and mangers. And inberth I think just hits wrong. Birthright gets that idea across better, but I think also feels… uncomfortable.


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> I expect computers to pass the Turing Test around 2025.
> 
> Full on autonomous AI around 2045.
> 
> They might not be "conscious", but they might be "organisms" and extremely intelligent.



Passing the Turing Test I’d buy. Full autonomy seems less likely, but I suppose you did give it a longer timeline. I don’t think we’ll ever settle whether an artificial intelligence is conscious - we can’t even settle what consciousness really _is_ let alone if any other entities possess it.


----------



## Scribe

Yaarel said:


> Full on autonomous AI around 2045.




For my potential grandchildren's sake, I hope not.


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> Passing the Turing Test I’d buy. Full autonomy seems less likely, but I suppose you did give it a longer timeline. I don’t think we’ll ever settle whether an artificial intelligence is conscious - we can’t even settle what consciousness really _is_ let alone if any other entities possess it.



Once Turing Test comes online − extreme technological acceleration results − faster and faster and faster. There is no deceleration after that.

We wont be talking about "development across centuries" or "generation gaps". It will be "day gaps" and "hour gaps".

2045 is sooner than we can appreciate.


----------



## Yaarel




----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think we’ll ever settle whether an artificial intelligence is conscious - we can’t even settle what consciousness really _is_ let alone if any other entities possess it.



I can say categorically: The current computer technologies cannot ever be conscious, in principle.

But new technologies might be capable of consciousness. And the current experiments making computers out of biological material − who knows what is actually going on with regard to consciousness?

I expect science to eventually understand how consciousness works − but at that point science and mysticism will become moreorless the same thing.


----------



## Baron Opal II

Yaarel said:


> Im curious. In what contexts do you use "kin"?
> 
> For me, I mainly tend to use it in academic contexts relating to tribal kinship systems. Even then I might instead use the term "family" with the understanding of extended family.





Crimson Longinus said:


> You mean exactly like Modern Humans and Neanderthals, two different species?



My family and others where I was raised (rural New England and environs) use "kin" to refer to relations beyond first cousins or through marriage. Siblings, niblings and such are "family", further familial distance is "kin". I've also come across that in conversation in Texas, Arkansas, and the like.

Cool thing about some recent* papers is that there are a number of DNA sequences that are shared between Neanderthals and humans. We've been able to discern which come from whom, and what comes from the likely common ancestor. The thing I find interesting is that there are sequences in Neanderthal DNA that do not appear in human DNA, implying that there are some that are severely maladaptive for humans or even trigger fetal demise. Sadly we don't have enough Denisovian DNA to make similar observations. And red hair is our own thing, we didn't get it from the Neanderthals.

Tangent complete.

* Scientifically recent, so 5-10 years old or so.


----------



## Yaarel

Scribe said:


> For my potential grandchildren's sake, I hope not.



There will be luddites who refuse to participate in technology. But they will be obsolete. It wont even be possible for the luddites to have meaningful conversations with those who are technologically advancing.


----------



## Scribe

Yaarel said:


> There will be luddites who refuse to participate in technology. But they will be obsolete. It wont even be possible for the luddites to have meaningful conversations with those who are technologically advancing.




AKA: The AI. Yes. The idea that an AI would hang around and wait for Humanity is not one I'm going to cling to.


----------



## Yaarel

Baron Opal II said:


> My family and others where I was raised (rural New England and environs) use "kin" to refer to relations beyond first cousins or through marriage. Siblings, niblings and such are "family", further familial distance is "kin". I've also come across that in conversation in Texas, Arkansas, and the like.



Heh, it sounds biblical.

• "House" (בית) = nuclear family
• "Clan" (משפחה) = extended family
• "Kin" (עם) = relations beyond that but within the same tribal kinship system

So the phrase the "people of God", actually means, God is a next-of-kin, in the sense of being a member of the tribal alliance.





Baron Opal II said:


> Cool thing about some recent* papers is that there are a number of DNA sequences that are shared between Neanderthals and humans. We've been able to discern which come from whom, and what comes from the likely common ancestor. The thing I find interesting is that there are sequences in Neanderthal DNA that do not appear in human DNA, implying that there are some that are severely maladaptive for humans or even trigger fetal demise. Sadly we don't have enough Denisovian DNA to make similar observations. And red hair is our own thing, we didn't get it from the Neanderthals.
> 
> Tangent complete.
> 
> * Scientifically recent, so 5-10 years old or so.



I find the concept of "partially recombinant" DNA intriguing.


----------



## Yaarel

Scribe said:


> AKA: The AI. Yes. The idea that an AI would hang around and wait for Humanity is not one I'm going to cling to.



There are only two options: technologically upgrade ones own brain or opt out of technology.

Both alternatives seem a bit ... risky.



Part of the reason I love D&D is, its magical scenarios are often thought experiments about the reallife future.


----------



## Scribe

Yaarel said:


> There are only two options: technologically upgrade ones own brain or opt out of technology.
> 
> Both alternatives seem a bit ... risky.
> 
> Part of the reason I love D&D is, its magical scenarios are often thought experiments about the reallife future.




Yeah the thought experiment angle is a good part of why I like D&D and well Fantasy/Sci-Fi.

I'll be opting out, and moving to the woods.


----------



## Yaarel

Scribe said:


> Yeah the thought experiment angle is a good part of why I like D&D and well Fantasy/Sci-Fi.
> 
> I'll be opting out, and moving to the woods.



I hope to upgrade to technology when I turn 80.

I am curious about the future. But I want to have had a full life, before doing so, ... in case anything goes wrong!

Think about criminals hacking a persons brain directly ... yikes!


----------



## Bill Zebub

Charlaquin said:


> Is there? Elves are, what, a bit slimmer on average and have pointy ears?
> 
> Doesn’t work for species.




There _used_ to be a substantive difference but they took away the +2 Dex!!!!!!

(I jest.)


----------



## Bill Zebub

Also, if we all just start saying "schmorp" eventually WotC will have to give in.


----------



## Scribe

Bill Zebub said:


> There _used_ to be a substantive difference but they took away the +2 Dex!!!!!!




Yeah, now they can just be : Humanoid (note the root word) - Elf.

We are getting closer to just putting on those funny hats.


----------



## Bill Zebub

FWIW:


----------



## broghammerj

Yaarel said:


> That I agree with. If Elf etcetera existed in reallife, then the scientific taxonomy would necessarily require kinds of species that are nonphylogenetic (namely have zero evolutionary relationship to each other).
> 
> I anticipate that this will precisely happen in the near future because of gene splicing and artificial intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> I am comfortable with many of the names that are in the poll of the original post.
> 
> I hate the term "race". The problem with "race" is, it means: 1) species and 2) ethnicity, whence 3. other ethnicities are nonhuman or subhuman. The term race is inherently problematic, and occasionally vividly offensive.
> 
> So there are actually two ways to avoid the problematic of "race". 1) Pick a term that can only mean biology and cannot mean culture. 2) Pick a term that can only mean culture and cannot mean biology.
> 
> From what I am understanding, you prefer the second option. So, in the context of the D&D "Humanoid", never refer to biology, because every Humanoid is too human. It is problematic to "other" the Humanoid.



I got banned on another thread so I am trying to tread lightly.  I also am not dismissing your feelings of offense.  I accept that your perspective is valid.  To me you have actually defined why race fits perfectly for the tropes of DnD elves, dwarves, etc.

If you take common DnD tropes that dwarves look a certain way, short/stout/sturdy physique, resistant to poison, they have a culture around mining, live 400 years, form clans, worship a set pantheon of gods, dislike water, and are distrustful of outsiders.  Dwarves are well defined as both a species and ethnicity.  Dwarves have similar biological characteristics, can reproduce with one another, etc.  They also have a similar cultural features I defined above. Based on your definition the term "race" works really well.  I think that's why some people are having an issue with this change.  *I can't think of an English word that has both a definition of biology and culture that is a suitable replacement to race but doesn't have the real life historical baggage, hence the heated discussion.*

There are some historical aspects of race within DnD that are problematic like the term demi-human or subrace.  Taken as "smaller" demi works fine.  Taken as inferior and it stinks of racism.  I can understand why someone doesn't like the term "race" due its historical use to dehumanize people of color.  Obviously the biology difference on real humans was a false premise.  That being said the word race based on definition is a technically appropriate albeit offensive to some.

I always took humanoid to mean a group that walks upright on two legs like a human.


----------



## broghammerj

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think “species” would be the right word to describe, for example, varieties of artificially intelligent constructs.



Was thinking of warforged.  One could perhaps have them forge their offspring and imbue them with some form of magic, energy, or must have some component gifted from their parent. 

If the replicants in blade runner reproduce biologically like bladerunner 2 or they consciously decide to construct their offspring does that change your opinion?


----------



## Xamnam

Bill Zebub said:


> FWIW:
> 
> View attachment 268754


----------



## Charlaquin

broghammerj said:


> Was thinking of warforged.  One could perhaps have them forge their offspring and imbue them with some form of magic, energy, or must have some component gifted from their parent.
> 
> If the replicants in blade runner reproduce biologically like bladerunner 2 or they consciously decide to construct their offspring does that change your opinion?



Species still probably wouldn’t be my first choice of words.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Xamnam said:


> View attachment 268755



Yeah I tried it.


----------



## hbarsquared

In my opinion, "species" is as charged of a word as "race" when comparing free-thinking beings.  

Honestly, I would prefer the word "*Ethnicity*," (add to the poll?) over either.

With that said, I prefer Ancestry, Lineage, and Heritage.  I love the concept of Dwarf with a hint of orc, or Elf with a hint of halfling, that you can imply.  Words have meaning, and both Race and Species is a hurdle to envisioning such a character.

Not happy with the change: either commit to it or keep "Race."


----------



## Branduil

hbarsquared said:


> In my opinion, "species" is as charged of a word as "race" when comparing free-thinking beings.
> 
> Honestly, I would prefer the word "*Ethnicity*," (add to the poll?) over either.
> 
> With that said, I prefer Ancestry, Lineage, and Heritage.  I love the concept of Dwarf with a hint of orc, or Elf with a hint of halfling, that you can imply.  Words have meaning, and both Race and Species is a hurdle to envisioning such a character.
> 
> Not happy with the change: either commit to it or keep "Race."



This is another good point in favor of terms such as ancestry in the context of player characters: everyone has multiple sources of ancestry, whereas "species" still has the problem of attempting some level of essentialism. Ideally players would be able to freely choose traits from multiple ancestries, but I don't think we're going to be able to get there in D&D 5.5.


----------



## Yaarel

broghammerj said:


> Dwarves are well defined as both a species and ethnicity.  Dwarves have similar biological characteristics, can reproduce with one another, etc.  They also have a similar cultural features I defined above. Based on your definition the term "race" works really well.



The reason why the word "race" works so well here, is because this way of thinking is racist.

D&D traditions have drawn some inspiration from literature that includes racist worldviews.

To make the stereotypes that are attributed to human cultures be biological and nonhuman, is itself the ethical problem that many gamers today strive to remedy.


----------



## Yaarel

hbarsquared said:


> Honestly, I would prefer the word "*Ethnicity*," (add to the poll?) over either.



I worry that Ethnicity can end up creating the same problem that the word Race does. Namely, human cultural stereotypes are treated as if nonhuman. An othering.

Maybe if D&D officially defines Dwarves, Elves, Orcs, and so on as members of the Human species, it might make sense to refer to them as Ethnicities?


----------



## Bedrockgames

I think of D&D races as nothing like human ethnicities or race. They are much more like different species or categories of being (and the cultural elements that are borrowed from the real world, are there simply for flavor, for shorthand (i.e. something that implies viking-like is very easy to extrapolate on, etc). But they aren't meant to be confused with real world groups, be commentary on real world groups, nor are they a statement about some kind of biological essentialism in humans (the fact that humans all belong to one race in the game to me is a good indication that this isn't the case: in fact the one time I saw a setting where different human groups had stat modifiers, I found it very off-putting for that reason).


----------



## DEFCON 1

Bill Zebub said:


> Also, if we all just start saying "schmorp" eventually WotC will have to give in.



Oh yeah.  Just like how the Player's Handbook uses the word "Gish" for their spell-using Fighter subclass.

Oh... wait...


----------



## Celebrim

Regardless of the fact that the word brings up bad feelings for some people, these are all so awkward and inaccurate that it's hard to fault Gygax for choosing "race", especially since the dictionary definition of "race" he was using (2a rather than 1a) is not the one that most modern readers will think of.  We're not actually changing the idea when we change the word sound we label that idea with.  If anything we are just inventing a new definition of the word, so that the new word now means the same as the old one and will in its time be seen as wrong.

I'm not going to participate in the debate around the word, because first I don't care that much since every word change of this sort is meaningless - shuffling labels for ideas doesn't alter ideas - and secondly because it seems predicated over the confusion of having a single word with like 10 different definitions.  Most of the arguments to me seem akin to confusing the writer's intent with discussion of an athletic contest and fighting over that.  Change it to whatever you like, and I'll shrug or chuckle depending on what you change it to.

Still, it's strange to see "race" moving toward becoming a profanity or obscenity.   It's strange because I don't think it's going to do anything to make people more compassionate toward one another, but profanity and how it is chosen by society is always a strange concept if you think about it.  What is tame in one language is unspeakably vulgar in another, and humans will become more enraged about how something is said than what was actually said or meant.  Which is both and at the same time a justification for treating words as obscenities or profanities, and also displays how silly the whole thing is.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Race is in no way moving toward profanity of obscenity.

It's usage in this context was just... never good and after a surprisingly quick fifty years is being abandoned.


----------



## Yaarel

I am finding this argument persuasive:


Branduil said:


> everyone has multiple sources of *ancestry*,
> whereas "*species*" still has the problem of attempting some level of essentialism.


----------



## Celebrim

Yaarel said:


> I am finding this argument persuasive:




Wait, species is also problematic now?


----------



## Bill Zebub

DEFCON 1 said:


> Oh yeah.  Just like how the Player's Handbook uses the word "Gish" for their spell-using Fighter subclass.
> 
> Oh... wait...




Now _there's_ a bit of nomenclature I truly detest.


----------



## Charlaquin

Celebrim said:


> Wait, species is also problematic now?



As I’ve noted a few times now, species implies that dark-skinned drow are an entirely different species than pale-skinned high elves, which yeah, is problematic. And drow is just the most obvious example, but you see the same problem with any of the races character options that have multiple sub-groups. Duergar and dwarves, svirfneblin and gnomes, githyanki and githzerai…


----------



## Andvari

Pardon me, but wasn't the real issue generalising a whole group of people as evil based on their appearance, rather than which specific term was used to divide those groups into categories? So the word "race" not being the actual issue, but saying "all orcs are always evil due to being of the orc race" is? And if so, replacing "race" with "species" seems to matter little. "All orcs are always evil due to being of the orc species" is equally problematic.

Or am I missing something?

Anyway, I think I like ancestry, folk or kin the best. Currently playing Pathfinder 2E, and nobody seems to have questioned the use of "ancestry" in place of "race." Though I'm not sure what the adjectives are for "folk" and "kin." Ancestral abilities sounds fine, though.


----------



## SanjMerchant

Andvari said:


> Pardon me, but wasn't the real issue generalising a whole group of people as evil based on their appearance, rather than which specific term was used to divide those groups into categories? So the word "race" not being the actual issue, but saying "all orcs are always evil due to being of the orc race" is? And if so, replacing "race" with "species" seems to matter little. "All orcs are always evil due to being of the orc species" is equally problematic.
> 
> Or am I missing something?



The following is speculation on my part, but here goes:

I think it's that people are talking a lot about race IRL, making the term more loaded then ever (at least in recent memory).

Then there's the whole rabbit hole of "But what even is the concept of race, really?", which I can definitely appreciate looking at and going "Nope!  Do not want to get involved!"


----------



## Bagpuss

Charlaquin said:


> As I’ve noted a few times now, species implies that dark-skinned drow are an entirely different species than pale-skinned high elves, which yeah, is problematic.




No it doesn't, in the current PHB High Elves and Drow are all part of the same Elven race, so I would assume in the next edition they would be part of the same species. Why would they change that? Also it appears they already released subrace was an issue before they got rid of Race, and they referred to Drow and High Elves as being from different lineage in the Character Origins playtest material rather than subraces (PHB) so I imagine they would stick with that.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Vaalingrade said:


> It's usage in this context was just... never good (snip)



The problem is neither are the others.


----------



## Bagpuss

Branduil said:


> This is another good point in favor of terms such as ancestry in the context of player characters: everyone has multiple sources of ancestry, whereas "species" still has the problem of attempting some level of essentialism.



Right but some level of essentialism should exist when you are talking about different species.

I mean you're comparing say an elephant with a field mouse, you expect one to be always be larger, have a trunk and tusks, while the other will have will be considerably smaller, and nimbler. While in the distant past they will have shared and ancestor you aren't going to suddenly find a 3m tall mouse, or a 2" high elephant.

Comparing dwarves with elves, dwarves will always be shorter, while elves don't need to sleep. This is why I never had a problem with attribute adjustments and think it is a shame they are gone. I liked that on the whole elves were more graceful, and dwarves more sturdy, that's flavour has gone, when there was nothing wrong with it in the first place.


----------



## AnotherGuy

This could have been an awesome Survivor-styled thread given the level of interest.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

hbarsquared said:


> In my opinion, "species" is as charged of a word as "race" when comparing free-thinking beings.
> 
> Honestly, I would prefer the word "*Ethnicity*," (add to the poll?) over either.
> 
> With that said, I prefer Ancestry, Lineage, and Heritage.  I love the concept of Dwarf with a hint of orc, or Elf with a hint of halfling, that you can imply.  Words have meaning, and both Race and Species is a hurdle to envisioning such a character.
> 
> Not happy with the change: either commit to it or keep "Race."



Why is species a problematic word? Ethnicity suggests that all the DnD playable creatures are just different ethnic groups of the same species, with next to no differences. Much like irl ethnicities.

Species fits what they are much more accurately. A lizardfolk isn't just a slightly different ethnic group of halflings. The two species aren't even the same class (using the taxonomic meaning of the word). One being a reptile while the other is a mammal.

Even playable creatures which look almost identical could be different species. Elves would easily be a different species but same genus as humans, as that doesn't prohibit half elves existing.

Irl there have been free thinking sapient beings which aren't humans in the past. The neanderthals and denisovans being examples which ended up interbreeding with us despite being a completely different species to homo sapiens.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Bagpuss said:


> Comparing dwarves with elves, dwarves will always be shorter, while elves don't need to sleep. This is why I never had a problem with attribute adjustments and think it is a shame they are gone. I liked that on the whole elves were more graceful, and dwarves more sturdy, that's flavour has gone, when there was nothing wrong with it in the first place.



No, the flavor can still be there... the book can still describe the typical dwarf and elf in that way.  The _game_ however, doesn't need to attempt to portray this by using minor ability score bonuses.  1) Because it inspires/lightly forces players more often to make use of those bonuses and continually play classes for which those bonuses apply (leaving a bunch of class options off the table unless the player is okay with being less optimal than they otherwise could be) and 2) Because players can set their stats however they want... so often you WON'T have sturdy dwarves and lithe elves-- thus rendering the idea that these ability score bonuses accomplish something meaningful completely moot.

When people say they need elves to get a +2 DEX to illustrate how "graceful" they are... they are thinking about the elven species on the whole.  They see +2 attributed to the race write-up and it allows them to visualize the idea that every single elf is somehow more graceful than everyone else.  But that doesn't take into account that a whole bunch of other races also get a +2 DEX, meaning that elves aren't actually more graceful than anyone else, they are only equally as graceful as like a half-dozen other species in the game (including some variant _Humans_ who put their +2 into DEX).  And it also doesn't take into account that just because they desire to see all elves as these lithe and graceful creatures... the +2 DEX only applies to Player Characters... and more often than not that elf in the party WON'T be more graceful than many of the other characters.  In fact, you can easily have parties where the Dwarf has a higher DEX than the Elf does.  Thus proving that ability score bonuses don't accomplish what they are trying to do.  If the primary elf we see in the campaign week after week, session after session is a blundering fool compared to the dwarf, what did that +2 DEX functionally accomplish towards the description of "elves"?  Nothing.  So why bother having it as a _game option_, when all it does is cut down on a number of other game options people will feel as though they are willing or able to play?

The _game_ of Dungeons & Dragons wants characters to have high primary stats.  And that can run counter to what the _narrative_ of the campaign world might feel like it wants to get across.  And when those two things are in disagreement... I believe (and I would say at this point WotC does too) that the _game_ takes precedence.  Make the game more open to more players.  And then let those who want to restrain their game's options do so... but do it on their own time at their own table.  After all... you don't need the book to tell you that all Elves should put their +2 bonus into DEX... you can just tell your players you are instituting that rule yourself.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bagpuss said:


> No it doesn't, in the current PHB High Elves and Drow are all part of the same Elven race, so I would assume in the next edition they would be part of the same species. Why would they change that? Also it appears they already released subrace was an issue before they got rid of Race, and they referred to Drow and High Elves as being from different lineage in the Character Origins playtest material rather than subraces (PHB) so I imagine they would stick with that.



Again, drow was just one example. Species still implies duergar, for instance, are a different species from dwarves, svirfneblin from gnomes, githyanki from githzerai, etc.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Again, drow was just one example. Species still implies duergar, for instance, are a different species from dwarves, svirfneblin from gnomes, githyanki from githzerai, etc.




Why does it imply that?  Are war horse and riding horse different species just because they have different listings? Are all apes the same species because they have one entry?


----------



## Celebrim

Charlaquin said:


> As I’ve noted a few times now, species implies that dark-skinned drow are an entirely different species than pale-skinned high elves, which yeah, is problematic.




Ok, yes, agreed.  That's the opposite of the problem I worry about with ancestry or heritage, but still valid.

Though in my campaign's variant 3.X rules, built not even really considering this issue, a drow character uses the exact same racial template as a high elf character or a wood elf character, and the standard differences would be built with optional traits and racial feats.  So technically, you could be a high elf with darkvision and dark magic and you'd be functionally identical to my world's standard drow.  This approach might get in the way of the standard trope that drow are just better than other races... ancestries... folk...whatever at everything though.


----------



## Celebrim

Andvari said:


> Pardon me, but wasn't the real issue generalising a whole group of people as evil based on their appearance, rather than which specific term was used to divide those groups into categories? So the word "race" not being the actual issue, but saying "all orcs are always evil due to being of the orc race" is? And if so, replacing "race" with "species" seems to matter little. "All orcs are always evil due to being of the orc species" is equally problematic.




Is that the problem?  If that's the problem then I suspect "evil" is going to be the next word that will need to be banished.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Charlaquin said:


> Again, drow was just one example. Species still implies duergar, for instance, are a different species from dwarves, svirfneblin from gnomes, githyanki from githzerai, etc.



And entries with those playable races still specify 'race' on them. Because that was the language used when they were published.

If those playables were published in a book after the language change, then they would probably get specified as being members of the overall species group.


----------



## Bedrockgames

DEFCON 1 said:


> No, the flavor can still be there... the book can still describe the typical dwarf and elf in that way.  The _game_ however, doesn't need to attempt to portray this by using minor ability score bonuses.  1) Because it inspires/lightly forces players more often to make use of those bonuses and continually play classes for which those bonuses apply (leaving a bunch of class options off the table unless the player is okay with being less optimal than they otherwise could be) and 2) Because players can set their stats however they want... so often you WON'T have sturdy dwarves and lithe elves-- thus rendering the idea that these ability score bonuses accomplish something meaningful completely moot.




For me there is kind of no point to taking elf, dwarf etc, if there isn't a mechanical difference (that was always one part of the attraction for me to picking a demihuman). Mechanical differences also create substantive distinctions between them as well, which works for the worlds for me.

I do think more than terminology this really comes down to what demihumans are meant to be in the game. I always saw the selection of race and class as the two simple steps that in part make D&D what it is (because those two decisions confer many of your important mechanical bonuses and abilities). If they are just background flavor, then I think they become less interesting to me. Again I think race is fine as a term because it is used differently here than in talk about human races, but species is the term that most captures what was indicated by race in the game over the years (I think people tended to prefer Race simply because to their ears, species sounded more sci-fi).


----------



## Bagpuss

DEFCON 1 said:


> No, the flavor can still be there... the book can still describe the typical dwarf and elf in that way.




But the mechanics no longer reflect the narrative.



DEFCON 1 said:


> The _game_ however, doesn't need to attempt to portray this by using minor ability score bonuses.  1) Because it inspires/lightly forces players more often to make use of those bonuses and continually play classes for which those bonuses apply




This is a good thing it means the players are more likely to play classes that reflect the narrative, it rewards players that reflect the narrative, it is good design.



DEFCON 1 said:


> 2) Because players can set their stats however they want... so often you WON'T have sturdy dwarves and lithe elves-- thus rendering the idea that these ability score bonuses accomplish something meaningful completely moot.




You can't have it both ways, players can set their attribute however they want (assuming standard array, assign where you like or point buy), but they are rewarded when they make use of the bonuses in the (old) mechanics, so they tend not to give the elf a 8 in Dexterity (upped to 10), and more often put a high value to exploit the bonus. Thus the ability score modifier accomplishes something meaningful by encouraging the player to reflect the narrative. Again good design.



DEFCON 1 said:


> When people say they need elves to get a +2 DEX to illustrate how "graceful" they are... they are thinking about the elven species on the whole.




Yes because on the whole PC are encouraged to they put higher values into Dexterity. So in the elves players come across in the party and NPCs tend to have higher than average dexterity.



DEFCON 1 said:


> They see +2 attributed to the race write-up and it allows them to visualize the idea that every single elf is somehow more graceful than everyone else.  But that doesn't take into account that a whole bunch of other races also get a +2 DEX, meaning that elves aren't actually more graceful than anyone else, they are only equally as graceful as like a half-dozen other species in the game (including some variant _Humans_ who put their +2 into DEX).




It doesn't matter about odd variant humans because when looking at species as a whole, you are looking at a bell curve, and while an out lying human (with +2 Dex) will be in the upper quartile for their race, a similar elf will just be average for theirs.



DEFCON 1 said:


> And it also doesn't take into account that just because they desire to see all elves as these lithe and graceful creatures... the +2 DEX only applies to Player Characters...




No it doesn't. Check out any of the elves in various NPC in monster books or other sourcebooks they virtually all have higher than average Dexterity (and were written under the old rules).



DEFCON 1 said:


> and more often than not that elf in the party WON'T be more graceful than many of the other characters.




Yet earlier you said inspires/lightly forces characters of those races to make use of those bonuses, so they will. At least they would under the old rules, unless they are specifically playing against type.



DEFCON 1 said:


> In fact, you can easily have parties where the Dwarf has a higher DEX than the Elf does.




Yes that is to be expected with bell curve distributions within a population, but the case where an Dwarf has a higher Dex than an Elf, are the edge cases and aren't anywhere near as common as the Elf having the highest Dex in the party.



DEFCON 1 said:


> Thus proving that ability score bonuses don't accomplish what they are trying to do.




Thus proving ability scored do exactly what they are trying to do, reward and encourage players for playing characters that reflect the narrative norms.



DEFCON 1 said:


> If the primary elf we see in the campaign week after week, session after session is a blundering fool compared to the dwarf, what did that +2 DEX functionally accomplish towards the description of "elves"?




But that's not what we use to see, group after group elves had the highest dexterity in the party, and played classes that exploited that racial Dexterity bonus.



DEFCON 1 said:


> Nothing.  So why bother having it as a _game option_, when all it does is cut down on a number of other game options people will feel as though they are willing or able to play?




Cutting down the options is desirable, it helps enforce the narrative realities and reduces decisions the players need to make early on, "Oh you want to play an archer, you might want to pick elf as your race then." it's good game design. Once a player has more experience and knows the norms they can play against them with their Elf with 10 Dex and 16 Strength, and again it rewards those players because they are special acting against the norms, not just another Fighter with maximum Strength.



DEFCON 1 said:


> The _game_ of Dungeons & Dragons wants characters to have high primary stats.  And that can run counter to what the _narrative_ of the campaign world might feel like it wants to get across.  And when those two things are in disagreement...




Only the narrative and the mechanics were in agreement when they gave a racial bonus to elves' Dexterity. Now they don't agree.



DEFCON 1 said:


> I believe (and I would say at this point WotC does too) that the _game_ takes precedence.




I would say the narrative takes precedence, and the mechanics where possible should reflect that.



DEFCON 1 said:


> Make the game more open to more players.




Having the rule either way makes no difference the openness to players.



DEFCON 1 said:


> And then let those who want to restrain their game's options do so... but do it on their own time at their own table.  After all... you don't need the book to tell you that all Elves should put their +2 bonus into DEX... you can just tell your players you are instituting that rule yourself.




Except what is in the rulebooks will become the standard and what players expect.

Anyway it's a moot point, the power gamers got their way. Everyone gets a 20 in their primary stat, now everyone is "special".


----------



## Branduil

Celebrim said:


> Wait, species is also problematic now?



I don't want to say species is as bad as the term race now, because it isn't. Removing the term was a necessary and good change because of the long, sordid history of the word race in our own world and how it was used by people, so this is a welcome change. 

I do still think there are problems with terms like species though, and the essentialism is a big part of it, or any similar term. And the rub is, essentialism is even MORE nonsensical than it is in our world, once you consider how ancestry and co-mingling of peoples actually works in D&D worlds. You can have draconic parents! Members of multiple different "species" can marry and have children, who can also have children! There should be a MASSIVE amount of people with mixed and diverse heritage in any D&D setting. Even if it nonsensically has a ton of strict ethnostates, just one big trading center would result in a massive amount of children of mixed heritage. 

So ideally, D&D would allow you to mix and match a bunch of ancestral traits to actually match how their settings work. Unfortunately, we can't really expect that in a half-edition update, but that's what they should be working towards in the next true edition. As it is, we have a situation where half-elves and half-orcs have to pretend they are 100% just one of their parents, which is pretty nonsensical and shows the problems with the current design.


----------



## Cadence

Branduil said:


> I do still think there are problems with terms like species though, and the essentialism is a big part of it, or any similar term. And the rub is, essentialism is even MORE nonsensical than it is in our world, once you consider how ancestry and co-mingling of peoples actually works in D&D worlds. You can have draconic parents! Members of multiple different "species" can marry and have children, who can also have children! There should be a MASSIVE amount of people with mixed and diverse heritage in any D&D setting.




Which, if one were to do such things, might slippery slope into doing away with the idea of race/species for the humanoids and just leaving a big menu of choices to pick from with point costs for everyone: breath weapon, tremorsense, wings, darkvision, skill bonus, etc...   and removing them as separate entries in the MM.

Assuming slippery slopes are bad, the question is where in between is the happy point.   Does deciding which are pseudo-species (Dwarf, Elf)  and which are flavoring options (High Elf, Wood Elf) and making sure none of it has to do with culture work?   Maybe put the pseudo-species hybrid idea in an option box and say some tables may like that, and if so, here's what the recommendations are?


----------



## Bagpuss

Branduil said:


> There should be a MASSIVE amount of people with mixed and diverse heritage in any D&D setting.



Well not if they are different species. You don't see ducks mating with dogs do you?


----------



## Cadence

Bagpuss said:


> Well not if they are different species. You don't see ducks mating with dogs do you?



But you do see lots of Carolina Chickadees breeding with Black-Capped Chickadees a lot in the wild.  And will find Tigers and Lions doing so in captivitiy.

Being different species doesn't stop interbreeding IRL... but being taxonomically too far away does.  What too far away is seems to vary a lot.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Why does it imply that?



Because the thing that grants the package of features your character gets for being a dwarf is (or would be) called a species, and the one that grants the package of features your character gets for being a Duergar is also (or would also be) called a species, and they aren’t the same species.


Cadence said:


> Are war horse and riding horse different species just because they have different listings? Are all apes the same species because they have one entry?



No, because monster stat blocks are abstract bundles of mechanics that might represent many different creatures or one very specific creature as suits the needs of the game. By calling the bundle of mechanics PCs get based on what people the character belongs to a “species,” WotC would limit themselves in what they could represent. Specifically, they would represent species.


----------



## Vaalingrade

AnotherGuy said:


> The problem is neither are the others.



I don't think you're quite getting the highly diplomatic work those ellipses are doing.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Which, if one were to do such things, might slippery slope into doing away with the idea of race/species for the humanoids and just leaving a big menu of choices to pick from with point costs for everyone: breath weapon, tremorsense, wings, darkvision, skill bonus, etc...   and removing them as separate entries in the MM.
> 
> Assuming slippery slopes are bad, the question is where in between is the happy point.   Does deciding which are pseudo-species (Dwarf, Elf)  and which are flavoring options (High Elf, Wood Elf) and making sure none of it has to do with culture work?   Maybe put the pseudo-species hybrid idea in an option box and say some tables may like that, and if so, here's what the recommendations are?



Slippery slopes are only bad if the bottom of the slope isn’t a place you want to end up. To be honest, what you describe with a sort of build-your-own-set-of-inborn-features system would be pretty cool in my opinion.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bagpuss said:


> Well not if they are different species. You don't see ducks mating with dogs do you?



But you do see elves mating with dwarves, gnomes with humans, halflings with dragonborn, and tieflings with genasi. Another reason species is a poor choice of words for them.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Slippery slopes are only bad if the bottom of the slope isn’t a place you want to end up. To be honest, what you describe with a sort of build-your-own-set-of-inborn-features system would be pretty cool in my opinion.




Ok, and now my brain is off and running.  (Possibly in an attempt to not grade papers.  Also, as usual, thank you for all of your insights!)

If you did mush them altogether, is there a difference in having regions where most of the residents have at least parts of a particular feature package [flight, darkvision, powerful build, more skills to make up for not having anything else, etc...] any different than having a game region where most people have the same subset of skin, eye, and hair colors?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> But you do see elves mating with dwarves, gnomes with humans, halflings with dragonborn, and tieflings with genasi. Another reason species is a poor choice of words for them.



Do you though? I don’t recall such in published settings, not that I really pay attention to them so I might be mistaken.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> Slippery slopes are only bad if the bottom of the slope isn’t a place you want to end up. To be honest, what you describe with a sort of build-your-own-set-of-inborn-features system would be pretty cool in my opinion.



I don’t want that for D&D same reason I don’t want it to go classless. Being strongly splat based is part of D&D’s core identity.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I think in most settings and in D&D in gneral the race options are meant to be simplifications. Presumably there are more half races than half elf and half irc but those are just what the game makes available to players


----------



## Vaalingrade

Crimson Longinus said:


> Do you though? I don’t recall such in published settings, not that I really pay attention to them so I might be mistaken.



So were a whole lot of other things that have gone away or diminished.

The game improves, however slowly, in spite of the inertia of tradition.


----------



## glass

Charlaquin said:


> But you do see elves mating with dwarves, gnomes with humans, halflings with dragonborn, and tieflings with genasi.



[citation needed]


----------



## Cadence

Crimson Longinus said:


> Do you though? I don’t recall such in published settings, not that I really pay attention to them so I might be mistaken.






Bedrockgames said:


> I think in most settings and in D&D in gneral the race options are meant to be simplifications. Presumably there are more half races than half elf and half irc but those are just what the game makes available to players






glass said:


> [citation needed]





The ONE playtest rules for this allow the mixing.

I've never seen other mixes in any games or materials (except half-ogres, maybe mention in some sorcerer backgrounds, and some race descriptions that hinted at ancient mixing - dwarves are cousins to gnomes). 

In fiction, one of Glen Cook's series of books is stocked full with them.


----------



## Yaarel

Celebrim said:


> Wait, species is also problematic now?



For D&D, the term species works fine, as long as it is distinct from culture.

Note, the playtest Elf is a single species, where Drow, High, and Wood differ mechanically via certain innate spells.

There is no problem having diverse elven parentage.

Even so, ancestry looks like a useful term because it emphasizes multiple ancestors each transmitting a different lineage. Not only might the Elf have High and Drow parents, but perhaps has a draconic bloodline, meaning one of the ancestors is a Dragon, plus maybe one of the grand parents is a Human. The term ancestry invites this fluidity of possible origins for a D&D character.

Note, ancestry must also be distinct from culture. A character of Dwarf ancestry and a character of Human ancestry might grow up in the same town and be members of the same culture.

Meanwhile ancestry can refer to a species, or to a particular genetic trait within the species.


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> For D&D, the term species works fine, as long as it is distinct from culture.
> 
> Note, the playtest Elf is a single species, where Drow, High, and Wood differ mechanically via certain innate spells.
> 
> There is no problem having diverse elven parentage.
> 
> Even so, ancestry looks like a useful term because it emphasizes multiple ancestors each transmitting a different lineage. Not only might the Elf have High and Drow parents, but perhaps has a draconic bloodline, meaning one of the ancestors is a Dragon, plus maybe one of the grand parents is a Human. The term ancestry invites this fluidity of possible origins for a D&D character.
> 
> Note, ancestry must also be distinct from culture. A character of Dwarf ancestry and a character of Human ancestry might grow up in the same town and be members of the same culture.
> 
> Meanwhile ancestry can refer to a species, or to a particular genetic trait within the species.




My only problem with ancestry is that it feels like its real life usage is about country of origin (and thus conflated with culture).  Is it common for an English speaker in the US to say something like "I have <insert other country> ancestry"?   If that isnt' common, then I have no objection.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Ok, and now my brain is off and running.  (Possibly in an attempt to not grade papers.  Also, as usual, thank you for all of your insights!)
> 
> If you did mush them altogether, is there a difference in having regions where most of the residents have at least parts of a particular feature package [flight, darkvision, powerful build, more skills to make up for not having anything else, etc...] any different than having a game region where most people have the same subset of skin, eye, and hair colors?



A little bit of a difference, in that features like flight, Darkvision, powerful build, and bonus skills would obviously have a great deal more impact on a person’s capabilities than things like hair, eye, and skin color (which have basically no impact on capabilities, except maybe like capability to tan vs. burn in the sun). But, in a fantasy setting, I think that makes sense.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> A little bit of a difference, in that features like flight, Darkvision, powerful build, and bonus skills would obviously have a great deal more impact on a person’s capabilities than things like hair, eye, and skin color (which have basically no impact on capabilities, except maybe like capability to tan vs. burn in the sun). But, in a fantasy setting, I think that makes sense.




I was wondering if it would run into any icky problems as long as we didn't have the features cause culture or culture cause features.  (Although, presumably a group - call them Dwarves - having tremorsense and being short with darkvision might incline a higher perecentage of them careers where those skills are useful?)


----------



## Charlaquin

Crimson Longinus said:


> Do you though? I don’t recall such in published settings, not that I really pay attention to them so I might be mistaken.



Again, the Origins packet explicitly makes it possible. As for published settings where such things occur, I know for sure it does in Exandria. The example I listed of Tieflings mating with Genasi was straight from Critical Role, Laura Bailey’s character from the second campaign was half-Tiefling, half-water-Genasi.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> I think in most settings and in D&D in gneral the race options are meant to be simplifications. Presumably there are more half races than half elf and half irc but those are just what the game makes available to players



And in 1D&D they seem to be moving away from providing mechanically distinct half-race options in favor of saying your character can be half-anything, just pick the mechanics of one half and mix-and-match cosmetic traits however you like.


----------



## Charlaquin

glass said:


> [citation needed]



The Origins playtest packet. Also Jester from Critical Role.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> And in 1D&D they seem to be moving away from providing mechanically distinct half-race options in favor of saying your character can be half-anything, just pick the mechanics of one half and mix-and-match cosmetic traits however you like.




Sure, which some people might like, and I like I said, I am not too invested in this debate as I probably won't be playing 1D&D, as I didn't make the 5E transition either. But for me, personally, there are other games that do that kind of character buidling better, it isn't something I think of when I think D&D (what I like about D&D is the simplicity of picking race and class, and being ready to adventure). I also like that there are clear types. Whereas this, to me at least, feels more like something we experienced in 2E, after Drizzt, where everyone was playing a deep gnome or dark elf, or some other unique character. Again, nothing wrong with that preference, I just like D&D when it is more in the classic mold.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> My only problem with ancestry is that it feels like its real life usage is about country of origin (and thus conflated with culture).  Is it common for an English speaker in the US to say something like "I have <insert other country> ancestry"?   If that isnt' common, then I have no objection.



I mean… That’s a fairly common phrase, but it generally refers to ethnicity rather than culture. If you’re white and grew up in Singapore, you probably wouldn’t claim Singapore ancestry.


----------



## Bagpuss

Charlaquin said:


> But you do see elves mating with dwarves,




Can't say I have.



Charlaquin said:


> gnomes with humans,




Nope no half gnomes I'm aware of.



Charlaquin said:


> halflings with dragonborn,




again nope...



Charlaquin said:


> and tieflings with genasi.




Still nope



Charlaquin said:


> Another reason species is a poor choice of words for them.




The only "successful" mating I've seen in D&D are humans with elves and humans with orcs.


----------



## Xamnam

I think it's clear she meant a general you, as opposed to you specifically, and this reply is needlessly dismissive.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Cadence said:


> The ONE playtest rules for this allow the mixing.
> 
> I've never seen other mixes in any games or materials (except half-ogres, maybe mention in some sorcerer backgrounds, and some race descriptions that hinted at ancient mixing - dwarves are cousins to gnomes).
> 
> In fiction, one of Glen Cook's series of books is stocked full with them.




My point wasn't that other mixes were allowed, but that they could be presumed to exist in the settings, they just weren't character options. You couldn't pick kobold either in 1E or 2E but those existed in the game worlds. I'm sure there may be things in variations supplements like the 2E complete book of humanoids or the various demihuman complete books that offered other options (and I seem to recall more options during the 3E era though my memory is pretty fuzzy there).


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> I was wondering if it would run into any icky problems as long as we didn't have the features cause culture or culture cause features.  (Although, presumably a group - call them Dwarves - having tremorsense and being short with darkvision might incline a higher perecentage of them careers where those skills are useful?)



I think if it was fully build-your own, cultural features wouldn’t be a problem. Cultural features as part of “race” are only a problem because the immutable and inherited nature of “race” features implies that those features are inborn. It gives rise to questions of “why does my elf character have to know how to shoot a bow even though they were raised by dwarves?” With a build-your-own system, now proficiency could be an option, and your elf character wouldn’t have to take it if that didn’t fit their story.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> I mean… That’s a fairly common phrase, but it generally refers to ethnicity rather than culture. If you’re white and grew up in Singapore, you probably wouldn’t claim Singapore ancestry.





In the US at least there are usually some cultural attachments to it as well.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bagpuss said:


> Can't say I have.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope no half gnomes I'm aware of.
> 
> 
> 
> again nope...
> 
> 
> 
> Still nope
> 
> 
> 
> The only "successful" mating I've seen in D&D are humans with elves and humans with orcs.



Then you haven’t been paying attention to what the rest of the D&D playing community has been doing.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> In the US at least there are usually some cultural attachments to it as well.



Some, yeah.


----------



## Celebrim

Yaarel said:


> Even so, ancestry looks like a useful term because it emphasizes multiple ancestors each transmitting a different lineage. Not only might the Elf have High and Drow parents, but perhaps has a draconic bloodline, meaning one of the ancestors is a Dragon, plus maybe one of the grand parents is a Human. The term ancestry invites this fluidity of possible origins for a D&D character.




My hesitancy over "Ancestry" is that Gygax when he used the word "race" meant definition 2a in the dictionary (as in the phrase "the human race").  The whole controversy is over the problem that 2a is increasingly an obsolete usage in the language (similar to how the usage "the race of my loins" is already pretty archaic) and so people seeing "race" confuse it with definition 1a which because of history is seen as insensitive or problematic.

The problem I have is that "Ancestry" is basically a synonym not for race definition 2a but for race definition 1a, so to me we are making a superficial label change that actually doubles down on the potentially problematic idea the label points to.  There is to me a very strong danger that the idea now conveyed will not be race definition 2a, but race definition 1a.  

I think having a second choice of "culture" helps defend against a little but not perfectly, as then "culture" might well end up pointing to race definition 1a.  And all of this to me feels weird because hitherto, only race definition 2a ("the human race", "the elvish race", etc.) was even part of the game and change feels almost certain to make race definition 1a part of the game in some fashion.

It's all well and good to apply this to dwarves or elves, but as soon as you apply these changes to humans I think you have a problem.



> Note, ancestry must also be distinct from culture. A character of Dwarf ancestry and a character of Human ancestry might grow up in the same town and be members of the same culture.




How the heck are we going to tease apart nature versus nurture for an imagined species?  Are dwarves good craftsman because they are inculcated in a culture that prizes it, or are they good craftsman because they are naturally gifted at artistic work and skilled and dexterous with their firm and strong hands?  Or both?  This isn't a trivial question because we know that while talents can be honed by practice, there are some real-world individuals just more naturally adept than the average at painting or the like than we are, and have perhaps higher ceilings at particular skills or athletic feats than we observe in ourselves.   I'll never run as fast as Usain Bolt or even Kaitlin Touhy, for example.  The very act of separating these two things is going to be an act of judgment and opinion, and it's likely going to reduce the alienness and diversity of the fantasy panorama.  To me the first instinct is likely to be the instinct to make everything conform to human norms and expectations about what is cultural and what is ancestral, the very opposite of what I want which is comfort with the notion of alien and different.



> Meanwhile ancestry can refer to a species, or to a particular genetic trait within the species.




And there it is.  Race definition 1a is now a part of my D&D.  You are pushing my game to your racist place.  This is likely in the long run to work out no better than the Hadozee which I'm sure were created by well meaning people as well.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> Some, yeah.




It does depend on the part of the country. In the north east I would say it is pretty significant. I found it to be much less significant the further west I went.


----------



## Cadence

Bedrockgames said:


> In the US at least there are usually some cultural attachments to it as well.






Charlaquin said:


> Some, yeah.




This is one where I'd be interested what the sensitivity readers say.  It would be convenient if it passed.

I wonder if having "Ancestry" for the one and "Background" for more cultural things would help.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> The Origins playtest packet. Also Jester from Critical Role.



Tieflings and genasi are both part human so them being able to interbreed makes sense. 

But I agree that there is certain inconsistency in their approach. On one hand using moniker species and getting rid of mechanics for half species, on the other hand saying that the species can freely mix.


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> Again, the Origins packet explicitly makes it possible. As for published settings where such things occur, I know for sure it does in Exandria. The example I listed of Tieflings mating with Genasi was straight from Critical Role, Laura Bailey’s character from the second campaign was half-Tiefling, half-water-Genasi.



Also Dark Sun Half-Giant and Mul. Admixture shows up here and there in D&D tradition, such as Draconic Bloodline, Half-Dragon, Cambion, and old school rumor that Leprocaun descend from both Gnome and Pixie. And so on.


----------



## Amrûnril

Cadence said:


> The ONE playtest rules for this allow the mixing.





Charlaquin said:


> Again, the Origins packet explicitly makes it possible.




The relevant paragraph in the playtest reads: 
_"Thanks to the magical workings of the multiverse, Humanoids of different kinds sometimes have children together. For example, folk who have a human parent and an orc or an elf parent are particularly common. Many other combinations are possible."_

This doesn't specifically put restrictions on what pairings are possible, but neither does it declare that all combinations are possible. The details are left open-ended, with general mechanics provided to facilitate whatever combinations are possible in a given setting.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Cadence said:


> This is one where I'd be interested what the sensitivity readers say.  It would be convenient if it passed.




Personally terms like ethnicity, ancestry, peoples all seem much more like they have potential to be connected to ideas like blood and soil, than the way race is meant to be used in D&D (which as Celebrim pointed out, humans are all one race, drwarves and elves another, effectively different species, maybe distantly related to humans. I'm Jewish, Italian and Irish, someone having Jewish ancestry is certainly something that that has manifested in real world racism towards them. And all three of those, at least here in Boston, have cultural things associated with (things I experience when I visit different sides of the family). That concept of ethnicity or ancestry is different from the idea that all humans belong to one category: the human race (which is how D&D means it: like I said the one time I saw modifiers for different human groups in a D&D book, I found it pretty off-putting for that reason). The demihuman groups aren't really meant to be stand ins for human cultural or ethnic groups (we just draw on those and blend them to produce something new and interesting, or as shorthand: i.e. Dwarven vikings are an easy thing to grasp without much further explanation---but it isn't a commentary on viking culture, nor is it a lesson in it). To me, since there seems to be a lot of confusion around what race means in this context, species appears to be the closest thing to capturing its original meaning in the game. I would say Type could also work but that might lack flavor for people. At least that is how I have always viewed it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Celebrim said:


> My hesitancy over "Ancestry" is that Gygax when he used the word "race" meant definition 2a in the dictionary (as in the phrase "the human race").  The whole controversy is over the problem that 2a is increasingly an obsolete usage in the language (similar to how the usage "the race of my loins" is already pretty archaic) and so people seeing "race" confuse it with definition 1a which because of history is seen as insensitive or problematic.
> 
> The problem I have is that "Ancestry" is basically a synonym not for race definition 2a but for race definition 1a, so to me we are making a superficial label change that actually doubles down on the potentially problematic idea the label points to.  There is to me a very strong danger that the idea now conveyed will not be race definition 2a, but race definition 1a.
> 
> I think having a second choice of "culture" helps defend against a little but not perfectly, as then "culture" might well end up pointing to race definition 1a.  And all of this to me feels weird because hitherto, only race definition 2a ("the human race", "the elvish race", etc.) was even part of the game and change feels almost certain to make race definition 1a part of the game in some fashion.
> 
> It's all well and good to apply this to dwarves or elves, but as soon as you apply these changes to humans I think you have a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> How the heck are we going to tease apart nature versus nurture for an imagined species?  Are dwarves good craftsman because they are inculcated in a culture that prizes it, or are they good craftsman because they are naturally gifted at artistic work and skilled and dexterous with their firm and strong hands?  Or both?  This isn't a trivial question because we know that while talents can be honed by practice, there are some real-world individuals just more naturally adept than the average at painting or the like than we are, and have perhaps higher ceilings at particular skills or athletic feats than we observe in ourselves.   I'll never run as fast as Usain Bolt or even Kaitlin Touhy, for example.  The very act of separating these two things is going to be an act of judgment and opinion, and it's likely going to reduce the alienness and diversity of the fantasy panorama.  To me the first instinct is likely to be the instinct to make everything conform to human norms and expectations about what is cultural and what is ancestral, the very opposite of what I want which is comfort with the notion of alien and different.
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is.  Race definition 1a is now a part of my D&D.  You are pushing my game to your racist place.  This is likely in the long run to work out no better than the Hadozee which I'm sure were created by well meaning people as well.



Level Up managed to separate heritage and culture just fine, for my money.  WotC could easily have chosen to do the same, which as a side benefit would have cleared out the whole, "my god gave me these skills" issue.


----------



## Yaarel

Celebrim said:


> My hesitancy over "Ancestry" is that Gygax when he used the word "race" meant definition 2a in the dictionary (as in the phrase "the human race").  The whole controversy is over the problem that 2a is increasingly an obsolete usage in the language (similar to how the usage "the race of my loins" is already pretty archaic) and so people seeing "race" confuse it with definition 1a which because of history is seen as insensitive or problematic.



From 3e onward race strictly means species.

But I was somewhat horrified to read Gygax Greyhawk using the term race interchangeably for both species and human ethnicities, and even speaking approvingly about racial purity. Yuck!


----------



## Charlaquin

Celebrim said:


> How the heck are we going to tease apart nature versus nurture for an imagined species?  Are dwarves good craftsman because they are inculcated in a culture that prizes it, or are they good craftsman because they are naturally gifted at artistic work and skilled and dexterous with their firm and strong hands?  Or both?



It had _better_ be because they’re inculcated in a culture that prizes it. Otherwise we’re implying that gifted ness at artistic work is an inherited, rather than learned trait, which brings us into eugenicist territory.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Lets just use the term 'player entity'. Instead of race, species, or whatever else.

It covers every potential option in every setting, without corner cases and exceptions. And it has no connections at all to historically problematic words.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> This is one where I'd be interested what the sensitivity readers say.  It would be convenient if it passed.
> 
> I wonder if having "Ancestry" for the one and "Background" for more cultural things would help.



I mean, I’m pretty sure that was the intent of the changes seen in the Origins playtest packet, moving ability score increases, proficiencies, and languages over to Background and leaving “race” to be strictly inherited traits. They kinda fumbled a bit on that with dwarves and dragonborn IMO, but it was at least their intent to silo learned traits in background and inherited traits in race.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> It had _better_ be because they’re inculcated in a culture that prizes it. Otherwise we’re implying that gifted ness at artistic work is an inherited, rather than learned trait, which brings us into eugenicist territory.




but we aren't talking about human groups. One can believe there is no measurable different between humans inherently in this case, but also acknowledge that different primates or different species of humans (like say neanderthals) may have different cultural tendencies do to their biology. Elves being long lived is likely to have cultural implications. Elves and Dwarves having better night vision than humans will also have cultural implications. Eugenics was about differences in human groups and the misguided idea that you could breed super humans by identifying different traits. That is repugnant. But it isn't the same as saying there is this mythical race of creatures who tend to have a totally different society than humans do, or tend towards different societies. Just like you could say humans tend towards towards certain social organizations (and there might still be tremendous variety there, but ultimately we are very social), and canines tend towards a different social organization (at the very least you can say humans have a visibly different physical culture than canines).


----------



## Yaarel

Part of the solution is, Dwarves are members of different kinds of cultures, some rural, some urban, etcetera.


----------



## Charlaquin

Crimson Longinus said:


> Tieflings and genasi are both part human so them being able to interbreed makes sense.
> 
> But I agree that there is certain inconsistency in their approach. On one hand using moniker species and getting rid of mechanics for half species, on the other hand saying that the species can freely mix.



Exactly. I take it you favor sticking with species as the monicker and being more restrictive with which ones can mix (at least without magical intervention), but I strongly suspect that the current majority preference is to allow unrestricted mixing, to the point that there is no chance that decision gets overturned through playtest feedback. In which case, I don’t think the moniker species is going to be appropriate.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> I mean, I’m pretty sure that was the intent of the changes seen in the Origins playtest packet, moving ability score increases, proficiencies, and languages over to Background and leaving “race” to be strictly inherited traits. They kinda fumbled a bit on that with dwarves and dragonborn IMO, but it was at least their intent to silo learned traits in background and inherited traits in race.





Sorry, I meant for the term "ancestry".

I can't imagine them objecting to background not being due to genetics


----------



## Charlaquin

Amrûnril said:


> The relevant paragraph in the playtest reads:
> _"Thanks to the magical workings of the multiverse, Humanoids of different kinds sometimes have children together. For example, folk who have a human parent and an orc or an elf parent are particularly common. Many other combinations are possible."_
> 
> This doesn't specifically put restrictions on what pairings are possible, but neither does it declare that all combinations are possible. The details are left open-ended, with general mechanics provided to facilitate whatever combinations are possible in a given setting.



Right, but if any combinations are possible depending on the setting (which, they are) then all combinations are possible within the D&D multiverse.


----------



## Celebrim

Charlaquin said:


> It had _better_ be because they’re inculcated in a culture that prizes it. Otherwise we’re implying that gifted ness at artistic work is an inherited, rather than learned trait, which brings us into eugenicist territory.




I think there is probably good evidence that giftedness at many things whether intelligence, artistic ability, or athletic ability is inherited.  Maybe not perfectly inherited, but definitely with statistically relevant chances.  And practical experience tells me that things like foot speed, mathematical ability and so forth can be trained but that every person has their own plateau.  Foot speed is not only a learned trait nor is it some random chance.  Your parentage matters.  While artistic ability is harder to measure, I know it isn't nothing and some people have more ability to draw representative art or produce musical scores as prodigies than I would ever have through training.

This I think is going to bring you into a situation where you are at war with reality, not wanting the world to function the way it evidently does.

Your reasoning that eugenics is wrong is not wrong, but your reasoning for why it is wrong certainly is.  And while this doesn't seem like a big deal as long as you get the answer right, the problem with answers that depend on bad foundations is undermining the foundation creates the perception that the answer probably isn't right either.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> Right, but if any combinations are possible depending on the setting (which, they are) then all combinations are possible within the D&D multiverse.




But everything possible in the multiverse doesn't have to be a class or race option. These are crafted to maximize the fun of the game, for balance issues, etc. Liches also exist, but players aren't allowed to be liches. Obviously some settings can vary. Maybe you make a setting where Lich is a race or class options (or werewolves, or some other powerful monster). But for the core I think part of the idea is pick a an assortment that best fits whatever D&D is supposed to be at that time.


----------



## Yaarel

Cadence said:


> My only problem with ancestry is that it feels like its real life usage is about country of origin (and thus conflated with culture).  Is it common for an English speaker in the US to say something like "I have <insert other country> ancestry"?   If that isnt' common, then I have no objection.



Yeah, "nation" is an other blurry word.

If ancestry becomes the official term, it is necessary to clearly refer to genetic heredity only (including any magical equivalents).


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> Personally terms like ethnicity, ancestry, peoples all seem much more like they have potential to be connected to ideas like blood and soil, than the way race is meant to be used in D&D (which as Celebrim pointed out, humans are all one race, drwarves and elves another, effectively different species, maybe distantly related to humans. I'm Jewish, Italian and Irish, someone having Jewish ancestry is certainly something that that has manifested in real world racism towards them. And all three of those, at least here in Boston, have cultural things associated with (things I experience when I visit different sides of the family). That concept of ethnicity or ancestry is different from the idea that all humans belong to one category: the human race (which is how D&D means it: like I said the one time I saw modifiers for different human groups in a D&D book, I found it pretty off-putting for that reason). The demihuman groups aren't really meant to be stand ins for human cultural or ethnic groups (we just draw on those and blend them to produce something new and interesting, or as shorthand: i.e. Dwarven vikings are an easy thing to grasp without much further explanation---but it isn't a commentary on viking culture, nor is it a lesson in it). To me, since there seems to be a lot of confusion around what race means in this context, species appears to be the closest thing to capturing its original meaning in the game. I would say Type could also work but that might lack flavor for people. At least that is how I have always viewed it.



I think the ship has sailed on the originally intended meaning. People are going to draw parallels to various human ethnicities, regardless of what we do. I would rather we take a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach to the language we use in the game, so that the words we use reflect how people actually play it.


----------



## Charlaquin

Frozen_Heart said:


> Lets just use the term 'player entity'. Instead of race, species, or whatever else.
> 
> It covers every potential option in every setting, without corner cases and exceptions. And it has no connections at all to historically problematic words.



But it is extremely abstract and boring.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> If ancestry becomes the official term, it is necessary to clearly refer to genetic heredity only (including any magical equivalents).




But isn't this the problem people are complaining about. Because you are not just opening the door to mechanical differences between demihumans, you are opening the door to mechanical differences between humans. This gets us very much back to the racialist science of the early 20th century where people were viewed as different breeds. Granted the players get to choose what that mixture is, but the logic is that its ancestry and so the dwarves of the north in a particular campaign might have a blending of human and orc that makes them get bonuses as good fighters (which again the player is choosing but its clearly a type of logic that will naturally bring you back to that thinking). This is what produced ideas like the concept of the Aryan race, and some human groups being better or worse than others. That is why ancestry would be such a potential issue I think.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Tieflings and Genasi all being part human is one of the reasons why I think that those player entities should be templates which are applied to existing player entities such as humans, elves, or lizardfolk.

Aasimar, tieflings, genasi, warforged (can be built in any shape), dragonborn (or half dragon). All are potential template options for players.


----------



## Galandris

Crimson Longinus said:


> Tieflings and genasi are both part human so them being able to interbreed makes sense.
> 
> But I agree that there is certain inconsistency in their approach. On one hand using moniker species and getting rid of mechanics for half species, on the other hand saying that the species can freely mix.




The mention that species can freely mix is also a key boon to dissociate totally your mechanical benefits and your appearance/physical form, if you're only interested in the mechanical side of the schlorps.

Since, as far as I understand, anything can breed and the child gets to choose the traits. So if you wanted to be Aarockroa with Tortle appearance, you can be thanks to your "parents". If it weirds you that they'd breed together, you can have them at various point of your family tree, each line keeping only the special traits (= the mechanical benefits) you're interested in. Basically, the new half-X is "I am mechanically a X, but with 100% human appareance and behaviour." It doesn't even requires one to wear plastic ears.

With regards to mechanical differences _between _humans, this isn't a problem I had considered before. True, if you are an elf, and you breed with a human, your child will no longer be a half-elf (since there is no more half-schlorps) but a human with elf traits. And this child will mate with another human, but the child of this side will have the choice of the special abilities of his parents too... so he can be human, but carry the elven specific abilities from his elven grandparents. At some point you get a big city with lots of humans but very diverse mechanical traits. I am not sure if it's evocative of eugenics or diversity.

Edit: after giving it some thought, I think it promotes bad ideas. It would make sense mechanically for a group of adventurer to say "we're looking to hire a human with a tortle ancestor" because they seek the specific mechanical qualities..." and such an ad would be incredibly offensive.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> I think the ship has sailed on the originally intended meaning. People are going to draw parallels to various human ethnicities, regardless of what we do. I would rather we take a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach to the language we use in the game, so that the words we use reflect how people actually play it.




In which case, I think species or type are the best terms for what people are trying to do here (personally I don't think the ship has sailed in the general culture, but I think it has in many places online). But fair enough, if the term is too cloudy, it should at least be a term that doesn't bring us back to blood and soil concepts.


----------



## Charlaquin

Celebrim said:


> I think there is probably good evidence that giftedness at many things whether intelligence, artistic ability, or athletic ability is inherited.



Please, tell me more about this evidence.


----------



## Cadence

Bedrockgames said:


> But everything possible in the multiverse doesn't have to be a class or race option. These are crafted to maximize the fun of the game, for balance issues, etc. Liches also exist, but players aren't allowed to be liches. Obviously some settings can vary. Maybe you make a setting where Lich is a race or class options (or werewolves, or some other powerful monster). But for the core I think part of the idea is pick a an assortment that best fits whatever D&D is supposed to be at that time.




I wouldn't mind something like 2e (iirc) had for classes hiding in the DMG or PHB, where you could mix and match if you wanted to for whatever-race/species-is called.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Celebrim said:


> I think there is probably good evidence that giftedness at many things whether intelligence, artistic ability, or athletic ability is inherited.  Maybe not perfectly inherited, but definitely with statistically relevant chances.  And practical experience tells me that things like foot speed, mathematical ability and so forth can be trained but that every person has their own plateau.  Foot speed is not only a learned trait nor is it some random chance.  Your parentage matters.  While artistic ability is harder to measure, I know it isn't nothing and some people have more ability to draw representative art or produce musical scores as prodigies than I would ever have through training.
> 
> This I think is going to bring you into a situation where you are at war with reality, not wanting the world to function the way it evidently does.
> 
> Your reasoning that eugenics is wrong is not wrong, but your reasoning for why it is wrong certainly is.  And while this doesn't seem like a big deal as long as you get the answer right, the problem with answers that depend on bad foundations is undermining the foundation creates the perception that the answer probably isn't right either.




I don't want to get into this but I do strongly reject this idea. Sure a person might inherent certain traits from their parents, but I think most differences across human groups are cultural. Obviously some physical characteristics can matter (I'm not a 6 foot tall Norwegian and so I am never going to fight in the heavy weight division of boxing). But a lot of this has also proved to be related to things like diet. I don't think it warrants modifiers between human groups. Like I said, I think the birthright campaign setting, could be wrong here so someone correct me if so, had modifiers for human groups, and the groups seemed to have obvious human analogs. That didn't sit very well with me. I remember when I was young you still had people who believed in some of that old racialist science and I always found it pretty gross (especially since it was a weapon that could be turned on people for fairly minor ethnic differences). And we also saw the results of it in the 20th century.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> In which case, I think species or type are the best terms for what people are trying to do here (personally I don't think the ship has sailed in the general culture, but I think it has in many places online).



I obviously disagree, but I don’t think we’re likely to come to an agreement on that matter.


Bedrockgames said:


> But fair enough, if the term is too cloudy, it should at least be a term that doesn't bring us back to blood and soil concepts.



I’m not clear on how ancestry does that. Would you be more comfortable with people?


----------



## Celebrim

Yaarel said:


> Yeah, "nation" is another blurry word.




Nation is a word you really want to avoid because the last thing you want to do is bring up the once primary but now secondary definition of nation.  Historically, "nation" was used as a synonym for what we would now call "race" or "ethnicity".  The "nation of France" meant "the group of people descended from the Franks and having the characteristics of that family of mankind".   The word had the secondary definition of "people living under a shared sovereign", but this was almost a duplicate of the first in practical terms.   The term "empire" in fact meant "many nations (ethnicities) with a shared sovereignty".  

Starting with the rise of the United States, the term "nation" started to favor what had been the secondary definition - a group of people part of the same government.  That definition is now almost completely dominant, so much so that in the USA at least, we almost never think of "nation" as "ethnicity" (contrast China or Japan).   Now think what "nation" implies in somewhere like France where the idea is in transition.

No, "nation" is right out.

And I have to have a chuckle at the naivety of people who think "folk" is historically less problematic than "race".   So much innocence there I won't even discuss why "folk" is bad.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

I've got to say I absolutely the hate the 'anything can breed with anything' in the playtest. It has no mechanical impact, while also killing off the longstanding half-elf and half-orc player races which have existed for decades. It also makes the entire lore a completely meaningless mess.

If I was dm'ing I'd always be happy to allow a player to turn up with some special OC crossbreed character, as long as they can think of some convincing reason for it to happen which doesn't clash with the setting (a wizard did it).

Between that and aardlings, this definitely looks like an edition where I'll be restricting content within the PHB itself if I run a campaign.


----------



## Charlaquin

@Bedrockgames you keep bringing up modifiers for different groups of humans, but I don’t think there’s any indication WotC would ever do that?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> I’m not clear on how ancestry does that. Would you be more comfortable with people?




No I would be less comfortable with people because, again that is even more so, getting us into differences between human groups (not just between elves, dwarves, and halflings), that really do harken back to blood and soil. Especially because you are using peoples mixing to explain the different modifiers players are taking (i.e. I am big and strong because we have orc ancestry mixed in: this is a lot like how modern scientific racialists try to say our policies should be impacted by ethnic difference because some people have more neanderthal DNA than others). It is just an updated form of the old racialist science, where groups say we are better than this group because of our ancestry. Or just look at New England racism, that is all about ancestry, and what people you were perceived to belong to (they just were more concerned about differences among European groups than say southern racists).


----------



## Yaarel

Maybe I should add the term Phenotype to the poll.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> @Bedrockgames you keep bringing up modifiers for different groups of humans, but I don’t think there’s any indication WotC would ever do that?




If you are allowing people to justify modifiers based on the mixing of their species (just to stick to the term they are using) then surely that allows for players to explain their choice by being a type of human with ancestry that is orc or dwarfish. Right, because you aren't just picking options of various half races, you are blending them to taste? Unless I am mistaken about this. Maybe I misunderstand what they are allowing as an options or what they've said, but this appears to be what people are saying is the case in this thread.


----------



## Celebrim

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't want to get into this but I do strongly reject this idea.




Well, I think you are at war with reality then.

But we are in agreement about the end point (we agree as to what is right or wrong), even if we don't agree on the reasoning how you get there (we disagree over why it is right or wrong).



> Like I said, I think the birthright campaign setting, could be wrong here so someone correct me if so, had modifiers for human groups, and the groups seemed to have obvious human analogs. That didn't sit very well with me.




Yeah, that's exactly where I see this change headed, and I think because people lack imagination and even ironically because they think that they are doing representation, once you make this change we're going to see all of that creep into the game.


----------



## Charlaquin

Celebrim said:


> Nation is a word you really want to avoid because the last thing you want to do is bring up the once primary but now secondary definition of nation.  Historically, "nation" was used as a synonym for what we would now call "race" or "ethnicity".  The "nation of France" meant "the group of people descended from the Franks and having the characteristics of that family of mankind".   The word had the secondary definition of "people living under a shared sovereign", but this was almost a duplicate of the first in practical terms.   The term "empire" in fact meant "many nations (ethnicities) with a shared sovereignty".
> 
> Starting with the rise of the United States, the term "nation" started to favor what had been the secondary definition - a group of people part of the same government.  That definition is now almost completely dominant, so much so that in the USA at least, we almost never think of "nation" as "ethnicity" (contrast China or Japan).   Now think what "nation" implies in somewhere like France where the idea is in transition.
> 
> No, "nation" is right out.



Yeah, I think nation might actually be even worse to use here than race.


Celebrim said:


> And I have to have a chuckle at the naivety of people who think "folk" is historically less problematic than "race".   So much innocence there I won't even discuss why "folk" is bad.



I think you are much more concerned with the historical use of these terms than the average player will be. I think most folks mostly care about how these words are currently used.


----------



## Celebrim

Charlaquin said:


> I think you are much more concerned with the historical use of these terms than the average player will be.




I'm much more historically literate than the average player.  But you know which group of modern people are more historically literate in this one narrow area than most people?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> I think you are much more concerned with the historical use of these terms than the average player will be. I think most folks mostly care about how these words are currently used.




This usage of folk has very current use among racists. I'm not saying we should never use the word folk, but I mean the  the Volkisch movement was a thing, and there are racists today who talk about Folkish religious practices where they tie religion to ethnic bloodlines. Obviously it has other real world meanings and we can distinguish between them, but I would say if you are concerned about the ambiguity of race, surely folk has just as much, probably more, issues, because it doesn't have that broader meaning that encompasses all humanity.


----------



## Greg Benage

Charlaquin said:


> I think you are much more concerned with the historical use of these terms than the average player will be. I think most folks mostly care about how these words are currently used.



I thought the problem with _race_ was the historical use of the term. In any case, where "folk" is concerned, it's not exactly an obscure reference, and the connotations, I would say, are extraordinarily bad.

I'll admit the sicko side of me would like to see the firestorm that ensued if Wizards eliminated the term Race...and replaced it with Folk.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> No I would be less comfortable with people because, again that is even more so, getting us into differences between human groups (not just between elves, dwarves, and halflings), that really do harken back to blood and soil. Especially because you are using peoples mixing to explain the different modifiers players are taking (i.e. I am big and strong because we have orc ancestry mixed in: this is a lot like how modern scientific racialists try to say our policies should be impacted by ethnic difference because some people have more neanderthal DNA than others). It is just an updated form of the old racialist science, where groups say we are better than this group because of our ancestry. Or just look at New England racism, that is all about ancestry, and what people you were perceived to belong to (they just were more concerned about differences among European groups than say southern racists).



Ok, I see what you mean. I don’t see the term people as necessarily conveying “blood and soil concepts,” but I can definitely empathize with where that concern is coming from.


Bedrockgames said:


> If you are allowing people to justify modifiers based on the mixing of their species (just to stick to the term they are using) then surely that allows for players to explain their choice by being a type of human with ancestry that is orc or dwarfish. Right, because you aren't just picking options of various half races, you are blending them to taste? Unless I am mistaken about this. Maybe I misunderstand what they are allowing as an options or what they've said, but this appears to be what people are saying is the case in this thread.



What’s allowed by the Origin playtest packet is that your character’s parents can each be of whatever “species” () you want. If your character’s parents are the same “species,” you get all the mechanical features of that “species” and your character looks like a member of that “species.” If your character’s parents are of different “species,” you choose one of those “species” and get all of the mechanical features of that species, and none of the mechanical features of the other. You can mix and match cosmetic features of both “species” to create your character’s appearance, but they have no mechanical effect. Note also that “species” do not grant ability score increases at all, those now come from background.


----------



## Yaarel

The term "folk" now means a one-syllable synonym for "person", and emphasizing gender neutral.

For example, Merfolk (not Mermaid), Lizardfolk (not Lizardman), and plural "folks" (sometimes "folx") in the sense of several persons.

In the context of D&D, the term "folk" seems nonuseful to replace race.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> This usage of folk has very current use among racists. I'm not saying we should never use the word folk, but I mean the  the Volkisch movement was a thing, and there are racists today who talk about Folkish religious practices where they tie religion to ethnic bloodlines. Obviously it has other real world meanings and we can distinguish between them, but I would say if you are concerned about the ambiguity of race, surely folk has just as much, probably more, issues, because it doesn't have that broader meaning that encompasses all humanity.






Greg Benage said:


> I thought the problem with _race_ was the historical use of the term. In any case, where "folk" is concerned, it's not exactly an obscure reference, and the connotations, I would say, are extraordinarily bad.



Yeah, to be clear I wasn’t advocating for using folk, just saying I think it’s modern rather than historical usage people are mostly worried about.


----------



## Greg Benage

I would simply avoid any concept used in Nazi propaganda posters.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> What’s allowed by the Ancestry playtest packet is that your character’s parents can each be of whatever “species” () you want. If your character’s parents are the same “species,” you get all the mechanical features of that “species” and your character looks like a member of that “species.” If your character’s parents are of different “species,” you choose one of those “species” and get all of the mechanical features of that species, and none of the mechanical features of the other. You can mix and match cosmetic features of both “species” to create your character’s appearance, but they have no mechanical effect. Note also that “species” do not grant ability score increases at all, those now come from background.




For some reason I have been under the impression you get bonuses based on this (like you essentially get to mix and match the potential bonuses that would have existed across different Racial groups in D&D). So they are not giving any mechanical bonus for this?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Celebrim said:


> Well, I think you are at war with reality then.
> 
> But we are in agreement about the end point (we agree as to what is right or wrong), even if we don't agree on the reasoning how you get there (we disagree over why it is right or wrong).




Like I said, I don't want to get into it, but I don't think I am. I will say though we can probably at least agree there is a valid reason for the taboo around it, and a valid reason for a big 'proceed with caution' on this particular issue in science (because it has been used to justify mass killings, sterilization and genocide: as well as unequal treatment under law).


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> The term "folk" now means a one-syllable synonym for "person", and emphasizing gender neutral.
> 
> For example, Merfolk (not Mermaid), Lizardfolk (not Lizardman), and plural "folks" (sometimes "folx") in the sense of several persons.
> 
> In the context of D&D, the term "folk" seems nonuseful to replace race.



See, I think that’s exactly what would make it a good term (though use of the term by hate groups does put a damper on that). It just means person. This is likewise why people is currently my first choice.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> For some reason I have been under the impression you get bonuses based on this (like you essentially get to mix and match the potential bonuses that would have existed across different Racial groups in D&D). So they are not giving any mechanical bonus for this?



Nope. You only get one set of “species” features, and they come directly from one of your character‘s parents. Theoretically, you could have one parent who was half-thri-keen half-centaur (and picked the centaur stats) and the other who was half-minotaur half-triton, (and picked the triton stats) and you could either have centaur stats or triton stats, with no effect from any of the other influences. You could look pretty bizarre if you wanted to though.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Greg Benage said:


> I would simply avoid any concept used in Nazi propaganda posters.



Trouble is, basically every single possible term for this has been used by racist groups at some point.

My suggestion for replacing the term with 'player entity' was a joke at first. But watching the conversation, I legitimately think it might be for the best. As far as I know, there is no issues which can come from that term apart from it being boring game language.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> Nope. You only get one set of “species” features, and they come directly from one of your character‘s parents. Theoretically, you could have one parent who was half-thri-keen half-centaur (and picked the centaur stats) and the other who was half-minotaur half-triton, (and picked the triton stats) and you could either have centaur stats or triton stats, with no effect from any of the other influences. You could look pretty bizarre if you wanted to though.




But you get stats related to that correct?


----------



## Celebrim

Bedrockgames said:


> Like I said, I don't want to get into it, but I don't think I am. I will say though we can probably at least agree there is a valid reason for the taboo around it, and a valid reason for a big 'proceed with caution' on this particular issue in science (because it has been used to justify mass killings, sterilization and genocide: as well as unequal treatment under law).




Absolutely.  I get why people are wary and justifiably so.


----------



## Xamnam

Frozen_Heart said:


> Trouble is, basically every single possible term for this has been used by racist groups at some point.
> 
> My suggestion for replacing the term with 'player entity' was a joke at first. But watching the conversation, I legitimately think it might be for the best. As far as I know, there is no issues which can come from that term apart from it being boring game language.



_people chanting Schmorp gather quietly in the background_


----------



## Greg Benage

Frozen_Heart said:


> Trouble is, basically every single possible term for this has been used by racist groups at some point.



Yep, tread carefully, but still, "no Nazi propaganda" seems like a solid rule of thumb.


----------



## Xamnam

Charlaquin said:


> See, I think that’s exactly what would make it a good term (though use of the term by hate groups does put a damper on that). It just means person. This is likewise why people is currently my first choice.



Exactly my thought on reading that as well. And, while not ignoring the past of it, I do think it is telling that use of folk in this sense has not raised a issue in the playerbase in the way that the term race has so far.


----------



## Bagpuss

Charlaquin said:


> Then you haven’t been paying attention to what the rest of the D&D playing community has been doing.




By rest you mean a small subset.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Xamnam said:


> _people chanting Schmorp gather quietly in the background_



You have a new convert to your cause!


----------



## Bedrockgames

Xamnam said:


> Exactly my thought on reading that as well. And, while not ignoring the past of it, I do think it is telling that use of folk in this sense has not raised a issue in the playerbase in the way that the term race has so far.




Wait a second. I'm not hugely passionate about the change from Race to Species, and personally I don't particularly object to race because it has a much broader meaning and is clearly being used that way in D&D: but I get the complaint. Terms that are presently used by hate groups would seem to be much more prone to abuse to me personally, or at the very least pose the same issue that people are complaining about with race. I mean, maybe people don't know the history of Nazi Germany enough, modern hate movements enough, racialist science and eugenics, but maybe they are incorrect to not be bothered by these terms? Like I said, I don't wince at race because I understand its usage in this context, but I do wince seeing ancestry, ethnicity, people and folk proposed. And like others have said, the reasons for this are not exactly obscure.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> But it is extremely abstract and boring.



The only way to remove connotation is to remove flavor.


----------



## Greg Benage

I finally found one that wouldn't require a trigger warning, although the Youth is borderline.


----------



## Yaarel

I am unfamiliar with the "shmorp". Can someone explain this term, where it comes from, and how it is relevant to D&D?


----------



## glass

Cadence said:


> The ONE playtest rules for this allow the mixing.



"Mixing" != "mating". The latter was what I was asking for a citation on.



Charlaquin said:


> The Origins playtest packet.



I thought I had downloaded that, but it appears not, and it is too late now. Care to quote the part where it talks about sexual reproduction between gnomes (or was it halflings?) and dragonborn?



Greg Benage said:


> I thought the problem with _race_ was the historical use of the term.



I am by no means an expert but AIUI it is more the current use of the term. The core of the problem is that "race" means both "species" and "ethnicity". D&D used it in the former sense (which is archaic), but the latter sense is much more prevalent now.

Of course, racist depictions over the years have not helped (orcs got the worst of it for some reason, and then there is drow of course). And then there was Gygax's quoting a genocidal muderer in approving tones. These would have been bad enough with other terminology, but compounded and were compounded by the word choice.


----------



## glass

Yaarel said:


> I am unfamiliar with the "shmorp". Can someone explain this term, where it comes from, and how it is relevant to D&D?



It is a joke from earlier in this thread (or one of the others).


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Yaarel said:


> I am unfamiliar with the "shmorp". Can someone explain this term, where it comes from, and how it is relevant to D&D?



Every possible term to replace the term 'race' has the issue of being used by nazis and racists at some point in history. Someone will always take offenses to any of them (some of those words for very good reason, others less so).

Shmorp is a completely made up term by people in this thread, and so has no negative history or uses. Therefore no one can be offended by it. Making it the perfect term to replace 'race' in DnD.

I was advocating for 'player entity' but 'shmorp' is funnier.


----------



## Cadence

glass said:


> It is a joke from earlier in this thread (or one of the others).






Frozen_Heart said:


> Shmorp is a completely made up term by people in this thread, and so has no negative history or uses. Therefore no one can be offended by it. Making it the perfect term to replace 'race' in DnD.
> 
> I was advocating for 'player entity' but 'shmorp' is funnier.




Ack.  Just googled shmorp.  Urban dictionary makes it sound like it would have trouble if it's actually used that way by anyone except the person who submitted it.  (Although I sometimes wonder if every word has a meaning I don't know submitted to urban dictionary somewhere).


----------



## Greg Benage

We call it an elf-game, anyway, we just need to brand Elf.

"What kind of Elf are you playing?"

"I'm a dwarf."

Done.


----------



## Cadence

Greg Benage said:


> We call it an elf-game, anyway, we just need to brand Elf.
> 
> "What kind of Elf are you playing?"
> 
> "I'm a dwarf."
> 
> Done.




"Choose your Elfness from among Aasimar, Ardling, Dragonborn, Dwarf, Elf, Genasi, Goliath, Halfling, Human, or Tiefling, or brew a custom Elfness from the table on the next page."


----------



## Yaarel

If the term Shmorp fuses the concepts of culture and species in the same way that racism does, how would it help avoid racism?


----------



## ART!

For the most part, members of a species can't successfully reproduce outside their species, so using the term to replace "race" doesn't really work, given that we have - at the very least - half-orcs and half-eves being common enough to list as their own "race" in 5E. I prefer it to "race", though.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> But you get stats related to that correct?



Depends what you mean by stats, I guess? You get features from it, but no ability score changes. Specifically, either the exact same features you would get from being a centaur, or the exact same features you would get from being a Triton.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bagpuss said:


> By rest you mean a small subset.



Neither of us have meaningful data on how many players are using such options, but I doubt WotC would have explicitly included the option in the playtest if they didn’t have reason to think the majority of their players would want such an option.


----------



## Bagpuss

ART! said:


> For the most part, members of a species can't successfully reproduce outside their species, so using the term to replace "race" doesn't really work, given that we have - at the very least - half-orcs and half-eves being common enough to list as their own "race" in 5E. I prefer it to "race", though.




Which is the way it has been in D&D (you only had half-elves and half-orcs, much like Ligers are odd exceptions), none of the other races produced offspring at all if they mixed. Race meant species in D&D originally, as in the human race, distinct from other races and animals.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> Depends what you mean by stats, I guess? You get features from it, but no ability score changes. Specifically, either the exact same features you would get from being a centaur, or the exact same features you would get from being a Triton.




What I am trying to figure out is if 'feature' here translates into any mechanical ability, bonus, or stat difference (or if it is purely superficial).


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> I am unfamiliar with the "shmorp". Can someone explain this term, where it comes from, and how it is relevant to D&D?



It’s a completely made-up term, coined right here on ENWorld in one of these conversations, half-jokingly, because any real English word will have connotations someone might object to. Making up a new word specifically for the character feature formerly known as racket is, as the thinking goes, the only way to give it a totally inoffensive designation.


----------



## Charlaquin

Greg Benage said:


> We call it an elf-game, anyway, we just need to brand Elf.
> 
> "What kind of Elf are you playing?"
> 
> "I'm a dwarf."
> 
> Done.



“Kind” is doing the real lifting there.


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> If the term Shmorp fuses the concepts of culture and species in the same way that racism does, how would it help avoid racism?



Shmorp doesn’t fuse any concepts. The whole joke is that it’s meaningless nonsense.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Yaarel said:


> If the term Shmorp fuses the concepts of culture and species in the same way that racism does, how would it help avoid racism?



I assume the term would only apply to species, and not culture.

Then again, that brings us full circle into what is cultural and what is physical. Are orcs biologically stronger than humans on average? Or is it a culture of valuing strength in my settings which makes them stronger on average?


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> What I am trying to figure out is if 'feature' here translates into any mechanical ability, bonus, or stat difference (or if it is purely superficial).



Again, I’m not sure what you mean by “stat.” They don’t change your ability scores, if that’s what you mean. As for if they grant any mechanical abilities, yeah. I’m using the term “feature,” as do the actual rulebooks, so as not to be using the term “ability” to refer both to the statistical values that determine modifiers to dice rolls, and to exceptions-based _special things your character can do._ Darkvision, for example, is a feature. Strength is an ability. “Species” grants features like Darkvision, poison resistance, or inherent spellcasting. It does not increase or decrease any of the six Abilities. There is no capability to mix and match the features granted by “species,” you get exactly one set of such features, which is identical to the set of such features exactly one of your character’s parents had.


----------



## Charlaquin

Frozen_Heart said:


> I assume the term would only apply to species, and not culture.
> 
> Then again, that brings us full circle into what is cultural and what is physical. Are orcs biologically stronger than humans on average? Or is it a culture of valuing strength in my settings which makes them stronger on average?



Orcs are physically larger than humans on average, which translates to them having the Powerful Build feature, which treats their size as Large when determining carrying capacity and the amount they can push, pull, and lift (and encumbrance breakpoints, if that optional rule is in use). An individual orc may have more or less aptitude with tasks related to physical strength and athleticism, such as climbing, jumping, and fighting with melee weapons, which is reflected by Strength score. Strength score also plays a role in determining carrying capacity and push/pull/lift values (and encumbrance breakpoints), though functionally increased size multiplies this effect. Orcs do not have inherently better Strength scores than humans, but may gain an increased Strength score from their background.

All this to say, it’s a bit of both. Orcs’ physical size does allow them to get more out of building muscle than humans do, but depending on life experiences, a given orc may be overall stronger or weaker than a given human.


----------



## Galandris

Bagpuss said:


> Which is the way it has been in D&D (you only had half-elves and half-orcs, much like Ligers are odd exceptions), none of the other races produced offspring at all if they mixed. Race meant species in D&D originally, as in the human race, distinct from other races and animals.




I may be wrong, but I seem to remember some fluff about orcs saying that they could breed with other things but it produced full orcs. So a dwarf orc would be just an orc. I can't quote anything, but when reading that (and being under the impression that species couldn't interbreed) I considered that orcs, elves and humans are just very dimorphic genders of the same species, with male and female for both of hte three possibilities, some producing offsprings, some not.


----------



## Yaarel

I am glad there is only one kind of *Human*.

I wish there is only one kind of *Elf*.

If the Elf traits are only: 
• Fey Ancestry
• Trance
• Innate Spellcasting. 

Then this simple description can represent each and every of the over hundred kinds of Elf in the history of D&D.

The Innate Spellcasting feature grants a choice of two cantrips, a slot 1 spell and a slot 2 spell. A cantrip can be Darkvision or Waterbreathing.

Done.

Then different Elf cultures can value and encourage different choices of spells.

Drow is a culture, not a subspecies. High is a culture, not subspecies. Even Sea is a culture, not a subspecies.


----------



## Yaarel

Galandris said:


> I may be wrong, but I seem to remember some fluff about orcs saying that they could breed with other things but it produced full orcs.



An Orc-Ogre is specifically a "Half-Ogre", also called an Ogrillon.

But in 1DD, the "Ogrillon" would probably have the features of either Orc or Ogre, rather than a new description.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> I am glad there is only one kind of *Human*.
> 
> I wish there is only one kind of *Elf*.
> 
> If the Elf traits are only:
> • Fey Ancestry
> • Trance
> • Innate Spellcasting.
> 
> Then this simple description can represent each and every of the over hundred kinds of Elf in the history of D&D.
> 
> The Innate Spellcasting feature grants a choice of two cantrips, a slot 1 spell and a slot 2 spell. A cantrip can be Darkvision or Waterbreathing.
> 
> Done.
> 
> Then different Elf cultures can value and encourage different choices of spells.
> 
> Drow is a culture, not a subspecies. High is a culture, not subspecies. Even Sea is a culture, not a subspecies.



How do sea elves breath underwater without being physically different?


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> I am glad there is only one kind of *Human*.
> 
> I wish there is only one kind of *Elf*.
> 
> If the Elf traits are only:
> • Fey Ancestry
> • Trance
> • Innate Spellcasting.
> 
> Then this simple description can represent each and every of the over hundred kinds of Elf in the history of D&D.
> 
> The Innate Spellcasting feature grants a choice of two cantrips, a slot 1 spell and a slot 2 spell. A cantrip can be Darkvision or Waterbreathing.
> 
> Done.
> 
> Then different Elf cultures can value and encourage different choices of spells.
> 
> Drow is a culture, not a subspecies. High is a culture, not subspecies. Even Sea is a culture, not a subspecies.



To be fair, that’s kinda how elf looks in the Origins playtest packet. It’s other PC types, like dwarves and gnomes, that need to be broadened to encompass their sub-types.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Amrûnril said:


> The relevant paragraph in the playtest reads:
> _"Thanks to the magical workings of the multiverse, Humanoids of different kinds sometimes have children together. For example, folk who have a human parent and an orc or an elf parent are particularly common. Many other combinations are possible."_
> 
> This doesn't specifically put restrictions on what pairings are possible, but neither does it declare that all combinations are possible. The details are left open-ended, with general mechanics provided to facilitate whatever combinations are possible in a given setting.



Yeah, this literally doesn't say that anything can crossbreed with anything. It says some species might sometimes crossbreed and it might involve magic. 

Also, another of @Charlaquin's concerns seem to be moot too. Elves share one main entry, so there are no implication that drow and high elves are different species, they're lineages within one species.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Micah Sweet said:


> How do sea elves breath underwater without being physically different?



Magic, I suppose. Alternatively get rid of them, as there already are tritons who cover the same concept.


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> How do sea elves breathe underwater without being physically different?



I suspect a 1D&D sea elf would just get the Waterbreathing spell Prof times between long rests.


----------



## Charlaquin

Crimson Longinus said:


> Yeah, this literally doesn't say that anything can crossbreed with anything. It says some species might sometimes crossbreed and it might involve magic.



It definitely doesn’t say that anything _can’t_ crossbreed with anything. It seems to me this is very much “your character can be any combination your DM doesn’t disallow.”


Crimson Longinus said:


> Also, another of @Charlaquin's concerns seem to be moot too. Elves share one main entry, so there are no implication that drow and high elves are different species, they're lineages within one species.



Yeah, they neatly wrapped drow into the core elf race, which I think was a great move. But drow were not the only subrace with this problem. We still have duergar, svirfneblin, Gith, and probably others that escape my mind at the moment.


----------



## Galandris

Crimson Longinus said:


> Yeah, this literally doesn't say that anything can crossbreed with anything. It says some species might sometimes crossbreed and it might involve magic.




It is strongly implied that the crossbreed appear at player's whim, to justify his character creation (it's "if you want to play such a wondrous pairing, choose two Schlorps..." not "ask the DM whatever schlorps are available in the world".


But, outside of having humans with any potential kind of specific abilities, there is no "munchkinism" into that, as you can't mix and match. You can actually munchkin a little, as your lifespan is the average of your two parents, so 250 years old humans are possible but it shouldn't matter _that_ much.


----------



## ART!

Bagpuss said:


> none of the other races produced offspring at all if they mixed.



To my knowledge there's no indication of this in the rules or any WOTC setting book.


Bagpuss said:


> Race meant species in D&D originally, as in the human race, distinct from other races and animals.



Race has been used in D&D the way it has been used in fantasy fiction, wherein sometimes it seems to mean species and sometimes it seems to mean outdated notions of "race". It's vague.


----------



## Xamnam

Bedrockgames said:


> Wait a second. I'm not hugely passionate about the change from Race to Species, and personally I don't particularly object to race because it has a much broader meaning and is clearly being used that way in D&D: but I get the complaint. Terms that are presently used by hate groups would seem to be much more prone to abuse to me personally, or at the very least pose the same issue that people are complaining about with race. I mean, maybe people don't know the history of Nazi Germany enough, modern hate movements enough, racialist science and eugenics, but maybe they are incorrect to not be bothered by these terms? Like I said, I don't wince at race because I understand its usage in this context, but I do wince seeing ancestry, ethnicity, people and folk proposed. And like others have said, the reasons for this are not exactly obscure.



Outside of this thread, and prior to reading it, I had never heard of any negative history related to the world folk, nor have I seen it used in conjunction with modern hate movements, which I'll admit I am passingly but not thoroughly familiar with. I would say that's likely the perspective of the average 5e player? I would not claim so definitively. However, I do hear the word folk regularly in everyday conversation in terms of things like "Alright, gather around folks." or "I know some folks really enjoy playing d&d with this specific rule set." It's not just that the negative side is news to me, but that a friendly toned usage is regular to me.

I don't say this to invalidate the issues, just explaining my perspective, especially prior to hearing it can be used a very contradictory sense to my understanding.


----------



## Xamnam

Yaarel said:


> I am unfamiliar with the "shmorp". Can someone explain this term, where it comes from, and how it is relevant to D&D?



Here's the origin:


Clint_L said:


> Maybe WotC should just _make up a word_ that means "your chosen creature type in a D&D setting." Then the word would have only one meaning with no possible miscommunication and we could move on.





Xamnam said:


> I vote for Schmorp.



It's very silly, but honestly, it has been helpful to have a context-less stand in word in some of these discussions.


----------



## Bagpuss

ART! said:


> To my knowledge there's no indication of this in the rules or any WOTC setting book.



Which setting book prior to the recent "make anything you feel like" option, had half-dragonborn, half-goliaths, or a gnome-elf cross for example?


----------



## Scribe

Bagpuss said:


> Which setting book prior to the recent "make anything you feel like" option, had half-dragonborn, half-goliaths, or a gnome-elf cross for example?




One of the Critical Role ones, wasnt it?


----------



## Xamnam

Bagpuss said:


> Which setting book prior to the recent "make anything you feel like" option, had *half-dragonborn*, half-goliaths, or a gnome-elf cross for example?



PHB P. 102


----------



## Clint_L

Charlaquin said:


> Shmorp doesn’t fuse any concepts. The whole joke is that it’s meaningless nonsense.



I beg your pardon!

The _point_ is that if WotC or players want a completely context-free word to replace "race," they should just invent one. "Schmorp" may have _started_ as meaningless nonsense, but it has been imbued with meaning by the good readers of this forum.

Now if you'll excuse me, I am busy building a new character and am really stuck on which schmorp to choose. The new Goliath schmorp seems fun, but so is the Dragonborn. Not an Ardling, though, that schmorp still needs some work.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> It definitely doesn’t say that anything _can’t_ crossbreed with anything. It seems to me this is very much “your character can be any combination your DM doesn’t disallow.”



I mean they're not going to have an official cross reference chart encompassing all sixty + species. It is matter of setting building and different settings will handle the matter differently and I don't really see this changing anything about the established settings. I also assume that answer for half-centaur half tri-kreens will in most cases be "LOL, no." 



Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, they neatly wrapped drow into the core elf race, which I think was a great move. But drow were not the only subrace with this problem. We still have duergar, svirfneblin, Gith, and probably others that escape my mind at the moment.



I have no reason to assume that they wouldn't be handled similarly once they get around to it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Crimson Longinus said:


> Magic, I suppose. Alternatively get rid of them, as there already are tritons who cover the same concept.



I don't agree with removing game elements with similar concepts.  People should be able to choose how they want to express an idea.


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> How do sea elves breath underwater without being physically different?



Magic.

Innately cast the Waterbreathing cantrip.


----------



## ART!

Bagpuss said:


> Which setting book prior to the recent "make anything you feel like" option, had half-dragonborn, half-goliaths, or a gnome-elf cross for example?



Regardless of whether such a thing exists or not, my point remains.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> Magic.
> 
> Innately cast the Waterbreathing cantrip.



Waterbreathing isn't a cantrip.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Charlaquin said:


> Again, I’m not sure what you mean by “stat.” They don’t change your ability scores, if that’s what you mean. As for if they grant any mechanical abilities, yeah. I’m using the term “feature,” as do the actual rulebooks, so as not to be using the term “ability” to refer both to the statistical values that determine modifiers to dice rolls, and to exceptions-based _special things your character can do._ Darkvision, for example, is a feature. Strength is an ability. “Species” grants features like Darkvision, poison resistance, or inherent spellcasting. It does not increase or decrease any of the six Abilities. There is no ability to mix and match the features granted by “species,” you get exactly one set of such features, which is identical to the set of such features exactly one of your character’s parents had.




Can you then pass the feature on to your children or is it strictly limited to you ?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Xamnam said:


> Outside of this thread, and prior to reading it, I had never heard of any negative history related to the world folk, nor have I seen it used in conjunction with modern hate movements, which I'll admit I am passingly but not thoroughly familiar with. I would say that's likely the perspective of the average 5e player? I would not claim so definitively. However, I do hear the word folk regularly in everyday conversation in terms of things like "Alright, gather around folks." or "I know some folks really enjoy playing d&d with this specific rule set." It's not just that the negative side is news to me, but that a friendly toned usage is regular to me.
> 
> I don't say this to invalidate the issues, just explaining my perspective, especially prior to hearing it can be used a very contradictory sense to my understanding.




I guess my point is if one is worried about racial essentialism, then the most famous group for that, the Nazis, used this term (albeit they used the German equivalent but it is specifically a blood and soil ethnonationalist movement called the Volkisch Movement. And again it isn't obscure history nor are present day groups that embrace it all that obscure. It is also not a huge leap to go from Folk to Volkisch. This seems exactly the concern people have with race.


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> Waterbreathing isn't a cantrip.



In 5e mechanics, waterbreathing makes more sense as a cantrip.

Cantrips didnt exist yet in old school D&D.

A slot 1 spell could work, but the cantrip is better for an always on effect.

The old school slot 3 spell seems undesirable today.

In any case, worse comes to worst, explicitly describe, "A cantrip can be Darkvision or Waterbreathing instead".


----------



## Scribe

Bedrockgames said:


> I guess my point is if one is worried about racial essentialism, then the most famous group for that, the Nazis, used this term (albeit they used the German equivalent but it is specifically a blood and soil ethnonationalist movement called the Volkisch Movement. And again it isn't obscure history nor are present day groups that embrace it all that obscure. It is also not a huge leap to go from Folk to Volkisch. This seems exactly the concern people have with race.




Well then there goes 'folk'.

Schmorp it is.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> In 5e mechanics, waterbreathing makes more sense.
> 
> A slot 1 spell could work, but the cantrip is better for an always on effect.
> 
> The old school slot 3 spell seems crazy now.
> 
> In any case, worst comes to worst, explicitly describe, "a cantrip can be Darkvision or Waterbreathing instead".



Nah.  I'll just stick with Level Up's heritage traits and choice of heritage gifts to handle that.  Far less twisting the rules that way.  Neither 5e nor 5.5e are designed to do what you want, at least so far.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Crimson Longinus said:


> I mean they're not going to have an official cross reference chart encompassing all sixty + species. It is matter of setting building and different settings will handle the matter differently and I don't really see this changing anything about the established settings. I also assume that answer for half-centaur half tri-kreens will in most cases be "LOL, no."



One of my pet peeves during the 3E era was people could bring in all kinds of templates and optional things. Sometimes it was fine but if it jarred with the setting it always felt very off to me.


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> Nah.  I'll just stick with Level Up's heritage traits and choice of heritage gifts to handle that.  Far less twisting the rules that way.  Neither 5e nor 5.5e are designed to do what you want, at least so far.



The 5e spells need a serious revamp anyway.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

So would subraces now officially count as subspecies?

Then again the playtest document with the new species terminology refers to the ardling variations as ancestries.


----------



## Yaarel

Is the term Heredity the clearest and most neutral term?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> Is the term Heredity the clearest and most neutral term?



Level Up uses heritage, which at least uses the same root word.


----------



## Galandris

Xamnam said:


> I don't say this to invalidate the issues, just explaining my perspective, especially prior to hearing it can be used a very contradictory sense to my understanding.




Experiences do indeed vary. But if it was used explicitely as a replacement to race (because the notion that is being replaced is clearly identified), it will sounds as bad (to me) as a warlord class being named a Führer.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

Bedrockgames said:


> Can you then pass the feature on to your children or is it strictly limited to you ?



The way it works in the first playtest packet is strictly cosmetic, no mixing of features. I remember someone referring to it as muppet genetics.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Yaarel said:


> Is the term Heredity the clearest and most neutral term?



Except for all the robots, god touched, reborn, created, etc...

So nope, still 'species'.


----------



## Yaarel

Vaalingrade said:


> Except for all the robots, god touched, reborn, created, etc...
> 
> So nope, still 'species'.



Planar "touched" and undead I would still count as Heredity, albeit asexual reproduction.

The "robots" can be understood as Elemental, whence also asexual reproduction. Creating a construct is one thing. Creating a conscious living being is something else. The transmission is elemental rather than genetic, but Heredity might still work.


----------



## Galandris

Bedrockgames said:


> Can you then pass the feature on to your children or is it strictly limited to you ?




They didn't clearly explain. But if an elf and a human have a baby he can LOOK like a human or an elf, and have the abilities of a human or an elf. It's clear, that if he looks like a human and have the characterics of a human, he's a human, same with a matching elf. But if he looks like one and have the ability package of his other parent, he's a half-elf, half-human. It make sense that a character saying "My mommy is a half-elf, my daddy is an orc" can have, applying the same rules, the choice of getting orc look, half-elven look and orc abilities or half-elven abilities. It fits Occam's razor. It requires no new rules. The alternative requires determining which racial traits are dominant, because if it isn't passed to children, your half-elf (human look, elf power) mating with an orc, would, say, bring human power to the child... despite the parent having no human power. It's not unheard of, but it would require determining for each pair of races which one are transmitted to children. A lot more rules, for very little benefit. So, I'd say that unless we get more details on this than a side bar, it's reasonable to assume that each parents transmits his own powers and appearance as a choice to child.


----------



## Yaarel

Galandris said:


> They didn't clearly explain.




I took the UA to mean, your Human character can have the Elf traits instead, even if only one great great great grand parent is an Elf.

There is still an Elf ancestry. Even an Elf bloodline.

It is an extreme example but I am fine with the atavism. The example makes it clear how the player chooses the physical appearance.


----------



## Galandris

Yaarel said:


> I took the UA to mean, your Human character can have the Elf traits instead, even if only one great great great grand parent is an Elf.




Yes, that's my reading, too, despite it not being explicitely written as such.

It opens the door to have humans (as a whole) having differentiated traits. Sure, no ability score increases as they come from background, but still, it might be enough to make a differnce between two humans, something that wasn't present before. If some traits are more desireable than other, it can lead to introducing a difference that wasn't there before, like to humans saying "sure, he's better, because he has an ardling ancestor..." Not something that may be intended.


----------



## glass

Frozen_Heart said:


> So would subraces now officially count as subspecies?



To the extent that they exist at all, presumably yes, although for the most part they seem to be going away entirely.


----------



## Bagpuss

Xamnam said:


> PHB P. 102
> View attachment 269075



That's a dragon in your past heritage at some point not a dragonborn as your daddy.


----------



## Xamnam

Bagpuss said:


> That's a dragon in your past heritage at some point not a dragonborn as your daddy.



Why are you acting like those are contradictory ideas? Having a dragonborn parent does mean you have a dragon in your past heritage. The text says any given sorcerer might be the first of a new bloodline, distant relation is not required.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> Can you then pass the feature on to your children or is it strictly limited to you ?



I don’t understand what’s confusing you here. A character inherits exactly the same mechanics their parents had. If the character’s parents were different “species,” they get exactly the same mechanics one of those parents had. If that’s in any way unclear to you, I recommend just reading the Origins playtest document yourself.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

glass said:


> To the extent that they exist at all, presumably yes, although for the most part they seem to be going away entirely.



Both playtests with player race/species options contain subraces. That's as recent as content can possibly be. I definitely wouldn't call that 'going away'


----------



## Charlaquin

Frozen_Heart said:


> Both playtests with player race/species options contain subraces. That's as recent as content can possibly be. I definitely wouldn't call that 'going away'



Umm… No they don’t?


----------



## Xamnam

Frozen_Heart said:


> Then again the playtest document with the new species terminology refers to the ardling variations as ancestries.



In the first playtest doc, Tieflings and Ardling had legacies, the Elves and Gnomes had lineages, Dragonborn had ancestries. The idea of dilineation within a schmorp is there, but they're tossing around a lot of different words testing it out.


----------



## Galandris

Xamnam said:


> Why are you acting like those are contradictory ideas? Having a dragonborn parent does mean you have a dragon in your past heritage. The text says any given sorcerer might be the first of a new bloodline, distant relation is not required.




On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be the _first_ of new line of dragonborn. "Hey mum, thanks, I was going to grow as a full dragon, then you meddled with your eggs and now I am a dragonborn. I am going to brood for a long time! But don't worry, I'll be dead before you notice." Much better to be a dragonborn born out of other dragonborn.

The fun thing will be when we'll see a gnome with a Goliath ancestor. "Yes, I can double my carrying capacity, turn Large for 10 minutes and have advantage on Grapple. I am a gnome, looking exactly like any other gnome, but my great-great-grand-father was a goliath".


----------



## Charlaquin

Xamnam said:


> In the first playtest doc, Tieflings and Ardling had legacies, the Elves and Gnomes had lineages, Dragonborn had ancestries. The idea of dilineation within a schmorp is there, but they're tossing around a lot of different words testing it out.



Surprisingly, that language is mostly consistent with existing language. PHB Dragonborn get the “Draconic Ancestry” feature, and Tieflings get the “Infernal Legacy” feature. Ardlings make sense to use the same language as Tieflings if they’re a celestial counterpart. And while I’m not aware of existing language calling elf varieties “ancestries,” they did use that term for the not-race-races in Van Richten’s Guide.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Legacy! There's one that's not just 'race, but with different letters'.


----------



## Scribe

Galandris said:


> The fun thing will be when we'll see a gnome with a Goliath ancestor. "Yes, I can double my carrying capacity, turn Large for 10 minutes and have advantage on Grapple. I am a gnome, looking exactly like any other gnome, but my great-great-grand-father was a goliath".


----------



## Incenjucar

Galandris said:


> On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be the _first_ of new line of dragonborn. "Hey mum, thanks, I was going to grow as a full dragon, then you meddled with your eggs and now I am a dragonborn. I am going to brood for a long time! But don't worry, I'll be dead before you notice." Much better to be a dragonborn born out of other dragonborn.
> 
> The fun thing will be when we'll see a gnome with a Goliath ancestor. "Yes, I can double my carrying capacity, turn Large for 10 minutes and have advantage on Grapple. I am a gnome, looking exactly like any other gnome, but my great-great-grand-father was a goliath".



And that's why they hang out with duergar.


----------



## Celebrim

I'm liking Shmorph more and more, but the logical part of me knows that all you are doing is hopping on the euphemism treadmill and 20 years from now some young person is going to be calling the term out as coded racist language.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Celebrim said:


> I'm liking Shmorph more and more, but the logical part of me knows that all you are doing is hopping on the euphemism treadmill and 20 years from now some young person is going to be calling the term out as coded racist language.



That's only because most of the options people are clamoring for because it's old timey is coded racist language... because that's what people use old timey words for 'race' for when they're not playing D&D.


----------



## Charlaquin

Vaalingrade said:


> Legacy! There's one that's not just 'race, but with different letters'.



I like that. Appeals for the same reason heritage does, but doesn’t carry as much baggage.


----------



## Yaarel

Galandris said:


> Yes, that's my reading, too, despite it not being explicitely written as such.
> 
> It opens the door to have humans (as a whole) having differentiated traits. Sure, no ability score increases as they come from background, but still, it might be enough to make a differnce between two humans, something that wasn't present before. If some traits are more desireable than other, it can lead to introducing a difference that wasn't there before, like to humans saying "sure, he's better, because he has an ardling ancestor..." Not something that may be intended.



Heh. I have competing feelings about how to describe a character from diverse ancestors.

As a player, I want to say: "My character, my choice!"

As a DM, I want the verbiage: "that both the player and the DM agree is appropriate".



Generally, the player plays the character, and the DM plays the setting. Whatever species are in a setting significantly define the flavor of the setting. Therefore, if the ancestral species of a particular character actually impacts the flavor of the overall setting, then as DM I want to have say about which options are helpful for the setting. But if the character doesnt really impact the setting, then pretty much the player can do whatever one wants for ones character.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Yaarel said:


> Heh. I have competing feelings about how to describe a character from diverse ancestors.
> 
> As a player, I want to say: "My character, my choice!"
> 
> As a DM, I want the verbiage: "that both the player and the DM agree is appropriate".



You can go ahead and ignore that second guy.


----------



## Branduil

I think "peoples" and "kind" are both okay to use to describe groups of people. Peoples is nice in the sense that it obviously emphasized the humanity of the group.


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> Heh. I have competing feelings about how to describe a character from diverse ancestors.
> 
> As a player, I want to say: "My character, my choice!"
> 
> As a DM, I want the verbiage: "that both the player and the DM agree is appropriate".
> 
> 
> 
> Generally, the player plays the character, and the DM plays the setting. Whatever species are in a setting significantly define the flavor of the setting. Therefore, if the ancestral species of a particular character actually impacts the flavor of the overall setting, then as DM I want to have say about which options are helpful for the setting. But if the character doesnt really impact the setting, then pretty much the player can do whatever one wants for ones character.



I think this is kinda covered by the baseline assumption that the DM can decide what character options are or aren’t available in a campaign. That said, I don’t think including that verbiage explicitly would hurt anything.


----------



## Charlaquin

Branduil said:


> I think "peoples" and "kind" are both okay to use to describe groups of people. Peoples is nice in the sense that it obviously emphasized the humanity of the group.



That’s definitely another thing I appreciate about people(s)


----------



## Bagpuss

Galandris said:


> The fun thing



We have different ideas of fun.


----------



## Bill Zebub

As "Kin" has settled into my consciousness it has become my favorite.  Instead of drawing lines between peoples, it merely suggests something about the people you are most related to, or even who you just claim as closest and most meaningful to you.  It can mean whatever you want, really.

Plus Kin has a nice feel to it.  Sounds like it belongs in a story, not in a scientific journal.


----------



## CreamCloud0

species is my preferred jargon because it's just accurate to what it's meant to be identifying, which is your overarching biology(personally i think culture should be separated into a different build choice so that we have Species, Culture, Background and Class but that's a different matter), ancestry just feels too disconnected, if you're an elf sure you might have a tiefling or a human or two in your family tree somewhere but your biology is still primarily that of _an elf_, an elf with minor touches of human and tiefling ancestry but your _species_ is still elf, or if one parent was a halfling you're a half-elf-half-halfling.
tangentially part of why i dislike ancestry as a descriptor is that the new cross-species build mechanics have no nuance, it's an all-or-nothing, one-or-the-other situation except for the aesthtics, you can't have a child of an elf and a tiefling with trance and fire resistance, or a variant skill because 'my great great great grandmother was a human and all her bloodline was a little more versatile than the rest of the clan'


----------



## Yaarel

Terms like People, Folk, Nation, and similar refer to a learned culture rather than an innate phenotype. I am comparing how Norse traditions describe nature beings with how D&D describes the Nonhuman player character options.



I am looking closely at how _Snorris Edda_ describes the "elves of the light" (_ljósalfar_) and the "elves of the dark" (_døkkalfar_). It appears Snorri himself invented these two nicknames for the elves (_alfar_) and the dwarves (_dvergar_), respectively. The elves dwell "in the sky", and the dwarves dwell "in the earth". The elves are the beings of the patterns of sunlight, including solar corona, sunbeams, and silver linings of clouds, and the dwarves beings of the patterns of earth, including remarkable mineral patterns in rocks and shapes of mud.

Snorri describes the elves by the Norse word _folk_ (or _fólk_ in some dialects). I am translating _folk_ as "citizenry". The elves form a "citizenry". Inferably, the dwarves form a different "citizenry".

In the narrowest sense, the Norse word _folk_ means "warriors". In Viking Period Norse cultures, each family has its own able-bodied members, the _folk_, who defend the family. When families feud, the _folk _of one family avenge a wronged family member against the _folk _of an other family. And visaversa. The males have an obligatory duty to fight for the family, but the _folk_ can include females.

At the local parliament (_þing_), the families come together in a direct democracy to vote to form the local government. The jarl is like local major, but functions much like a president, especially in the sense of being the commander in chief of the military. One of the jobs of the jarl is to unite warriors of the _folk_ of each family, to lead a collective army in times of war. Hence, the territory of a parliament is called a _fylki_.

Thus, the Norse term _folk_ can mean the family warriors, the family as a whole who supplies the warriors, the army of a parliament, or all of the citizenry who form the parliament.

In sum, in the widest sense, the Norse term _folk_ means a "citizenry", especially a group that has its own government and its own army.



The Norse elves comprise a _folk_. They are citizens of their own government and have their own army. Judging by elf names such as Vǫlundr, literally "the wounder by the shaman-rod", the elf army fights by means of magic. Their _fylki_, namely the territory of their parliament, is the sky above the clouds. Their "headplace" (hǫfuðstaða) where the elven parliament gathers and where the jarl resides, is called Alfheimr. The jarl of the elven parliament is known by the title ljóði, literally the "songster", referring to the Norse warrior magic that the masculines sing. The feminines command the shamanic magic. Elves of either gender wield any and every form of magic. The elven army of mages are formidable.

"
Then Gangleri spoke:
You know (much) to say great news of the sky.
What headplace is there, other than (the one) at the Urðar Wellspring (where the æsir have their parliament)?

Hárr said:
Many noble places are there (in the sky).
There is that one place, which is called Alfheimr.
There dwells that citizenry, who go-by-the-name elves of the light (_ljósalfar_).
But elves of the dark (_døkkalfar_) dwell below in the earth.
And they are unlike them (in) appearance,
and greatly unlike them (in things) experienced.
The elves of the light are brighter than sun,
but the elves of the dark are blacker than pitch.

"

_Þá mælti Gangleri:
Mikil tíðendi kannt þú at segja af himninum.
Hvat er þar fleira hǫfuðstaða en at Urðarbrunni?

Hárr segir:
Margir staðir eru þar gǫfugligir.
Sá er einn staðr þar, er kallaðr er Alfheimr.
Þar byggvir fólk þat, er Ljósalfar heita.
En Døkkalfar búa niðri í jǫrðu.
Ok eru þeir ólíkir þeim sýnum
ok miklu ólíkari reyndum.
Ljósalfar eru fegri en sól sýnum,
en Døkkálfar eru svartari en bik._

These terms "light" (_ljós_) and "bright" (_fagr_) refer to elves radiating an aura of light. The term "bright" connotes both luminous and beautiful. The terms "light" (ljós) and "bright" (fagr) likewise describe other nature beings who radiate light. Dagr the "day" and Dellingr of "dawn" are luminous son and father. "He (the day) was light and bright after (the manner of) his father (the dawn)." (_Var hann ljóss ok fagr eptir faðerni sínu._) Likewise, Baldr. "He is so bright (in) view, and brilliant, so (that) it shines-light from him." (_Hann er svá fagr álitum ok bjartr, svá at lýsir af honum._) All of these nature beings, the light of day, the light of dawn, and the elven light of the sun, are luminous beings who radiate an aura of light across the sky. The elven light relates to the solar corona and sunbeams. The many beams of light piercing down thru clouds resemble a military array, whence an elven army of sunlight. Notice, the Norse perceive daylight, sunlight, and dawnlight as different beings.

Contrasting the elves of light, the dwarves dwell in pitch darkness in the earth. Even when manifesting beyond the earth, the direct sunlight is lethal to dwarves. The woman shamans among elves and among dwarves are nornir who decide the fates of humans, successful and unsuccessful respectively. The dwarves can be an ironic source of success, whence gaining the nickname "elf", by inflicting unsuccess against a persons enemies.

The Norse elves are the beings of sunlight with their own government and army: the "citizenry" (_folk_) of a parliament. Likewise, the Norse dwarves comprise their own self-governing citizenry.



Heh, I find the Norse description problematic, because it fuses both the concept of a separate species (namely "kind" _kyn_) and the concept of a culture (namely "citizenry" _folk_).

But this problem is easily remedied. If a species has many different governments, each with its own unique culture, then there is a clear distinction between the aspect of a species and the aspect of its cultures.

This idea of a species of nature being comprising a diversity of cultures, is more like how Shakespeare describes the English fairies. Fairies are fateful beings of fertile soil. The fairies divide up into self-governing courts. Each court can represent a separate territory with a separate culture. One fairy court has Titania ruling it, and an other fairy court has Oberon ruling it. Elsewhere, the renaissance literature mentions other fairy courts, including the Scottish Queen of Elphame, the Greek god Pluto understood instead as a fairy, and so on. The modern folklore distinctions between "trooping fairies" and "solitary fairies" relates to whether the fairies organize their own government and army, or not. The fairy have many different cultures, each with its own government.

Notably, a fairy court can include nonfairy citizens. Individual humans can immigrate to become citizens of a fairy court. Sometimes undead humans become members of unseelie fairy courts. Likewise, individual fairies can immigrate to become members of a human community, sometimes marrying a human, sometimes adopted by a human, and so on.

Relating to the Norse elves. The Norse texts speak about the parliament at Alfheimr, but there can be cultural diversity, with other elven cultures elsewhere. Especially note the Scottish Elphame. Here _Elp-hame_ is a cognate of _Alf-heimr_. There are two separate elf cultures. A male Songster presides over the Norse parliament of Alfheimr, but a Queen presides over the Scottish kingdom of Elphame.



This cultural diversity likewise resembles how 5e describes the Eladrin courts (Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter) and Drow nations (Uda, Loren, and Aeven). And so on. Each species comprises a diversity of cultures. Many cultures include members of other species as well.

Ideally, the Drow and the Eladrin are different cultures within the species of Elf. D&D should probably avoid thinking in terms of "subspecies".

In 1e there is the Valley of the Mage, where Humans, Elves, and Gnomes are members of the same magical culture and its magocracy.

Culture and backgrounds should do most of the heavy lifting when representing diversity within a Nonhuman species.



The One D&D Elf has its diversity by means of different innate spells. I would rather the capacity of innate magic be the feature of the species, while the player chooses which spells to manifest, and the distinction between High and Drow be cultural influences rather than subspecies.


----------



## Bagpuss

Branduil said:


> I think "peoples" and "kind" are both okay to use to describe groups of people. Peoples is nice in the sense that it obviously emphasized the humanity of the group.




But the point is they aren't human. (Well except the humans obviously)


----------



## Bagpuss

Yaarel said:


> Ideally, the Drow and the Eladrin are different cultures within the species of Elf. D&D should probably avoid thinking in terms of "subspecies".




They aren't just different cultures though they have different physical abilities. They did already move away for "sub" in the origins playtest (even before they removed races) they had removed subrace, and replaced it with lineage.


----------



## Yaarel

Bagpuss said:


> They aren't just different cultures though they have different physical abilities. They did already move away for "sub" in the origins playtest (even before they removed races) they had removed subrace, and replaced it with lineage.



The elves are beings of magic. Elves innately cast magic.

The different elf cultures value and promote different magical spells.

This spellcasting feature is unlike biologically physical features.

Some elves can breath water, not because they evolve from fish, but because they happen to know the Waterbreathing spell.

When thinking of elven cultural diversity, it is simply preferences between cultures of spellcasters.


----------



## Xamnam

Bagpuss said:


> But the point is they aren't human. (Well except the humans obviously)



I imagine they're using that term to mean: the intrinsic value of a sapient being in a shared world. That's definitely a perk of that term, and part of why I've come around to it as this discussion has gone on.


----------



## Scribe

Bagpuss said:


> But the point is they aren't human. (Well except the humans obviously)




The point many make however, is that they want all the non-humans, humanized in terms of how players view them, so they are not seen as 'monsters' to be killed.

Orcs can no longer be just raiders.
Goblins can no longer be just "goblin like" (hilarious with the rise of "Goblin Mode" as a term!)

Instead, everything and everyone is maybe just your neighbor who you meet at the pub later and they help you mend your fence that was broken by totally not bad kobolds, last weekend.

Thats how some anyway, prefer it.


----------



## Bagpuss

Scribe said:


> The point many make however, is that they want all the non-humans, humanized in terms of how players view them, so they are not seen as 'monsters' to be killed.




Don't see the point when in real world we seem to so good at dehumanizing actual humans.


----------



## Scribe

Bagpuss said:


> Don't see the point when in real world we seem to so good at dehumanizing actual humans.



That's why.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Scribe said:


> That's why.




I've never believed that depictions of orcs and elves have an impact on our ability to dehumanize other people (which we are certainly capable of unfortunately). To me this has always been apples and oranges.


----------



## Bagpuss

Scribe said:


> That's why.



So we humanize these orcs and goblins, so we can then dehumanize them for to kill them, seems you could skip a step.


----------



## Irlo

Bedrockgames said:


> I've never believed that depictions of orcs and elves have an impact on our ability to dehumanize other people (which we are certainly capable of unfortunately). To me this has always been apples and oranges.



Depictions of orcs and elves can _reflect_ the way we dehumanize other people. We lose nothing by changing those depictions so that people playing the game don't have to look at reflections of their own dehumanization.


----------



## Scribe

Bagpuss said:


> So we humanize these orcs and goblins, so we can then dehumanize them for to kill them, seems you could skip a step.




Well, the folks who would want to humanize them, would also not default to put them in roles where they are killed and dehumanized, would be the path here.


----------



## Hriston

Irlo said:


> Depictions of orcs and elves can _reflect_ the way we dehumanize other people. We lose nothing by changing those depictions so that people playing the game don't have to look at reflections of their own dehumanization.



We lose out on the convenience of painting with broad strokes. It's more work to depict D&D races as diverse groups. It takes a nuanced approach that's sensitive to how real-world ethnic groups are stereotyped to promote racist thinking and agendas. However, I think it's worth it. Removing the word _race _doesn't solve the problem by itself, but it's a start.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Irlo said:


> Depictions of orcs and elves can _reflect_ the way we dehumanize other people. We lose nothing by changing those depictions so that people playing the game don't have to look at reflections of their own dehumanization.




I've just never seen orcs as stand-ins for real races. I just think you can have evil races in an RPG, or orcs, and it isn't going to contribute to dehumanization unless people are looking for. Just my opinion. We never needed orc depictions to commit racial atrocities: plenty of real world dehumanizing language and stereotypes do that already. But I think terms like peoples, ethnicities, heritage and ancestry get us much closer to it because those are ways we can dehumanize actual human groups. I would say if they want to avoid the issues that a term like race can create, they are better off going with type or species, but I don't think we need to completely retool the underlying mechanics of demihumans.


----------



## Yaarel

I am unsure what to do about the Dragonborn.

I am comfortable to hypothetically describe Red Dragon and Gold Dragon as separate species of the Genus Dragon (_Draco_).

Compare the taxonomies of the sheep and the dragon

*Kingdom*: Animalia
*Phylum*: Chordata (skeleton)
*Class*: Mammalia (mammal)
*Order*: Artiodactyla (hooves)
*Family*: Bovidae (cattle-like ruminant)
*[Subfamily]*: Caprinae (goat-like)
*Genus*: _Ovis _(sheep)
*Species*: _aries _(domestic sheep)

*Kingdom*: Animalia
*Phylum*: Chordata (skeleton)
*Class*: Reptilia (reptile)
*Order*: Squamata (scales)
*[Suborder]*: Serpentes (snake)
*Family*: Draconidae (dragon-like)
*Genus:* _Draco_ (dragon)
*[Subgenus]*: _Chromaticus _/ _Metallicus _/ _Gemmeus_
*Species*: _rufus _(red), etc. / _aureolus _(gold), etc. / _sapphirus _(sapphire), etc.

While these scientific rankings in Modern Latin are modern from 1700s onward, the distinctions between the kingdoms of life (earth, plant, animal), the distinctions between classes of animals (mammal, reptile, etcetera), and even the taxonomical families (cattle-like, viper, cat-like, eagle-like, etcetera) are all ancient.

D&D True Dragons are the variegated species of genus _Draco_. The creature type, Dragon, is the wider family of Draconidae.



But the Dragonborn? They are like an artifical lifeform that splices together the Humanoid and Dragon creature types. According to lore, the primordial dragons modified dragon embryos to develop into a bipedal humanlike form. They did this for each dragon species. So in some ways, the Dragonborn are a single species who can reproduce offspring with each other, but in other ways, they are separate species of dragons: red, gold, sapphire, etcetera.

Maybe the simplest way to understand this is, the Dragonborn is a species, but each dragonborn transmits a separate bloodline or lineage, that descends from an ancestor who is a specific species of Dragon. An offspring from different bloodlines only expresses the traits of one bloodline, but can still transmit the unexpressed traits to future offspring.



Importantly, the Humanoid creature type is unrelated to genetics. Rather, it describes a convergent evolution. Different kinds of lifeforms can evolve humanlike qualities of consciousness, freewill, sapience, language, and culture. Typically, they exhibit a humanlike bipedal body shape.

The Humanoid lifeforms can be complex and even nonbiological. Dragonborn are Dragon adopting a Humanlike shape. Elf are Celestial thought but some become Fey spirit and some of these materialize as a Human body. Tiefling are Human altered by Fiend. Shifter descends from Human modified by Beast via lycanthropy. Warforged are a Construct that Humans made Humanoid. Warforged belong to a kingdom of life that is neither Plant nor Beast, and probably accurate to classify as Elemental.


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> I've just never seen orcs as stand-ins for real races. I just think you can have evil races in an RPG, or orcs, and it isn't going to contribute to dehumanization unless people are looking for. Just my opinion. We never needed orc depictions to commit racial atrocities: plenty of real world dehumanizing language and stereotypes do that already. But I think terms like peoples, ethnicities, heritage and ancestry get us much closer to it because those are ways we can dehumanize actual human groups. I would say if they want to avoid the issues that a term like race can create, they are better off going with type or species, but I don't think we need to completely retool the underlying mechanics of demihumans.



For me a problem with D&D Evil "races" is the way D&D traditions use reallife ethnic features, like "tribe", "chieftain", "shaman", dark skin complexion, or "yellow" or "red" skin complexion, to describe "Evil" "primitive" races, thereby caricaturizing and demonizing the reallife ethnic groups. To refer to these "races" as nonhumans worsens the insult.

Anyway, that ship has sailed. The term race is gone. I want to avoid debates about race. There are other threads that one can necromance if one wants to revisit the debates about the term race.

That said, the problems that occur with the term "race" might also occur with other terms that appear in the poll in the original post. It is ok to mention these concerns in the context of the poll options to replace race.


----------



## Irlo

I voted for Type (as in Creature Type).


----------



## Bill Zebub

Bedrockgames said:


> I've just never seen orcs as stand-ins for real races.




So because you see things that way (and I don’t know your ethnicity) what is the implication when other people see it differently, and say it makes them feel unwelcome in the hobby, or worse? Do you not believe them? Think they are overreacting? Ignore them?

I’m kind of with you in that I never, in decades of gaming, saw “orcs as stand-ins for real races.”  (And, if you’ve at all been paying attention, you would understand that it’s a mischaracterization of the problem.). But more recently I’ve become  aware that the language and depictions we use to dehumanize orcs is the same language that has been used to justify dehumanization (read: enslavement) of other people. And apparently people from those ethnicities find that hurtful.

I’m not going to doubt them. Literally the least effort I can make to address terrible societal disparities is to say, “Ok, sure, I will believe you. If this bothers you, I’m ok with making some changes to my game of make believe elves and dragons.”

To refuse to do that, to kick up a fuss and cry and scream and make angry forum posts, or even to simply try to undermine the effort by saying things like “orcs aren’t black people”, is pathetic.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Dragons aren't even Chordata, much less Reptiles. They have six limbs for starters.


----------



## Mecheon

Vaalingrade said:


> Dragons aren't even Chordata, much less Reptiles. They have six limbs for starters.



If we're really playing the phylogeny game, I'd argue they're somewhere in Synapsidia per their walking style being far more mammal like, lack of feathers that'd put them in the various groups of Therapoda, having fur (We figure some Synapsids had fur, even before mammals proper) and the general close-to-reptile appearance, but wouldn't go any further than that, but this begs the question if the Hexapoda 'six-limbs' thing evolved once or twice.

Absolutely Chordata though, they have backbones. Just a Chordata who's somehow managed to get another set of limbs out of it from an ancestor. Per stuff suggesting Linnorms are the ancestor, we can use them as the starting point, which suggests that the ancestral dragon started with just two limbs. Various draconiform lifeforms from there gradually would then pick up additional limbs (or loosing as far as the sea serpent and wyrm lines go)


----------



## Yaarel

Vaalingrade said:


> Dragons aren't even Chordata, much less Reptiles. They have six limbs for starters.



In reallife medieval bestiaries, the dragon (Latin draco ‹ Greek drakon) is a species of snake, a serpent. The texts describe the Central African rock python, which can grow to lengths over 20 feet. But the stylized illustrations can get wild.

Due to ignorance about Africa and under the influence of mythic traditions about flying serpents, especially in Revelation in the Christian Bible, medieval Europe began to depict the draconic snake with wings, whence often both wings and talons of a bird. Because of locomoting by means of slithering the long serpentine body, there was uncertainty about whether the talons were more like legs (like a bird with a long tail) or more like arms (like the D&D linnorm and salamander). One illustration depicts the draconic snake with eight limbs: one set of wings with the arms and an other set of wings with the legs. Afterward, the snake often appeared with six limbs: arms and legs, plus wings.

Meanwhile, the Roman military standard for cavalry was called a "draco". This serpentine wind-sock banner moved like snake thru the air when holding it aloft while speeding on horseback. Different cavalry units would have different animal heads on their draco as its insignia. Some had lion heads, some wolf heads, and so on. The Roman cavalry introduced the concept of the draco across Europe. The concept the draco even reached Nordic lands. The Norse called it the _dreki_.

Thus medieval imagination came to visualize the exotic snake as having features that resembled those of other animals. The Norse dragon (_dreki_) typically exhibits features of adder snake, including actual horns in place of the adders hornlike V-pattern, plus lionlike head and mouth, and eaglelike arms. They are born as normal adder snakes, then while maturing, they shed their skin to reveal horns, then eaglelike arms. Never legs. The Norse dragon typically has two armlike limbs, but at a great age, they can shed their skin to reveal eaglelike wings, totaling four limbs.

By contrast, the Welsh dragon (_ddraig_) typically exhibits six limbs: an adder, with wolflike head, scaly wolflike body but ravenlike hands and feet, and batlike wings.

In any case, all of these concepts of dragon are explicitly a kind of snake.

Of course, the reallife snake itself evolves from a snakelike slithering animal, whose limbs became vestigial, then losing the forelimbs, then the hindlimbs.

The reappearance of limbs of the dragon resembles both snake atavism and further evolutionary mutation, including "draconid" species with two, four, or six limbs.



In this history, dragons are "serpents": class *Reptilia*, suborder *Serptentes*, and genus *Draco*.


----------



## Vaalingrade

The synapsid argument is better by virtue of there being no way these big, quick, obviously endothermic critters are reptiles in any way, shape or form.


----------



## Yaarel

Vaalingrade said:


> The synapsid argument is better by virtue of there being no way these big, quick, obviously endothermic critters are reptiles in any way, shape or form.



Magic.

Besides warm-blooded birds-dinosaurs evolved from reptiles (now understood as clade Sauropsida). Something similar can happen again from snakes.


----------



## Mecheon

Going further into my phylogeny rambling...

Lung/Ryu probably split off first from the Linnorm ancestry, with Naga being a close relation due to historical relation between the two. But the appearance of the rear legs suggest that there's some mechanism in Draconiformes to allow the generation of more limbs. Once you get that first limb generation the other baseline draconiforms in Wyverns and Drakes are easy alterations of bodyform to either adapt to flight, or to go for a bulkier apex predator body. Drake-line leads to dragons proper with the appearance of the rear wings. Hydra and Zmey are close relatives as I doubt the multi-head thing evolved multiple times. There's probably a line who've secondarily lost their arms and became full snake, leading to your wyrms 

Behir are the dragon equivilent of weasels or ferrets, a snake-like body and lifestyle but retaining legs. Giant, angry, lighting-spitting ones.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Yaarel said:


> Magic.
> 
> Besides warm-blooded birds-dinosaurs evolved from reptiles. Something similar can happen again from snakes.



Once we say magic, we get to ignore everything else.

Plus, there's nothing reptilelike about them except the scales. Might as well call them pangolins.

The medieval idea of them being snakes can just be chalked up as coming from a time before they invented observation or properly classifying animals: see whales and dolphins being fish.


----------



## Yaarel

Vaalingrade said:


> Once we say magic, we get to ignore everything else.
> 
> Plus, there's nothing reptilelike about them except the scales. Might as well call them pangolins.
> 
> The medieval idea of them being snakes can just be chalked up as coming from a time before they invented observation or properly classifying animals: see whales and dolphins being fish.



Many dragons, especially the earlier illustrations, are clearly snakelike. Those with venom relate to the adder and possibly stories about spitting corbras and similar.

Besides, they are plainly called "snakes".

The Welsh/British dragon gradually became less snakelike, and more lizard like with a bulkier wolflike body while and the serpentine aspect mainly appears a tail and sometimes a long neck. But this is a later development from the snake.

Here are examples from the 1200s. These "snakes" have birdlike wings and feet.


----------



## Charlaquin

Vaalingrade said:


> Once we say magic, we get to ignore everything else.



Which we have to do anyway because of the whole physically impossible flight thing.


----------



## Yaarel

Here is a reasonably clear image of a dragon from a runestone in Sweden (u177x). It is clearly snakelike. It depicts a mother dragon and her young. It is helpfully colorized. Mother is red. The young are shades of green and purple.





The runic artwork is stylized. The head of red mother is near the center. She bites her own tail. If you look closely, you can see her large white eye, her fang touching her lower jaw, and behind her eye is her horn that her neck partially hides. Her neck sweeps up and around down to her shoulder. Her arm is eaglelike with the talon functioning as a hand, but here the stylization makes the hand seem more like stiff fingers and a thumb pinching − a bit like a handpuppet. The rest of her is snake, whose red serpentine body sweeps from the shoulders around the runestone then backup thru the center where she bites it.

Look at the newborn snake, yellowish green at the farthest left. It lacks limbs and horns, and resembles a normal snake. It is a stylization of an adder, a venomous snake common in Nordic lands.

Going clockwise, the green snake is an adolescent who bites the mothers tail. Maturing, it has already shed its skin to reveal newly developed forelimbs, like the larger adult mother.

The rest of the young look like normal limbless snakes, like the yellowish green one.

Below is the only runestone (u887) that depicts a winged dragon that I am aware of. This flying dragon is colorized green. The red dragon looks like the red mother in the previous runestone. But note, both the green and red dragons here have tails that end in a prehensile handlike split tail.





Other runestones can be more ornate with many dragons slithering and weaving around each other, and bewildering to look at, or stylized beyond recognizable depiction. But generally, the dragons are either adults with horns and arms, or young that look like normal snakes, or somewhere in between.

Here is an image of a dragon from a stav church in Norway, dating to the 1100s. It depicts Fafnir, the dwarf who shapeshifted into a dragon. The human Sigurðr seeks to kill him. The dragon has the typical snakelike body. The head of the dragon is clearly lionlike. What looks like the tongue of the dragon is probably a stream of venom.






The neck sweeps upward from the head and off the top edge of the image. But just before it is out of view, see the arm, forearm, and handlike eagle talon.

This the _dreki_, the Norse dragon. I normally refer to it in English as the Drekar, using the Norse plural form to serve in English as both singular and plural. So, one Drekar and many Drekar. (I dont think English speakers should need to know the grammatical forms of other languages.) Likewise, one Alfar and many Alfar. One Aesir and many Aesir.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bill Zebub said:


> So because you see things that way (and I don’t know your ethnicity) what is the implication when other people see it differently, and say it makes them feel unwelcome in the hobby, or worse? Do you not believe them? Think they are overreacting? Ignore them?




I think the question in each case is whether the persons reaction and interpretation is reasonable. I think most cases with stuff like orcs, they haven't been meant as stand-ins, and seeing them as such is a fairly recent phenomenon that has a lot of traction online, because of how online discourse works, but not outside the online sphere.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> For me a problem with D&D Evil "races" is the way D&D traditions use reallife ethnic features, like "tribe", "chieftain", "shaman", dark skin complexion, or "yellow" or "red" skin complexion, to describe "Evil" "primitive" races, thereby caricaturizing and demonizing the reallife ethnic groups. To refer to these "races" as nonhumans worsens the insult.




Fair enough that debate has been driven into the ground, and there have been lengthy threads on it where we have all had opportunity to express our views. 



> Anyway, that ship has sailed. The term race is gone. I want to avoid debates about race. There are other threads that one can necromance if one wants to revisit the debates about the term race.
> 
> That said, the problems that occur with the term "race" might also occur with other terms that appear in the poll in the original post. It is ok to mention these concerns in the context of the poll options to replace race.




A couple of things. My concern is a lot less to do with the terminology and more to do with what demihumans actually are. I think since they have historically not been ethnicities but types of humanoids different from humans, turning them into ancestries, folk peoples, etc, is going to lead to far worse problems than say going with a term like type or species (for the reasons I gave earlier in the thread). But also, I think the concept of race in D&D, whether it is literally called race or some other term, is crucial to what makes the game work. So the direction it sounds like they are going in (where you pick a trait inherited from your parents (which could be any number of things I assume) misses the simplicity of selecting a Race and getting a standard allotment of modifiers and abilities. For me that is just part of what makes D&D, D&D. There are plenty of other games that take a different approach to this part of character creation, and when I want that, I play those. But I do think switching to more narrow terms for race is going to lead to unforeseen issues for sure, if people are concerned about this somehow connecting to real world racism.


----------



## Hriston

Dragons are totally snakes. The reason modern snakes don’t have legs or wings is they’re descended from the Eden snake who was cursed to crawl on their belly.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Irlo said:


> I voted for Type (as in Creature Type).



Not a fan of Type, but Creature Type I like.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bill Zebub said:


> To refuse to do that, to kick up a fuss and cry and scream and make angry forum posts, or even to simply try to undermine the effort by saying things like “orcs aren’t black people”, is pathetic.




Just to be clear I don't think one should make angry forum posts over these kinds of disagreements. You can disagree with a person's analysis without attacking them and without getting angry. Also if someone feels a certain way about something, in an emotional way, you can be sensitive to that and still disagree. But I do think it is very important to give our honest opinions about these things. I think because the whole debate hinges on whether orcs are stand-ins for black people or other racial groups, saying you don't think they are so (at least generally, obviously there may be cases where a writer is specifically injecting bad stereotypes into the game) isn't about being dismissive of that person but about being honest about what you really think. If you agree with them, by all means, say so. But if you disagree, I find it a bit patronizing to lie to people about what you think on the matter. And if you think deferring to their opinion on the matter because of their personal experience is sufficient, fair enough.


----------



## Bedrockgames

AnotherGuy said:


> Not a fan of Type, but Creature Type I like.




Creature Type could definitely work IMO


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Scribe said:


> The point many make however, is that they want all the non-humans, humanized in terms of how players view them, so they are not seen as 'monsters' to be killed.
> 
> Orcs can no longer be just raiders.
> Goblins can no longer be just "goblin like" (hilarious with the rise of "Goblin Mode" as a term!)
> 
> Instead, everything and everyone is maybe just your neighbor who you meet at the pub later and they help you mend your fence that was broken by totally not bad kobolds, last weekend.
> 
> Thats how some anyway, prefer it.



I never found settings where every species is just humans in different hats interesting. Having different species be mentally different as well as physically different can lead to far more interesting worldbuilding.

If the setting is just 'humans but they look different', then why not just have a fantasy setting with humans as the sole sapient species?


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Vaalingrade said:


> The synapsid argument is better by virtue of there being no way these big, quick, obviously endothermic critters are reptiles in any way, shape or form.



Birds, pterosaurs, and many species of non-avian dinosaurs are/were endothermic reptiles.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Scribe said:


> Orcs can no longer be just raiders.
> Goblins can no longer be just "goblin like" (hilarious with the rise of "Goblin Mode" as a term!)




I never saw orcs as pure raiders, at least I never saw them as purely tribal raiders. For me, in most settings I made for D&D, orcs often had a range of societies but those societies tended to be martial (i.e. they might sometimes be vikings, sometimes be Romans, sometimes be tribes of hill orcs, etc). The Roman orcs were pretty advanced by the tech level of the setting. Same with goblins and kobolds. You often did have the traditional bands of goblins and kobolds, but you also had kobolds functioning as scribes and as intelligentsia in the Roman orc region. What is cool about races and world building is them having distinct physical and mental characteristics that shape their culture in different ways than humans (for example a race that has extremely acute smell and can see at night is probably going to have a different culture from humans). Obviously inventing cultures whole cloth can be difficult so we find an analog. In my case Rome. But you can deviate more from real world cultures if you are willing to put in the work (it is just harder and requires a lot more thought).


----------



## Branduil

Frozen_Heart said:


> I never found settings where every species is just humans in different hats interesting. Having different species be mentally different as well as physically different can lead to far more interesting worldbuilding.
> 
> If the setting is just 'humans but they look different', then why not just have a fantasy setting with humans as the sole sapient species?



There's absolutely nothing wrong with settings where different species of sapient beings, with very different physiology, exist. 

However, if we're talking about D&D, Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs are absolutely _terrible_ examples of doing that. Elves and Dwarves are very obviously just Tolkien with the serial numbers filed off. Orcs were that, but then things got muddled with Half-Orcs and a number of quite offensive "savage" caricatures mixed in, in addition to the problems they already had as an inherently "evil" race. This is not Le Guin's _The Left Hand of Darkness_, there's nothing especially interesting happening biologically here. 

Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with that per se, I can enjoy Elves or Dwarves as much as anyone, but I'm not going to pretend they're not humans with cool hats 90% of the time.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> But also, I think the concept of race in D&D, whether it is literally called race or some other term, is crucial to what makes the game work. So the direction it sounds like they are going in (where you pick a trait inherited from your parents (which could be any number of things I assume) misses the simplicity of selecting a Race and getting a standard allotment of modifiers and abilities.



You still pick a race species and get a standard allotment of “abilities” (called “features” so as to not confuse them with ability scores, which are no longer tied to race/species).


----------



## Charlaquin

AnotherGuy said:


> Not a fan of Type, but Creature Type I like.



Creature type is already a thing though. Humanoid, fiend, fey, elemental, aberration, giant, undead, etc. are creature types.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Branduil said:


> There's absolutely nothing wrong with settings where different species of sapient beings, with very different physiology, exist.
> 
> However, if we're talking about D&D, Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs are absolutely _terrible_ examples of doing that. Elves and Dwarves are very obviously just Tolkien with the serial numbers filed off. Orcs were that, but then things got muddled with Half-Orcs and a number of quite offensive "savage" caricatures mixed in, in addition to the problems they already had as an inherently "evil" race. This is not Le Guin's _The Left Hand of Darkness_, there's nothing especially interesting happening biologically here.
> 
> Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with that per se, I can enjoy Elves or Dwarves as much as anyone, but I'm not going to pretend they're not humans with cool hats 90% of the time.



Yeah I'm not a fan of the 'inherently evil' thing. Unless it's outer plane related creatures.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bedrockgames said:


> Just to be clear I don't think one should make angry forum posts over these kinds of disagreements. You can disagree with a person's analysis without attacking them and without getting angry. Also if someone feels a certain way about something, in an emotional way, you can be sensitive to that and still disagree. But I do think it is very important to give our honest opinions about these things. I think because the whole debate hinges on whether orcs are stand-ins for black people or other racial groups, saying you don't think they are so (at least generally, obviously there may be cases where a writer is specifically injecting bad stereotypes into the game) isn't about being dismissive of that person but about being honest about what you really think. If you agree with them, by all means, say so. But if you disagree, I find it a bit patronizing to lie to people about what you think on the matter. And if you think deferring to their opinion on the matter because of their personal experience is sufficient, fair enough.



It doesn’t actually matter if they’re “stand-ins.” If the way they are depicted makes a subset of the playerbase uncomfortable because it reminds them of the way they have experienced prejudice in real life, that’s a problem that needs addressing, whether it was intentional or not.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Frozen_Heart said:


> Birds, pterosaurs, and many species of non-avian dinosaurs are/were endothermic reptiles.



If we're going to be that sweeping, all non-arthropod animals are basically just fish.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Vaalingrade said:


> If we're going to be that sweeping, all non-arthropod animals are basically just fish.



Except reptiles (including birds) are a class, and so that example is considerably less sweeping than using synapsids. Which are a clade.

Fish are always a bad example, as they're paraphylatic and so don't actually work in modern classification unless you include tetrapods. In which case the 'vertebrate' subphylum is basically the same thing as 'fish'.

As for dragon classification, It drastically changes depending on if you're using 4 limbed or 6 limbed dragons. If you're using 6 limbed dragons, then there are actually lobed-fin fish with 6 lobes which exist irl. If one of those had crawled up onto land first rather than a 4 lobed fish, modern terrestrial vertebrates may have ended up with 6 limbs as a base, rather than 4.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

This is one of my trepidations about the term species, weird taxonomy discussions about fairy tale creatures.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> This is one of my trepidations about the term species, weird taxonomy discussions about fairy tale creatures.



As someone who closely follows all sorts of palaeontology groups, discussing taxonomy is my idea of fun!


----------



## Vaalingrade

Frozen_Heart said:


> Except reptiles (including birds) are a class



Birds are Class Aves.


----------



## Cadence

Vaalingrade said:


> Birds are Class Aves.




And the class Aves is in the theropod group of dinosaurs...

Taxonomy is fun!


----------



## Galandris

I think the race/species debate has nothing to do with offensive depictions of real life groups. People who want to use racist/xenophobic depiction of real life group for their fantasy shlorps will do so regardless of their name in the rulebook: race or species. People who recognize these racists/xenophobic depictions will be able to do so without being fazed by the name used in the rules. People who don't care either because they never considered their fantasy linked to reality or because the depiction don't have the same association in their own culture or because they don't care about reusing this imagery will be able to use either race or species. I'm not seeing the debate being related.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Vaalingrade said:


> Birds are Class Aves.



Birds are aves. Which is a class.
Which sits within dinosauria, which is also a class.
Which sits within archosauria, which is a clade...
Which sits within reptilia.... which is a class.
Which sits within sauropsida... which is a clade again.

Yep. Taxonomy is a disaster.


----------



## Cadence

Frozen_Heart said:


> Birds are aves. Which is a class.
> Which sits within dinosauria, which is also a class.
> Which sits within archosauria, which is a clade...
> Which sits within reptilia.... which is a class.
> Which sits within sauropsida... which is a clade again.
> 
> Yep. Taxonomy is a disaster.




Aren't all the different levels of a taxonomy clades?

Is dinosauria widely accepted as a class?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Dragons are oozes with a very distinct opinion on how they should be shaped.

There. As long as they aren't reptiles.


----------



## Cadence

Vaalingrade said:


> Dragons are oozes with a very distinct opinion on how they should be shaped.
> 
> There. As long as they aren't reptiles.




If they are going to go anywhere...








But, they are unfortunately reptiles 




kind of...  However...


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hriston said:


> We lose out on the convenience of painting with broad strokes. It's more work to depict D&D races as diverse groups. It takes a nuanced approach that's sensitive to how real-world ethnic groups are stereotyped to promote racist thinking and agendas. However, I think it's worth it. Removing the word _race _doesn't solve the problem by itself, but it's a start.



It makes me wonder if one of the reasons that WotC is continuing to make the rules simpler is that actually playing the game the way we're supposed to now is much more complex.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Cadence said:


> Aren't all the different levels of a taxonomy clades?
> 
> Is dinosauria widely accepted as a class?



Wait I got that wrong. Dinosauria is a clade.

Also Dracohors includes silesaurs. So by definition it's awesome.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Frozen_Heart said:


> As for dragon classification, It drastically changes depending on if you're using 4 limbed or 6 limbed dragons. If you're using 6 limbed dragons, then there are actually lobed-fin fish with 6 lobes which exist irl. If one of those had crawled up onto land first rather than a 4 lobed fish, modern terrestrial vertebrates may have ended up with 6 limbs as a base, rather than 4.



In one of my old settings the first fish to crawl on land were six-limbed as were animals that evolved to them. But then there was a massive disaster and most of the animals were annihilated. So evolution had a second go, and this time it was a four-limbed fish that managed to crawl on land, resulting four-limbed vertebrae such we have on Earth. However, some creatures from that first evolution cycle had survived. These were dragons, griffins and other such "mythical" creatures.

In my current setting all natural land vertebrae on the main "plane" are four-limbed, so dragons for example have wyvern-like anatomy like in the GoT series and in the Hobbit films. If something has more limbs it is an indication that it is not a natural creature or is from another "plane".


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Crimson Longinus said:


> In one of my old settings the first fish to crawl on land were six-limbed as were animals that evolved to them. But then there was a massive disaster and most of the animals were annihilated. So evolution had a second go, and this time it was a four-limbed fish that managed to crawl on land, resulting four-limbed vertebrae such we have on Earth. However, some creatures from that first evolution cycle had survived. These were dragons, griffins and other such "mythical" creatures.
> 
> In my current setting all natural land vertebrae on the main "plane" are four-limbed, so dragons for example have wyvern-like anatomy like in the GoT series and in the Hobbit films. If something has more limbs it is an indication that it is not a natural creature or is from another "plane".



If I was using 6 limbed dragons for my setting I'd probably say they were descended from Coelacanths. Though personally I'm going for the 4 limbed dragons, with a similar explanation to you for 6 limbed things like angels and demons.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Bedrockgames said:


> I think the question in each case is whether the persons reaction and interpretation is reasonable.




Who determines that?  The person whose very recent ancestors were enslaved, and who themselves continue to suffer the effects of a history of discrimination and racism, or the person for whom those disadvantages don't apply, and are somewhat abstract?

And to what extent does the seriousness of an egregious social disparity get weighed against the cost of changing a game of make believe elves and dragons?



Bedrockgames said:


> I think most cases with stuff like orcs, *they haven't been meant as stand-ins*, and seeing them as such is a fairly recent phenomenon that has a lot of traction online, because of how online discourse works, but not outside the online sphere.




I mean, seriously, how many $%&@ing times does it have to be explained to you, in how many different ways, THAT THEY ARE NOT MEANT AS STAND-INS?  I know you've been participating in these threads for a long time, and this has been explained over and over again, and yet you keep reverting to this falsehood.  Are you skipping over the explanations?  Do you not understand them?  Do you think we are lying?  Or does it undermine your position so you are turning a blind eye?  Which is it?

I will try once again:
1. It is not necessary for the authors to have intentionally designed orcs as a stand-in for a particular race.  (Maybe they did, but I personally don't think so, and either way it's not a necessary condition.)
2. Assuming the authors had the best of intentions, they wanted to portray orcs as vaguely human-like Bad Guys who could be slaughtered with impunity.  It's a common theme in lots of stories.
3. In order to portray them that way, they used language and imagery that, as astute writers, they knew would convey the right message.  Barbaric, stupid, violent, primitive, ugly, promiscuous, superstitious, irrational, etc.
4. Unfortunately, for all of recorded history that's the sort of imagery...propaganda...we humans use when we want to slaughter or enslave (or both) other humans.
5. If you are somebody whose ethnic group has recently been on the receiving end of that treatment, and are still suffering the effects of discrimination, seeing the same portrayals, with the same results, presented in a game as a rollicking good time to be had by all, is pretty invalidating.

On the other hand, if you and your relatives have _not_ been on the receiving end of that treatment, then your _opinion_ that this isn't a big deal, or your demand for proof that there's a connection or that a remedy would have any effect....basically doesn't matter.  I mean, you are allowed to have an opinion, of course, but it's about as relevant as the parenting opinions of the stranger in the supermarket who wants to tell you how to discipline your kid.  (To which my response is usually, "Go #$%@ yourself.")


----------



## Hriston

Micah Sweet said:


> It makes me wonder if one of the reasons that WotC is continuing to make the rules simpler is that actually playing the game the way we're supposed to now is much more complex.



I don't know what you mean by "actually playing the game the way we're supposed to now". The way people play at their own tables is their business. I don't think anyone is telling you how you're supposed to play. My comments to which you're responding were about published game materials which I would expect to become more complex in terms of how the character packages formerly known as "race" are described and handled in order to avoid the inclusion of racist thinking.


----------



## Vaalingrade

The important thing is having half an excuse to murder an entire species in a fantasy game, not avoiding causing pain to actual humans.

Because other people with different experiences or generational trauma aren't real either, you see. We can harm them as much as we want without a thought!


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hriston said:


> I don't know what you mean by "actually playing the game the way we're supposed to now". The way people play at their own tables is their business. I don't think anyone is telling you how you're supposed to play. My comments to which you're responding were about published game materials which I would expect to become more complex in terms of how the character packages formerly known as "race" are described and handled in order to avoid the inclusion of racist thinking.



I mean that the recent emphasis on social concerns as they relate to D&D, regardless of their value, has the effect of making running the game at the table more complex.


----------



## Hriston

Micah Sweet said:


> I mean that the recent emphasis on social concerns as they relate to D&D, regardless of their value, has the effect of making running the game at the table more complex.



You'll have to explain how WotC avoiding the inclusion of content that resembles racist thinking in their published materials makes it more complicated for you to run your game and why anyone should be concerned about that.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bill Zebub said:


> Who determines that?  The person whose very recent ancestors were enslaved, and who themselves continue to suffer the effects of a history of discrimination and racism, or the person for whom those disadvantages don't apply, and are somewhat abstract?




I think everyone gets to weigh in here. No one is denying historical atrocities have occurred, but I don't think the existence of past wrongs means we relinquish our own judgment when it comes to analyzing and evaluating media tropes. I also think personal experience can be valuable but it also isn't the be all end all. And it is important to keep in mind, a lot of these groups are not monolithic in their views on these things. So even if you go a group that is offended you can get eight different answers. 

Also as another poster pointed out, this particular argument has been hashed out on other threads in the past so it is probably best not to resurrect it here


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bill Zebub said:


> I mean, seriously, how many $%&@ing times does it have to be explained to you, in how many different ways, THAT THEY ARE NOT MEANT AS STAND-INS?  I know you've been participating in these threads for a long time, and this has been explained over and over again, and yet you keep reverting to this falsehood.  Are you skipping over the explanations?  Do you not understand them?  Do you think we are lying?  Or does it undermine your position so you are turning a blind eye?  Which is it?




Again we've had these debates in other threads so I don't want to beat the dead horse. On this I will just say, I have definitely seen people make the case that they are meant as stand ins. But if they aren't meant as stand-ins, I think that lends more weight to my position.


----------



## Cadence

Hriston said:


> You'll have to explain how WotC avoiding the inclusion of content that resembles racist thinking in their published materials makes it more complicated for you to run your game and why anyone should be concerned about that.




I'm guessing that the idea is that "all orcs are evil" is less complicated plot wise and game management wise than "hmm... each of these groups and individuals have their own motivation that needs to be considered when I run a game."

A reason someone might be concerned is over in the thread about whether there is a DM shortage - and if part of that is due to the complexity of running a game.

(To me, the extra complexity to address this is well worth it).


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hriston said:


> You'll have to explain how WotC avoiding the inclusion of content that resembles racist thinking in their published materials makes it more complicated for you to run your game and why anyone should be concerned about that.



The more that every heritage needs to be thought of as just like humanity, with a wide variety of cultures and dispositions, the more effort the DM has to put in to create an adventure and run the game, and the more effort content creators have to put in to support the intensely nuanced take the current zeitgeist is demanding for every heritage in the game.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bill Zebub said:


> On the other hand, if you and your relatives have _not_ been on the receiving end of that treatment, then your _opinion_ that this isn't a big deal, or your demand for proof that there's a connection or that a remedy would have any effect....basically doesn't matter.  I mean, you are allowed to have an opinion, of course, but it's about as relevant as the parenting opinions of the stranger in the supermarket who wants to tell you how to discipline your kid.  (To which my response is usually, "Go #$%@ yourself.")




My family fled pogroms and were murdered in the holocaust. I think I have a fair understanding of the kind of real world atrocities you are speaking of. But I don't blame orcs. And I don't think that means people without that family history can't weigh in. And I don't have a negative reaction to orcs if all they are being presented as general barbarians (which could include groups like vikings and celts). I think the the conflict between more urban civilizations and more pastoral ones is certainly embedded as a powerful trope for a reason, but I don't think it has that much to do with race.


----------



## Xamnam

Bedrockgames said:


> And I don't have a negative reaction to orcs if all they are being presented as general barbarians



That's generally not what people who are seriously bothered by their characterization would contend they are presented as.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

One issue is that describing the different DnD species in any way at all can be linked at some point to language which racists have used in the past. X species is stronger/smarter/can do this thing which Y species can't do, is classic eugenicist language.

Ultimately the only way around it is to make all playable species completely identical. But then you just have humans in different hats and there is no point having different sapient species at all.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Xamnam said:


> That's generally not what people who are seriously bothered by their characterization would contend they are presented as.




I understand that, and again I don't want to bog down the discussion in the old Orcs are Racist thread, but my view has always been they've spanned a range of barbarian types.


----------



## Xamnam

Frozen_Heart said:


> One issue is that describing the different DnD species in any way at all can be linked at some point to language which racists have used in the past. X species is stronger/smarter/can do this thing which Y species can't do, is classic eugenicist language.
> 
> Ultimately the only way around it is to make all playable species completely identical. But then you just have humans in different hats and there is no point having different sapient species at all.



There's a big difference between saying Dragonborn can breathe fire, and every Gnome starts out smarter than every Human.


----------



## Incenjucar

You can give different species different abilities without giving them different capacities, which is what moving ASIs to backgrounds does.

All orcs have very physical abilities but they're just as capable of being a genius wizard as an elf is.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Cadence said:


> I'm guessing that the idea is that "all orcs are evil" is less complicated plot wise and game management wise than "hmm... each of these groups and individuals have their own motivation that needs to be considered when I run a game."
> 
> A reason someone might be concerned is over in the thread about whether there is a DM shortage - and if part of that is due to the complexity of running a game.
> 
> (To me, the extra complexity to address this is well worth it).




As soon as the half orc got out, and when there are actual orc children, you really get to the problem, that orcs are just other humanoids.

So if you want something evil, you need to make sure, that you don't speak about humanoids, but demons or the like who just take the shape of humanoids. It is still not ideal, but at least it is better. Gnolls in 5e fill that niche, except that they were falsely adressed as humanoids.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Incenjucar said:


> You can give different species different abilities without giving them different capacities, which is what moving ASIs to backgrounds does.
> 
> All orcs have very physical abilities but they're just as capable of being a genius wizard as an elf is.




And many orcs just happen to be warriors in the forgotten realms. And of course, their powerful build is aso helping to shape the image of the strong person.


----------



## Scribe

The strange thing to me, is that in one of these recent threads (generated by the packet) it was actually floated that non-human beings, ARE now seen as stand in's for the various human cultures or groups.

I found that a bizarre shift, from only a few short years ago when everyone was decrying the association of fantasy beings (I'm sorry I cannot type schlorp or whatever over and over) having cultural ties.

To me, the solution would be what we see in approach from MotM, if not in execution. Just give a general overview, and do not make associations with any real group, people, creed, ideology, or doctrine or any other 'self identification' at all.

An Orc is a Green/Grey hulking fantasy being. Full stop.
A Goblin, is a Green, diminutive fantasy being. Full stop.

There is no path forward otherwise, and this 'debate' will go on forever.


----------



## Cadence

I wonder if the most efficient way to stop a thread from derailing when you think part of it that you're involved in will lead it that way is to stop replying to everything after the first time you say you won't be replying anymore about that because you don't want to derail.   If that's not doable, I wonder if the second most efficient way would be to start a new thread to deal with it in particular.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

At this point, if I were ever to do the impossible task of designing a fantasy game from scratch, I think I'd just have humans as the sole sapient species.

Modern culture just seems to have moved beyond the point where a set of different 'races' being better/worse at different things is acceptable. Unless they're all identical and basically humans with different 'hats' of course.

Lots of fantasy settings only have humans, so it's exactly unprecidented.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Is _modern culture _also going to demand that Vulcans not be as strong as humans?

EDIT: It is one thing to say this sentient fantasy people uses real life racial stereotypes in their description and we need to address this, but it is a completely different thing to say I just want to be able to pick my skin with no depth to the creature I'm selecting. At some point _modern culture_ has gone too far IMO.


----------



## Scribe

Frozen_Heart said:


> At this point, if I were ever to do the impossible task of designing a fantasy game from scratch, I think I'd just have humans as the sole sapient species.
> 
> Modern culture just seems to have moved beyond the point where a set of different 'races' being better/worse at different things is acceptable. Unless they're all identical and basically humans with different 'hats' of course.
> 
> Lots of fantasy settings only have humans, so it's exactly unprecidented.




I dont think its needed, but I think a very flat generic view (again, see MotM) is what is required to pass the bar of acceptance these days. Just compare the Orc text from Volos, to MotM, its so night and day they may as well not be the same species.


----------



## codo

Bedrockgames said:


> I think the question in each case is whether the persons reaction and interpretation is reasonable. I think most cases with stuff like orcs, they haven't been meant as stand-ins, and seeing them as such is a fairly recent phenomenon that has a lot of traction online, because of how online discourse works, but not outside the online sphere.



They weren't meant as racial stand-ins, except when they where deliberately, incredibly, racist stand-in for minority groups.  See The Orcs of Thar and "Chief Sitting Drool".  Yep nothing racist there.  I don't know how people keep getting the idea d&d monsters are racially coded.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

AnotherGuy said:


> Is _modern culture _also going to demand that Vulcans not be as strong as humans?



If vulcans got added to DnD, and had a +2 strength bonus. Then yes that is exactly what would happen.


----------



## Bedrockgames

codo said:


> They weren't meant as racial stand-ins, except when they where deliberately, incredibly, racist stand-in for minority groups.  See The Orcs of Thar and "Chief Sitting Drool".  Yep nothing racist there.  I don't know how people keep getting the idea d&d monsters are racially coded.




And like I said, in specific instances people could use bad stereotypes. I haven't read the product in question but assuming everything I have heard about it here is correct, I would say this is an individual instance (frankly of a product I had never heard of before). But I don't think you need orcs to have negative stereotypes in games in a  writer is intent on it and a publisher willing to let it go through. 

I do think more broadly the idea that orcs are racially coded is not accurate. I think that is a very advanced media lens people are taking to orcs that most people don't bring to their reading of the creatures.


----------



## Cadence

Frozen_Heart said:


> At this point, if I were ever to do the impossible task of designing a fantasy game from scratch, I think I'd just have humans as the sole sapient species.
> 
> Modern culture just seems to have moved beyond the point where a set of different 'races' being better/worse at different things is acceptable. Unless they're all identical and basically humans with different 'hats' of course.
> 
> Lots of fantasy settings only have humans, so it's exactly unprecidented.




Lots of fantasy has different groups with particular attributes too - the different cabins in Percy Jackson (although sheesh, the name of the camp), the different bending groups in Avatar, the different animal species in Kung Fu Panda, etc...    It feels like having things have some differences is fine.  Is the question which ones touch on things we don't like to touch on with people (some group smarter than another?).   And I think part of the difficulty is that some of the stats do to many things (why are all strong people good at hitting things? Why are all good archers able to dodge well and vice-versa?


----------



## Xamnam

In light of Cadence's post, and to not re-litigate dozens of locked threads, I will leave this particular topic with: I think there is enormous room for interesting differentiation, that won't lead to criticism, without using locked ASIs. Those are first and worst boring, and barely serve that purpose other than to encourage conformity. That does not mean there's no way for Schmorps to be acceptably different. 

Also, D&D is clearly moving away from them, so it's a very moot point.

Back to the point of thread, Schmorp only seems to be gaining steam. How do we actualize this! Also, how do we keep people from losing the c, it's a common typo, but absolutely a fundamental part of the appeal.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

I think a part of the ASI issue is that 5e's maths assumes a score of 16 in your primary stat at the start. In order to hit that with point buy, you had no choice but to pick a race which had bonuses in that ability. Combined with the bounded accuracy revamp, it made playing a character with a 15 in their primary score rather unpleasant. Much worse than in prior editions.


----------



## codo

Bedrockgames said:


> And like I said, in specific instances people could use bad stereotypes. I haven't read the product in question but assuming everything I have heard about it here is correct, I would say this is an individual instance (frankly of a product I had never heard of before). But I don't think you need orcs to have negative stereotypes in games in a  writer is intent on it and a publisher willing to let it go through.
> 
> I do think more broadly the idea that orcs are racially coded is not accurate. I think that is a very advanced media lens people are taking to orcs that most people don't bring to their reading of the creatures.



This "specific instance" was a campaign guide for Mystara, TSR's main campaign setting setting at the time, explaining the place of orcs in the world.  It also wasn't just the view of one racist writer.  There were artists, editors, and management involved in the project as well.  It doesn't look like anyone working at TSR at the time had any problems with it.  This was an official project put out by TSR that portrayed orcs as racist, incredibly offensive, bumbling, cartoonish caricatures of native cultures and specific historically leaders.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

codo said:


> This "specific instance" was a campaign guide for Mystara, TSR's main campaign setting setting at the time, explaining the place of orcs in the world.  It also wasn't just the view of one racist writer.  There were artists, editors, and management involved in the project as well.  It doesn't look like anyone working at TSR at the time had any problems with it.  This was an official project put out by TSR that portrayed orcs as racist, incredibly offensive, bumbling, cartoonish caricatures of native cultures and specific historically leaders.



I remember seeing pictures from either that or a similar book about orcs.

I had no words for how awful it was. It wasn't even subtle about it, and it was clearly intentionally designed to target native-american culture.


----------



## glass

Bedrockgames said:


> I've never believed that depictions of orcs and elves have an impact on our ability to dehumanize other people (which we are certainly capable of unfortunately).



Well I do believe it. And more to the point, a lot of people who study the subject and a lot of the people directly affected by it believe it, and I believe _them_.



Vaalingrade said:


> The medieval idea of them being snakes can just be chalked up as coming from a time before they invented observation or properly classifying animals: see whales and dolphins being fish.



With the irony that, at least in some interpretations of cladistic taxonomy, whales are back to being fish again (and all the other mammals with them - including humans).



Frozen_Heart said:


> I never found settings where every species is just humans in different hats interesting



Since they are all going to be played by human, "humans in different hats" is pretty much all they can be.



Branduil said:


> However, if we're talking about D&D, Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs are absolutely _terrible_ examples of doing that. Elves and Dwarves are very obviously just Tolkien with the serial numbers filed off.



That may be how they started, but they (especially the elves) had drifted pretty far from their Tolkien roots even by the time OD&D was published.



Cadence said:


> Aren't all the different levels of a taxonomy clades?



That is the modern view AIUI. I might have got the WEOTS, but I think the whole Kingdom/Order/Phylum order thing is pretty-much deprecated - nature isn't that neat and tidy.



Cadence said:


> I'm guessing that the idea is that "all orcs are evil" is less complicated plot wise and game management wise than "hmm... each of these groups and individuals have their own motivation that needs to be considered when I run a game."



I am not sure about that. Afterall, if they adventure is about defeating evil orc raiders, then all that matters is whether _these particular_ orcs are evil raiders. There is no requirement for the all orcs in the world to be evil raiders, because the PCs are never going to be fighting all the orcs in the world at once. And by not saying they are, you keep more tools in your toolbox for the next adventure (or even the same one), which might have other orcs in any number of different roles.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Bedrockgames said:


> Also as another poster pointed out, this particular argument has been hashed out on other threads in the past so it is probably best not to resurrect it here



Which would be great if people stopped performing that part of the ritual to resurrect it where they run into a thread shouting 'orcs aren't real, lol!'.


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> The more that every heritage needs to be thought of as just like humanity, with a wide variety of cultures and dispositions,



Obligatory interjection that having a wide variety of cultures and dispositions does not necessarily make an imaginary species “just like humanity.” If writers can create a variety of fictional species that each individually have a different culture and disposition than humanity, they can create a fictional species that has a variety of different cultures and dispositions, all of which are distinct from humanity.


----------



## Charlaquin

Xamnam said:


> That's generally not what people who are seriously bothered by their characterization would contend they are presented as.



 a whole species of “general barbarians” wouldn’t be unproblematic, whether one thinks orcs match that description or not.


----------



## Charlaquin

Frozen_Heart said:


> One issue is that describing the different DnD species in any way at all can be linked at some point to language which racists have used in the past. X species is stronger/smarter/can do this thing which Y species can't do, is classic eugenicist language.
> 
> Ultimately the only way around it is to make all playable species completely identical. But then you just have humans in different hats and there is no point having different sapient species at all.



Why make them identical? Just make them diverse.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

A species can have a specieswide physical or mental difference to humans, without all being one giant monoculture.

Even if you blanket statement 'almost all orcs are more aggressive than almost all humans', that doesn't prevent those same orcs from having just as much diversity and unique cultures / beliefs as humans.


----------



## Vaalingrade

glass said:


> With the irony that, at least in some interpretations of cladistic taxonomy, whales are back to being fish again (and all the other mammals with them - including humans).



Neither humans nor whales pair well with tartar sauce. Checkmate.

Salmon is also not a fish by this metric, but it's a hill I will die on.


----------



## CleverNickName

In the sentence, "All flumphs are good at math compared to other races" my problem isn't the word "races."

The problem is the word "All."

Changing the word "race" to "species" isn't going to solve anything, if we're just going to let Species become the same old stand-in for stereotypes and sweeping generalizations of entire groups.


----------



## Galandris

Frozen_Heart said:


> One issue is that describing the different DnD species in any way at all can be linked at some point to language which racists have used in the past. X species is stronger/smarter/can do this thing which Y species can't do, is classic eugenicist language.




Honestly I haven't been aware of racist claiming other group "from another species". Degenerate humans sure, beast-like sure but not really part of another species. They'd would have been met with the common usage definition that they wouldn't be able to breed with humans.

I feel that the word species is not loaded like the word race is, and probably more representative of how schlorps have been used in fantasy gaming. On the other hand, it lacks the association with race, both the negative (a word loaded with bad connotations linked to racist depictions of human real-life groups) and the positive (since races are just arbitrary grouping of people based on color-coding or "origin" born in the mind of racists, they are all equal in reality). 

I'd say it's more exact, but it opens the way to distinctions among schlorps. Because species can be described with no ill intent to be stronger or more intelligent (humans are smarter than dogs).




> Ultimately the only way around it is to make all playable species completely identical. But then you just have humans in different hats




That's the risk unless one puts a great deal of thought in how schlorpic differences affects the development of society.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

CleverNickName said:


> In the sentence, "All flumphs are good at math compared to other races" my problem isn't the word "races."
> 
> The problem is the word "All."
> 
> Changing the word "race" to "species" isn't going to solve anything, if we're just going to let Species become the same old stand-in for stereotypes and sweeping generalizations of entire groups.



How about: "Most cheetahs are fast runners compared to other species?"


----------



## codo

Vaalingrade said:


> Neither humans nor whales pair well with tartar sauce. Checkmate.
> 
> Salmon is also not a fish by this metric, but it's a hill I will die on.



You can't argue with science.


----------



## Charlaquin

Frozen_Heart said:


> A species can have a specieswide physical or mental difference to humans, without all being one giant monoculture.



True, but one should be conscious of what specieswide differences one uses, lest one end up accidentally reproducing racist tropes.


Frozen_Heart said:


> Even if you blanket statement 'almost all orcs are more aggressive than almost all humans', that doesn't prevent those same orcs from having just as much diversity and unique cultures / beliefs as humans.



Case in point. This isn’t untrue, but a people who have a greater than average tendency towards aggression resembles the way certain ethnicities have been portrayed in order to dehumanize them. 

By all means, have fantastical species that are inhuman. Just make sure that if they’re thinking people, you don’t make them inhuman in the same ways that bigots have painted real people as inhuman.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Bedrockgames said:


> I think because the whole debate hinges on whether orcs are stand-ins for black people or other racial groups, saying you don't think they are so (at least generally, obviously there may be cases where a writer is specifically injecting bad stereotypes into the game) isn't about being dismissive of that person but about being honest about what you really think.



Mod Note:

There have been enough threads on ENWorld regarding the use of RW racial & ethnic stereotypes in describing fantasy races and cultures- “_with receipts_”, as they say- that we don’t really need to interject _that_ controversy into this discussion.  Thank you.


----------



## CleverNickName

Crimson Longinus said:


> How about: "Most cheetahs are fast runners compared to other species?"



That's a completely different sentence, and lacks the word "all," so...sure?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

CleverNickName said:


> That's a completely different sentence, and lacks the word "all," so...sure?



But has it ever been "all"?


----------



## CleverNickName

Crimson Longinus said:


> But has it ever been "all"?



Ever?  In the history of time?  Probably, infinite monkeys and typewriters and all that.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

'All' is generally a pretty bad word to use when describing species traits.

Like for example, saying "All humans are between 4'6 and 7'0" is clearly not correct. But then just writing "Humans vary between 2ft and 9ft" also doesn't give a very accurate view of humans, despite it being correct. This applies to any trait or description for playable species.

It would probably be best to say "Humans typically range between 4'6 and 7'0". And then have a paragraph at the start of the 'species' section of the PHB, explaining that these are just typical common values, and that outliers will always exist.


----------



## Mistwell

I just don't understand people who want "*ancestry*" and I will explain why.

I believe we already have one official type, and then we have a number of third party types and fantasy novels as well, which are a creature you transform into from another type. And that's not even touching on a spell like reincarnation, which currently transforms you from (for instance) a dwarf into an elf which has no elven ancestors. 

And given we're living in a society which is accepting the concept of transitioning from one category of identity into another category of identity, I just don't see how "ancestry" can continue to work well for long. Because "ancestry" is all about who your parents or grandparents are, and not what you are now. And what you are now can have nothing to do with what your ancestry might be.

It's already becoming an antiquated way to describe beings. Why would you want to engrain that kind of concept for another decade or more, given you can already see it's heading out of practice?


----------



## Scribe

Mistwell said:


> It's already becoming an antiquated way to describe beings. Why would you want to engrain that kind of concept for another decade or more, given you can already see it's heading out of practice?




So you propose what then? Because its not species either if we follow the logical path of what you are laying out here.

"Type" at the moment of question?

Are we trying to solve for the last 2% of the scenarios where Ancestry or Lineage, or Heritage would work fine for 98% of the population?


----------



## Mistwell

Scribe said:


> So you propose what then? Because its not species either if we follow the logical path of what you are laying out here.
> 
> "Type" at the moment of question?
> 
> Are we trying to solve for the last 2% of the scenarios where Ancestry or Lineage, or Heritage would work fine for 98% of the population?



Good lord you're in a thread with a gigantic list of alternatives in the first post. It's not like ancestry was the magical only "good" sounding one, it only has 30% of the vote with another choice at 43%.

I don't personally prefer species either but it's not nearly as wonky as ancestry. You can transform from one species to another. You can't transform from one ancestry to another - your ancestry is fixed by those who came before you. So yeah, species works better for this system.

Me, I prefer:

Creature Type: Humanoid (High Elf)

It's simple and effective and applies to NPCs and PCs alike.

And I don't think we're " trying to solve for the last 2%" as I think transforming from one type to another will become more common over time. It's probably going to head the way of multi-classing, with multi-typing, eventually. We're trying to plan for the future here and should choose a descriptor that works for a larger spectrum of fantasy possibilities.


----------



## Scribe

Mistwell said:


> Good lord you're in a thread with a gigantic list of alternatives in the first post. It's not like ancestry was the magical only "good" sounding one, it only has 30% of the vote with another choice at 43%.




I'm quite aware, the question was what solves for YOUR scenario, no need for snark lol.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Ancestry probably has the edge of Pathfinder having gotten away with it already.


----------



## Mistwell

Scribe said:


> I'm quite aware, the question was what solves for YOUR scenario, no need for snark lol.



Most of them do. You phrased your answer like, "But if we don't use ancestry what else could we possibly choose?" as if we were not in a thread with 30 choices!


----------



## Clint_L

After 28 pages, can we all agree that"schmorp" might not be the word D&D wants, but it is the word D&D needs?


----------



## Charlaquin

Mistwell said:


> Me, I prefer:
> 
> Creature Type: Humanoid (High Elf)



So, this is a great thing to put on monster stat blocks and PC character sheets. But, how would you phrase it it in the step-by-step character creation instructions?

1. Choose your Class
2. Choose your (what?)
3. Choose your Background

That’s an earnest question, I think if we could find a way to render “Creature type: Humanoid (elf)” in a way that would work in that context, it would probably be the ideal option.


----------



## Mistwell

Clint_L said:


> After 28 pages, can we all agree that"schmorp" might not be the word D&D wants, but it is the word D&D needs?



I would still prefer:

Schmorp Type: Humanoid (Mountain Dwarf) 

works better but sure.


----------



## Charlaquin

Clint_L said:


> After 28 pages, can we all agree that"schmorp" might not be the word D&D wants, but it is the word D&D needs?



It’s the jargon D&D deserves, but not the one it needs right now.


----------



## Mistwell

Charlaquin said:


> So, this is a great thing to put on monster stat blocks and PC character sheets. But, how would you phrase it it in the step-by-step character creation instructions?
> 
> 1. Choose your Class
> 2. Choose your (what?)
> 3. Choose your Background
> 
> That’s an earnest question, I think if we could find a way to render “Creature type: Humanoid (elf)” in a way that would work in that context, it would probably be the ideal option.



Choose your creature type for #2, which comes with Humanoid or Fey or whatever along with the descriptor in the parenthesis. Like it currently does.

Also I think it's important to note the distinction between "Creature Type" and just "Type".

Type is sterile. Creature type is more emotive of a fantasy setting. You're a type of Creature. And Creature is defined as "an animal or person or imaginary or fictional being." It fits better with a fantasy game than Species, which I think fits better with a sci-fi game.


----------



## Charlaquin

Mistwell said:


> Choose your creature type for #2, which comes with Humanoid or Fey or whatever along with the descriptor in the parenthesis. Like it currently does.
> 
> Also I think it's important to note the distinction between "Creature Type" and just "Type".
> 
> Type is sterile. Creature type is more emotive of a fantasy setting. You're a type of Creature. And Creature is defined as "an animal or person or imaginary or fictional being." It fits better with a fantasy game than Species, which I think fits better with a sci-fi game.



Hmm… Ok, I guess that works. It’d take some doing for me to get used to the shmorp being imparted by creature type rather than the other way around, but only because I’m not accustomed to it. Practically speaking that is probably the least objectionable approach any way you look at it. Guess I’m onboard the Creature Type train.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> As soon as the half orc got out, and when there are actual orc children, you really get to the problem, that orcs are just other humanoids.
> 
> So if you want something evil, you need to make sure, that you don't speak about humanoids, but demons or the like who just take the shape of humanoids. It is still not ideal, but at least it is better. Gnolls in 5e fill that niche, except that they were falsely adressed as humanoids.



No, they were correctly addressed as humanoids, and then changed in 5e because of fears regarding this issue.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> No, they were correctly addressed as humanoids, and then changed in 5e because of fears regarding this issue.




Nope. They were terribly at being humanoids as of 5e lore.

If you go by older lore, you are right. They were about as problematic as orcs.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> Why make them identical? Just make them diverse.



Humans are the ultimate in diversity.  Culturally, any other heritage is going to be a subset of that, unless you take options away from humans.


----------



## Galandris

Micah Sweet said:


> No, they were correctly addressed as humanoids, and then changed in 5e because of fears regarding this issue.




How does denying a two-leg, two-arms, one-head creature the adjective of humanoid allays the fear? Saying it's a monstrosity doesn't help, imho. If you don't want to have _always evil _things that can be mistaken for humans, it's the shape and not the creature type one would need to change. (not that I disagree with you, just commenting your post).

Or you could call them unaligned. Which might very well be a stand-in for the old "always evil" descriptor. It's probable smallpox is unaligned in D&D terms, yet we have no qualms eradicating this species without ethical dilemma. "This species survive by feeding on humans" doesn't make it always evil, it makes it... very unpopular with humans. Much like humans are unpopular among carrots.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Galandris said:


> Honestly I haven't been aware of racist claiming other group "from another species". Degenerate humans sure, beast-like sure but not really part of another species. They'd would have been met with the common usage definition that they wouldn't be able to breed with humans.
> 
> I feel that the word species is not loaded like the word race is, and probably more representative of how schlorps have been used in fantasy gaming. On the other hand, it lacks the association with race, both the negative (a word loaded with bad connotations linked to racist depictions of human real-life groups) and the positive (since races are just arbitrary grouping of people based on color-coding or "origin" born in the mind of racists, they are all equal in reality).
> 
> I'd say it's more exact, but it opens the way to distinctions among schlorps. Because species can be described with no ill intent to be stronger or more intelligent (humans are smarter than dogs).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the risk unless one puts a great deal of thought in how schlorpic differences affects the development of society.



Do you really think WotC is going to put a great deal of thought into this?  They basically cut and pasted a new term.


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> Humans are the ultimate in diversity.  Culturally, any other heritage is going to be a subset of that, unless you take options away from humans.



Ok? Doesn’t mean all the other species have to be identical to each other. There is a whole lot of daylight between “all identical” and “the ultimate in diversity.”


----------



## Galandris

Micah Sweet said:


> Do you really think WotC is going to put a great deal of thought into this?  They basically cut and pasted a new term.




I don't know, but since they are doing a _public statement_ about dropping race for species (instead of just quietly changing a term they no longer like for another), I think they should be expected to do it right. Just making a global replace of race by species and saying everything is well won't work. I hope they'll be called out for it MORE after they make the change than before.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> Nope. They were terribly at being humanoids as of 5e lore.
> 
> If you go by older lore, you are right. They were about as problematic as orcs.



Did I not say, "they were changed in 5e"?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> Do you really think WotC is going to put a great deal of thought into this?  They basically cut and pasted a new term.




Actually yes. They wrote how they adress it. They did not do a knee jerk reaction and just change the word to just something.
They contacted different people of many cultures and tried to find a neutral word. They proposed one and actually asked us specifically what we think about it...

Of that is not giving thought, what is?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> Did I not say, "they were changed in 5e"?




As I remember they started out as humanoids in the MM and only changed their type later...

yes, checked it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Galandris said:


> I don't know, but since they are doing a _public statement_ about dropping race for species (instead of just quietly changing a term they no longer like for another), I think they should be expected to do it right. Just making a global replace of race by species and saying everything is well won't work. I hope they'll be called out for it MORE after they make the change than before



To be fair, there was no way they could make a change like that without issuing a statement.  It doesn't really indicate a desire or intention to do more than that.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> As I remember they started out as humanoids in the MM and only changed their type later...
> 
> yes, checked it.



Fair enough.  Going the exact opposite direction, by the way, from people who want gnolls to be a playable heritage, like they were in earlier editions.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> Fair enough.  Going the exact opposite direction, by the way, from people who want gnolls to be a playable heritage, like they were in earlier editions.




Also fine. As I said: if you want gnolls to be a species that has all kinds of people and are free to live as they wish. Fine.

With the lore and background of 5e, with no choice to be not evil. Monstrosity.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Galandris said:


> I don't know, but since they are doing a _public statement_ about dropping race for species (instead of just quietly changing a term they no longer like for another), I think they should be expected to do it right. Just making a global replace of race by species and saying everything is well won't work. I hope they'll be called out for it MORE after they make the change than before.



Yeah lets not use the find and replace function thanks. WotC learnt this the hard way before!

I don't want to hear the story: The Species Between the Tortoise and the Hare.


----------



## Irlo

Frozen_Heart said:


> Yeah lets not use the find and replace function thanks. WotC learnt this the hard way before!
> 
> I don't want to hear the story: The Species Between the Tortoise and the Hare.



You don't want to hear about my custom lineage haregon-tortle warlock-monk? She's darn kewl!


----------



## Scott Christian

Charlaquin said:


> I think this is kinda covered by the baseline assumption that the DM can decide what character options are or aren’t available in a campaign. That said, I don’t think including that verbiage explicitly would hurt anything.



Haha. Baseline assumption. That is hilarious.   

Not making fun of you, just the fact that table's, communities and views can be so varied.


----------



## Charlaquin

Scott Christian said:


> Haha. Baseline assumption. That is hilarious.
> 
> Not making fun of you, just the fact that table's, communities and views can be so varied.



I mean, that’s how the game works.


----------



## Scott Christian

Frozen_Heart said:


> Yeah I'm not a fan of the 'inherently evil' thing. Unless it's outer plane related creatures.



There is an alternate side to this. That something can be "inherently evil." And I am going to use the most hated words for anyone that debates verisimilitude or flying dragons ( @Vaalingrade ) or anything else in the game - because magic.

If magic can be the rule of thumb for so many of the debates on here, why can't it be the rule of thumb for an "inherently evil" species?

I am not saying I am in favor of this. But it seems hypocritical to disregard a god's will, a lich's curse, or even ancestral magic that's tainted, ie. feywild-shadowfell, seelie-unseelie court, hellish planes, demons, etc. If one can make an army of evil bone devils, why can't they have the power to make an army of something on the material plane? 

Just a thought.


----------



## Scott Christian

Charlaquin said:


> I mean, that’s how the game works.



Fair enough. Your game works that way.


----------



## Charlaquin

Scott Christian said:


> Fair enough. Your game works that way.



Dungeons and Dragons works that way.


----------



## Scott Christian

Charlaquin said:


> Dungeons and Dragons works that way.



Ok.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Scott Christian said:


> There is an alternate side to this. That something can be "inherently evil."




I find it ironic that true evil in the real world isn't a slavering demonic figure from another plane.  True, real life Evil is instead outwardly calm, rational-sounding (maybe even _scientific_-sounding) justifications for treating other human beings poorly.


----------



## codo

Scott Christian said:


> There is an alternate side to this. That something can be "inherently evil." And I am going to use the most hated words for anyone that debates verisimilitude or flying dragons ( @Vaalingrade ) or anything else in the game - because magic.
> 
> If magic can be the rule of thumb for so many of the debates on here, why can't it be the rule of thumb for an "inherently evil" species?
> 
> I am not saying I am in favor of this. But it seems hypocritical to disregard a god's will, a lich's curse, or even ancestral magic that's tainted, ie. feywild-shadowfell, seelie-unseelie court, hellish planes, demons, etc. If one can make an army of evil bone devils, why can't they have the power to make an army of something on the material plane?
> 
> Just a thought.



The problem with species being "inherently evil" is they can also be PCs.  Inherently evil creatures are fine, see undead and fiends.  Just don't let players choose them.

You can't have your cake and eat it to.  A creature is either an inherently  evil monster that you kill on sight, or a Person, with their own individual beliefs and moral code.  You can't have it both ways.

"All Orc are evil, mindless, monsters that we kill on sight, except for Bob the party's rangers.  He's one of the good ones."  Is not a good look for the game.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Scott Christian said:


> There is an alternate side to this. That something can be "inherently evil." And I am going to use the most hated words for anyone that debates verisimilitude or flying dragons ( @Vaalingrade ) or anything else in the game - because magic.
> 
> If magic can be the rule of thumb for so many of the debates on here, why can't it be the rule of thumb for an "inherently evil" species?
> 
> I am not saying I am in favor of this. But it seems hypocritical to disregard a god's will, a lich's curse, or even ancestral magic that's tainted, ie. feywild-shadowfell, seelie-unseelie court, hellish planes, demons, etc. If one can make an army of evil bone devils, why can't they have the power to make an army of something on the material plane?
> 
> Just a thought.



The problem is that one is wielding the magic as an excuse to advance a racist concept: that an entire people is deserving of violence. That's why we label groups 'inherently' evil after all, but in and out of game: in order to make it okay to hurt them, enslave them, take from them.


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> I never saw orcs as pure raiders, at least I never saw them as purely tribal raiders. For me, in most settings *I made* for D&D, *orcs *often had a range of societies but those societies tended to be martial (i.e. they might sometimes *be vikings*, sometimes be Romans, sometimes be tribes of hill orcs, etc). The Roman orcs were pretty advanced by the tech level of the setting. Same with goblins and kobolds. You often did have the traditional bands of goblins and kobolds, but you also had kobolds functioning as scribes and as intelligentsia in the Roman orc region. What is cool about races and world building is them *having distinct *physical and *mental characteristics* that shape their culture in different ways *than humans* (for example a race that has extremely acute smell and can see at night is probably going to have a different culture from humans). Obviously inventing cultures whole cloth can be difficult so we find an analog. In my case Rome. But you can deviate more from real world cultures if you are willing to put in the work (it is just harder and requires a lot more thought).




...

Wait.

Youre saying, vikings are nonhumans, and nonadvanced, and tend to only be martial?

LOL! Are you listening to what you are saying?



By the way, I am Norwegian, and I can be less than thrilled about how D&D stereotypes reallife Nordic cultures.

I dont want my game to get bogged down by someone elses stereotypes about my identity.

When gamers from other reallife identities call attention to problematics in D&D traditions, I can empathize with what they are saying.



Moreover, you kinda just said, you make Orcs a stand-in for a reallife ethnicity, such as "Viking" Period Norse cultures.


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> Creature type is already a thing though. Humanoid, fiend, fey, elemental, aberration, giant, undead, etc. are creature types.



Im curious about what a D&D taxonomy might look like. The Types are all over the place, but could organize into rankings.

For example, something like:

_Lifeform_: Thought
• _Planarity_: Astral
• _Planarity (Positive)_: Celestial
• _Planarity (Negative)_: Fiend
• • _Type_: Devil
• • _Type_: Demon
• • _Type_: Yugoloth
• _Planarity_: Aberration

_Lifeform_: Spirit
• _Planarity_: Ethereal
• _Planarity_ _(Positive)_: Fey
• _Planarity (Negative)_: Shadow
• • _Type_: Undead
• _Planarity_: Elemental (elemental spirit is form but not substance)

_Lifeform_: Matter
• _Planarity_: Material
• • _Type_: Beast
• • _Type_: Plant
• • _Type_: Ooze

There is much ambiguity with some types. Is Giant an Elemental or a Material creature? Is Elf a Celestial, a Fey, a Material, or any? And so on.


----------



## Yaarel

I dont see a problem with six-limb dragons. They used magic to shapeshift their form, to however limbs they want. Dragons used this same kind of magic to shapeshift themselves into a four-limb bipedal Dragonborn form.

Some of the D&D "evolution" is more like genetic engineering and splicing − by means of magic.


----------



## Yaarel

Mistwell said:


> Choose your creature type for #2, which comes with Humanoid or Fey or whatever along with the descriptor in the parenthesis. Like it currently does.
> 
> Also I think it's important to note the distinction between "Creature Type" and just "Type".
> 
> Type is sterile. Creature type is more emotive of a fantasy setting. You're a type of Creature. And Creature is defined as "an animal or person or imaginary or fictional being." It fits better with a fantasy game than Species, which I think fits better with a sci-fi game.



If I understand you:

Elf is the "Creature Type". 

Humanoid happens to be its ... "Supertype" ... that comes along with it when one chooses Elf?


----------



## Galandris

The word you need is overschlorp.


----------



## glass

Mistwell said:


> I just don't understand people who want "*ancestry*" and I will explain why.



The reasons you give are (some of) the reasons I think "species" is vastly superior to "ancestry". But OTOH I think ancestry works as a slot in replacement in every sentance that would have used "race", which puts it way above most of the options listed.



Micah Sweet said:


> Do you really think WotC is going to put a great deal of thought into this?  They basically cut and pasted a new term.



AIUI, they claim to have consulted multiple sensitivity consultants about it. I suppose technically that is paying someone else to put thought into it rather than doing it themselves, but that seems warranted in the circumstances.



Frozen_Heart said:


> I don't want to hear the story: The Species Between the Tortoise and the Hare.



Now that you have said that, I kinda do....

_EDIT: Removed a bit that I did not think was contrary to mod guidance, but I do not want to take any chances._


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Scott Christian said:


> There is an alternate side to this. That something can be "inherently evil." And I am going to use the most hated words for anyone that debates verisimilitude or flying dragons ( @Vaalingrade ) or anything else in the game - because magic.
> 
> If magic can be the rule of thumb for so many of the debates on here, why can't it be the rule of thumb for an "inherently evil" species?
> 
> I am not saying I am in favor of this. But it seems hypocritical to disregard a god's will, a lich's curse, or even ancestral magic that's tainted, ie. feywild-shadowfell, seelie-unseelie court, hellish planes, demons, etc. If one can make an army of evil bone devils, why can't they have the power to make an army of something on the material plane?
> 
> Just a thought.



The problem is, many options presented as 'always evil' like orcs are player options. And as a rule I don't think players should be forced to be one alignment with their character.

Gnolls however are the alternate side to this. They have demon blood apparently making them 'always evil', and as a result are not a playable species. Though I do see people asking for playable gnolls on a regular basis.


----------



## Bedrockgames

glass said:


> @Bedrockgames appeared to me to be specifically saying that orcs belonged to multiple cultures, which seems like the opposite of making them a stand-in for any one.
> 
> In any case, doesn't "vikings" specifically refer to the raiders, rather than the culture that produced them as a whole? In which case saying "vikings are martially inclined" is a tortology, and says almost nothing about nordic culture(s) as a whole. Or did I get the wrong end of the stick somehow?




Just a heads up guys a mod posted that we shouldn't cover that subject anymore. So I would advise leaving the orc issue behind. Otherwise I'd respond to you and Yaarel's posts.


----------



## glass

Bedrockgames said:


> Just a heads up guys a mod posted that we shouldn't cover that subject anymore. So I would advise leaving the orc issue behind. Otherwise I'd respond to you and Yaarel's posts.



I don't see how anything I said is contrary to @Dannyalcatraz's guidance (assuming that is what you are referring to and there wasn't some other mod post that I missed), but perhaps you are right. "Discretion is the better part of valour", after all. Edited.


----------



## Bedrockgames

glass said:


> I don't see how anything I said is contrary to @Dannyalcatraz's guidance (assuming that is what you are referring to and there wasn't some other mod post that I missed), but perhaps you are right. "Discretion is the better part of valour", after all. Edited.




It was this post: 



> Mod Note:
> 
> There have been enough threads on ENWorld regarding the use of RW racial & ethnic stereotypes in describing fantasy races and cultures- “_with receipts_”, as they say- that we don’t really need to interject _that_ controversy into this discussion. Thank you.




It came in response to a post I made about orcs and real world ethnicities. I interpreted to mean don't talk about orcs and race/real world people. Generally I err on the side of caution with mod notes.


----------



## CreamCloud0

i'm curious is it the absolutism of 'always X alignment' that people baulk against more or is it the sterotyping the members of a species as 'typically X' at all is what is objectionable? to say that 'the values of the society of [X species] typically produce people of [Y alignment]' does seem too terrible to me even if the alignments produce are evil* or chaotic.

*in the scenario where the bar for 'evil' is not 'complete monster who tortures puppies for kicks' but something more to the tune of 'will willingly and knowingly puts their own wants, needs and wellbeing above and at the expense that of others'


----------



## Bedrockgames

CreamCloud0 said:


> i'm curious is it the absolutism of 'always X alignment' that people baulk against more or is it the sterotyping the members of a species as 'typically X' at all is what is objectionable? to say that 'the values of the society of [X species] typically produce people of [Y alignment]' does seem too terrible to me even if the alignments produce are evil* or chaotic.
> 
> *in the scenario where the bar for 'evil' is not 'complete monster who tortures puppies for kicks' but something more to the tune of 'will willingly and knowingly puts their own wants, needs and wellbeing above and at the expense that of others'




I Think it is a style of play issue. I tend to ignore alignment requirements, or just see them as tendencies, but I think they are there because the races were largely influenced by things like Three Hearts, Three Lions and Elric where things like elves were aligned with cosmic forces, and I get the impression there people who still play using that approach. That is why it was Lawful, Chaotic and Neutral before (which I honestly think is a better alignment system for something like that). I can especially imagine that being a useful approach if one is primarily playing with dungeon delves.


----------



## Hriston

CreamCloud0 said:


> i'm curious is it the absolutism of 'always X alignment' that people baulk against more or is it the sterotyping the members of a species as 'typically X' at all is what is objectionable? to say that 'the values of the society of [X species] typically produce people of [Y alignment]' does seem too terrible to me even if the alignments produce are evil* or chaotic.
> 
> *in the scenario where the bar for 'evil' is not 'complete monster who tortures puppies for kicks' but something more to the tune of 'will willingly and knowingly puts their own wants, needs and wellbeing above and at the expense that of others'



"X species is always Y alignment" isn't going to cut it.

"X species is typically Y" isn't going to cut it either unless _Y _is something like "breathing".

"X species has a [monolithic?] society with Y values which typically produces individuals of Z alignment" is definitely not going to cut it.

What's going to cut it is a careful and conscientious writing that avoids racist tropes and thinking. There's no easy fix or formulaic approach that will produce that result.


----------



## Scott Christian

Bill Zebub said:


> I find it ironic that true evil in the real world isn't a slavering demonic figure from another plane.  True, real life Evil is instead outwardly calm, rational-sounding (maybe even _scientific_-sounding) justifications for treating other human beings poorly.



True evil is not just outwardly calm and rational-sounding to justify terrible, atrocious ideas. They are also crazy acting people brought up to hurt other people. They are dim-witted and quick to respond with violent outbursts. I think we can agree, in real life (that you brought up), "true evil" comes in many forms.


----------



## Scott Christian

codo said:


> The problem with species being "inherently evil" is they can also be PCs. Inherently evil creatures are fine, see undead and fiends. Just don't let players choose them.






Frozen_Heart said:


> The problem is, many options presented as 'always evil' like orcs are player options. And as a rule I don't think players should be forced to be one alignment with their character.
> 
> Gnolls however are the alternate side to this. They have demon blood apparently making them 'always evil', and as a result are not a playable species. Though I do see people asking for playable gnolls on a regular basis.



I agree with these. But it should be made clear that players, on an increasing basis, do choose to be these. I mean, in second edition I had a player choose to be a githyanki. In 4e I had a player choose to be undead and another a gnoll. In all cases we made them the exception. The Drizzt style of play. In all cases, they had backstories that broke them from their "inherently evil" ways. Again, just an observation.

But what you two suggest is the issue: a player having the choice of that "inherently evil" species.

Yet, it does not address the claim: Why can't magic be the reason a species is "inherently evil?" Dragons fly. Wizards stay alive forever. I mean grimlocks exist, right? They were once regular humans who took their cultism too far. 


Vaalingrade said:


> The problem is that one is wielding the magic as an excuse to advance a racist concept: that an entire people is deserving of violence. That's why we label groups 'inherently' evil after all, but in and out of game: in order to make it okay to hurt them, enslave them, take from them.



That is not at all, not even in the slightest, what anyone is trying to do in this discussion.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Scott Christian said:


> True evil is not just outwardly calm and rational-sounding to justify terrible, atrocious ideas. They are also crazy acting people brought up to hurt other people. They are dim-witted and quick to respond with violent outbursts. I think we can agree, in real life (that you brought up), "true evil" comes in many forms.




I disagree.  (Shocker, right?)

The individuals who do crazy "evil" things, whether due to mental illness or to natural vulnerability of the human mind to manipulation...or some combination of both...are just the surface manifestations of evil.  If evil is the disease, those people are just the pustules on the skin.  The real evil resides in the people who knowingly planted the ideas that festered and rotted and grew and persuaded those individuals to go do evil things.


----------



## Xamnam

Scott Christian said:


> Why can't magic be the reason a species is "inherently evil?"



It could. It's just not that fun, or enjoyable, or engaging, or interesting, for a lot of people. It's quite inherently one note. Anything you need something like this for can be done with a subset group instead of the entirety of a species. Not to mention when there is society or free will involved, how illogical or contradictory it can get.

You might want to read this thread instead. This is pretty far afield for the topic at hand.


----------



## Yaarel

There is no such thing as "inherently Evil".

Part of what makes Evil Evil, is the possibility of choosing to do Good. Evil requires freewill and free choice.

Without free will, it isnt really Evil. It is Unaligned.



Even devils arent actually "evil", they are nonhumans that lack freewill, and automatically mirror the evil that humans do. The more evil humans choose to do, the more dangerous the devils become. Oppositely, the more good humans do, the less evil the devils become. When humans do extreme and sustainable good, it is even possible for the devils to transform and start doing good.



There is a tradition about "hot hate" (raging, brutal) and "cold hate" (intellectually dehumanizing, callous), and the worst Evil is when these two kinds of hate coordinate together.


----------



## Mistwell

Yaarel said:


> If I understand you:
> 
> Elf is the "Creature Type".
> 
> Humanoid happens to be its ... "Supertype" ... that comes along with it when one chooses Elf?



yes


----------



## glass

Scott Christian said:


> Yet, it does not address the claim: Why can't magic be the reason a species is "inherently evil?"



Because the problems with inherently evil species are doylist, and cannot be addressed with a watsonian answer. Magic does not exist in the real world, and therefore cannot be the answer to real-world issues.


----------



## Scribe

Hriston said:


> What's going to cut it is a careful and conscientious writing that avoids racist tropes and thinking. There's no easy fix or formulaic approach that will produce that result.




Which is why the write up for Orcs in MotM is what it is, in comparison to Volo's.


----------



## Hriston

Scribe said:


> Which is why the write up for Orcs in MotM is what it is, in comparison to Volo's.



I haven't read either of those so can't comment, but it's good to know an effort has been made in this direction.


----------



## Scribe

Hriston said:


> I haven't read either of those so can't comment, but it's good to know an effort has been made in this direction.



It's generic, safe, and paints Orcs only in a positive light.


----------



## Galandris

Scribe said:


> It's generic, safe, and paints Orcs only in a positive light.




If it is the case, calling them monsters (of the multiverse) quite insulting and Mordenkainen must be low-int to include orcs in the book. Or maybe he's just baselessly prejudiced against orcs?


----------



## Hriston

Scribe said:


> It's generic, safe, and paints Orcs only in a positive light.



Again, I haven't read it myself, but your description doesn't sound like what I was talking about.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Scribe said:


> Which is why the write up for Orcs in MotM is what it is, in comparison to Volo's.



Precisely. Which is why I cannot imagine the 5.5e MM having anything interesting in the way of humanoid write-ups.  If you can't talk about culture, all you get is a couple sentences about what they look like.

Same with the PH.


----------



## Scribe

Hriston said:


> Again, I haven't read it myself, but your description doesn't sound like what I was talking about.





Galandris said:


> If it is the case, calling them monsters (of the multiverse) quite insulting and Mordenkainen must be low-int to include orcs in the book. Or maybe he's just baselessly prejudiced against orcs?





Micah Sweet said:


> Precisely. Which is why I cannot imagine the 5.5e MM having anything interesting in the way of humanoid write-ups.  If you can't talk about culture, all you get is a couple sentences about what they look like.
> 
> Same with the PH.


----------



## Galandris

Scribe said:


> View attachment 269298




Exactly! They are people blessed by their god to be tireless and tenacious. There is nothing that make them monsters, and also nothing that make them recognizable as another species. They are a group of humans with a common ancestor that granted them a magical blessing.


----------



## Scribe

Galandris said:


> Exactly! They are people blessed by their god to be tireless and tenacious. There is nothing that make them monsters, and also nothing that make them another species. They are a group of humans with a common ancestor that granted them a magical blessing.




Its an interpretation for sure. Its not a direction I run with, but it is Wizards way of saying 'just do whatever you want in your game' by providing as little detail as possible.

Heck, they could literally save the space and just cut this kind of thing out of the PHB. A picture (suitably heroic) and the special rules. Thats all they need now.


----------



## Galandris

Scribe said:


> Its an interpretation for sure. Its not a direction I run with, but it is Wizards way of saying 'just do whatever you want in your game' by providing as little detail as possible.
> 
> Heck, they could literally save the space and just cut this kind of thing out of the PHB. A picture (suitably heroic) and the special rules. Thats all they need now.




Or they could really do what they said. If they are no longer a race but a species, they need to be a species, not a race (ie, an arbitrary grouping of humans based on a few physical traits or origin and often used to justify atrocities and inequalities). It was the situations orcs were at before WotC dropped the concept of race, at least in the latest publication like the one you mentionned. It was an acceptable description for the orc race of the "playable humanoid" unnamed D&D species (of which humans were part of), but it's not an adequate description (probably because of lack of detail) to be a different species as humans.


----------



## Xamnam

Galandris said:


> If it is the case, calling them monsters (of the multiverse) quite insulting and Mordenkainen must be low-int to include orcs in the book. Or maybe he's just baselessly prejudiced against orcs?



They're listed in the fantastical races section, and humanoids like the swashbuckler are listed in the bestiary section. Monsters is used here closer in meaning to foe, not as description.


----------



## Scribe

Galandris said:


> Or they could really do what they said. If they are no longer a race but a species, they need to be a species, not a race (ie, an arbitrary grouping of humans based on a few physical traits or origin and often used to justify atrocities and inequalities, which is the point orcs were at before WotC dropped the concept of race).




I dont think its going to change anything materially until it gets to that point where yes, everything is just a blank Humanoid, switchable at will, with various attributes (rules) to select from.

People will always find fault, (31 pages into a discussion on what to not call a <player entitiy> and why) and terms are not needed to justify naughty word behavior in the real world, or at the table.

Slippery slope, perfect enemy of good, yadda yadda.


----------



## Hriston

Scribe said:


> View attachment 269298



To paraphrase, because orcs were created by a god, they are the toughest and most tenacious people around which makes each and every one of them excellent guardians and allies. This runs pretty close to the Noble Savage trope. I think the specifics about Gruumsh and Eberron are fine, but the generalizations about orcs -- not so much.


----------



## Galandris

Scribe said:


> I dont think its going to change anything materially until it gets to that point where yes, everything is just a blank Humanoid, switchable at will, with various attributes (rules) to select from.




I think it will be the best outcome. A point-buy system of advantages (not something that is unheard of in the field of RPGs...) that the player can attribute to race, star conjunction at birth, species, magic or simply I trained hard to become able to breathe underwater. Well, maybe not in this particular example... It will fit how many players (at least, the one I've seen playing) plays their characters (because Xeno-thinking is incredibly hard to do, much more than roleplaying a member of a different sex, context of even social class) leading the "plastic ear" accusation, will empower players to play what they want (a common tendancy) and end the controversy. Potentially insensitive depiction will be part of the setting, not the rules.


----------



## Scribe

Galandris said:


> I think it will be the best outcome. A point-buy system of advantages (not something that is unheard of in the field of RPGs...) that the player can attribute to race, star conjunction at birth, species, magic or simply I trained hard to become able to breathe underwater. Well, maybe not in this particular example... It will fit how many players (at least, the one I've seen playing) plays their characters (because Xeno-thinking is incredibly hard to do, much more than roleplaying a member of a different sex, context of even social class) leading the "plastic ear" accusation, will empower players to play what they want (a common tendancy) and end the controversy. Potentially insensitive depiction will be part of the setting, not the rules.




Yeah, not for me, but it does seem to be where people are starting to lean if they realize it or not.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Scribe said:


> View attachment 269298




Clearly the sky is falling if the official description of Orcs doesn't sound like a Conquistador's description of native Americans.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Hriston said:


> To paraphrase, because orcs were created by a god, they are the toughest and most tenacious people around which makes each and every one of them excellent guardians and allies. *This runs pretty close to the Noble Savage trope. *I think the specifics about Gruumsh and Eberron are fine, but the generalizations about orcs -- not so much.




Except that description doesn't carry a whiff of "savage", so I think you are bringing into it your own preconceptions of orcs.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> Clearly the sky is falling if the official description of Orcs doesn't sound like a Conquistador's description of native Americans.



So it's one or the other then?


----------



## Scribe

Bill Zebub said:


> Clearly the sky is falling if the official description of Orcs doesn't sound like a Conquistador's description of native Americans.




What sky?

How to avoid causing additional issues with your descriptions of <beings formerly known as members of a race>?

Keep it generic. Keep it positive. Dont say too much.

MotM Orc description in a nutshell.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Scribe said:


> What sky?
> 
> How to avoid causing additional issues with your descriptions of <beings formerly known as members of a race>?
> 
> Keep it generic. Keep it positive. Dont say too much.
> 
> MotM Orc description in a nutshell.



Can't tell you how much fun that new PH will be to read with all the flavor ripped out.  Worse in that respect than 4e was.


----------



## codo

Scott Christian said:


> I agree with these. But it should be made clear that players, on an increasing basis, do choose to be these. I mean, in second edition I had a player choose to be a githyanki. In 4e I had a player choose to be undead and another a gnoll. In all cases we made them the exception. The Drizzt style of play. In all cases, they had backstories that broke them from their "inherently evil" ways. Again, just an observation.



Lets not look at the Drizzt books as a positive example.  The Drizzt books, and to a greater extent, the drow race itself, are just dripping with racism and fetishized misogamy.  

Do you really think "All Drow are inherently evil and have no free will, and we kill them on sight, except for our buddy Drizzt, he's one of the good ones." is really a good look for D&D.


----------



## Xamnam

Forgive me if this was just public consensus, and not explicit text, but wasn't part of the goal of a book with multiverse in the title to not foreground setting specific detail, to make the entries more widely usable for DMs?


----------



## Scribe

Xamnam said:


> Forgive me if this was just public consensus, and not explicit text, but wasn't part of the goal of a book with multiverse in the title to not foreground setting specific detail, to make the entries more widely usable for DMs?




I think so. Which makes sense to carry over to the PHB as well because that too (and the MM/DMG) should all be as generic as possible to fit into as many games as possible right?

Its like the Tiefling description from the packet.

Generic (granted with a Sigil assumption), positive, safe.


----------



## Hriston

Bill Zebub said:


> Except that description doesn't carry a whiff of "savage", so I think you are bringing into it your own preconceptions of orcs.



It's light, but it's there in the qualities of the warrior-god resonating within them and "defenders of the natural order".


----------



## codo

Xamnam said:


> Forgive me if this was just public consensus, and not explicit text, but wasn't part of the goal of a book with multiverse in the title to not foreground setting specific detail, to make the entries more widely usable for DMs?



D&D has always tried to walk a really narrow, shaky, tightrope.  It's trying to be a complete set rules and background information that can cover every situation, while also letting you play in any world or campaign setting you want.  This is an almost impossible needle to tread.


----------



## Xamnam

Scribe said:


> I think so. Which makes sense to carry over to the PHB as well because that too (and the MM/DMG) should all be as generic as possible to fit into as many games as possible right?



 There's a lot of daylight between generic as possible and overly prescriptive.


----------



## Scribe

Xamnam said:


> There's a lot of daylight between generic as possible and overly prescriptive.




There is, but its hard to convince me we are not trending into 'generic but positive to a fault'.


----------



## Xamnam

Scribe said:


> There is, but its hard to convince me we are not trending into 'generic but positive to a fault'.



That's fair. Personally, I find slippery slopes generally a hard sell.


----------



## Scribe

Xamnam said:


> That's fair. Personally, I find slippery slopes generally a hard sell.




Thats fine. I've been watching it since Tasha's if not earlier. To me the direction is clear. Call it a slope, call it an arrow, call it whatever, there is a general direction to me.


----------



## Xamnam

Scribe said:


> Thats fine. I've been watching it since Tasha's if not earlier. To me the direction is clear. Call it a slope, call it an arrow, call it whatever, there is a general direction to me.



My issues with slopes is the assertion that they'll never stop.


----------



## Bill Zebub

codo said:


> Lets not look at the Drizzt books as a positive example.  The Drizzt books, and to a greater extent, the drow race itself, are just dripping with racism and fetishized misogamy.
> 
> Do you really think "All Drow are inherently evil and have no free will, and we kill them on sight, except for our buddy Drizzt, he's one of the good ones." is really a good look for D&D.




You know how you can tell Drow are evil? It’s not the dark skin; it’s the _matriarchy_.

Obviously Kill On Sight.

That’s the lesson for today, kids. Quiz on Monday.


----------



## Scribe

Xamnam said:


> My issues with slopes is the assertion that they'll never stop.




Well, they do. Once they hit the bottom.


----------



## Galandris

Scribe said:


> Well, they do. Once they hit the bottom.




You mean, this is a species to the bottom? 

(Not to make another post, I am a little more satisfied with the tiefling description from the playtest. Since at least they have a non-human ancestor, they could be something other than human or demon, both clearly separate species. but I am not sure it is enough to warrant being a different species in the D&D universe: a child can take (and mix and match) appearance traits from either of his parents, and get powers (traits as they are called in the rules) as a block from either of them. So the tiefling specific traits, should a tiefling mate with a human, can be carried by a human. Basically, they are just humans with a few peculiar physical features... that are not even unified (ranging from unearthly beauty to horns and furs depending on your ancestor). They are the species of "humans with a striking appearance".


----------



## Scribe

Galandris said:


> You mean, this is a species to the bottom?




There is a <player being type formerly called a race> at the bottom of this hypothetical slope, yes.

It has no meaningful name: Type.
It has no meaningful size: Small or Medium
It has no meaningful culture.
It has no meaningful language.
It has no fixed biological attributes (ASI).
It has no default special rules, you select them.
It has no default physical appearance, the player defines it.

And if they are later bored, these things can be changed at the whim of the player.

Thats whats at the bottom of this hypothetical slope. We can call it Schmorp.


----------



## Galandris

Scribe said:


> There is a <player being type formerly called a race> at the bottom of this hypothetical slope, yes.
> 
> It has no meaningful name: Type.
> It has no meaningful size: Small or Medium
> It has no meaningful culture.
> It has no meaningful language.
> It has no fixed biological attributes (ASI).
> It has no default special rules, you select them.
> It has no default physical appearance, the player defines it.
> 
> And if they are later bored, these things can be changed at the whim of the player.
> 
> Thats whats at the bottom of this hypothetical slope. We can call it Schmorp.




Indeed, we can. I am glad you're embracing the Light!

Also, I agree that it will be bland. But it is the best outcome for WotC to deflect criticism. "Risk" will be taken by setting designers, where they can introduce biological features (in this world, Dwarves are stouter than every other groups of being, because on top of all the things anyone can do to improve his stamina, they are blessed with +2 CON by their creator gods), cultural traits (in this world, the only remaining group of dwarves is part of the Undermoutain culture. That doesn't mean there can't be another culture, it's just that there is no other grouping of dwarves in the known world of Gzart.... or even "in this world, orcs are a elf-and-man eating species, that does't make them evil, but they need to eat a human or elf each year to metabolize a substance necessary to their life, so the most savage hunt, the most compasionnate farm humans and provide them with a merciful death, some even choose to eat humans as seldom as they can while other just say "I don't give a damn, I'll eat an elf a day, it keeps the doctor away"... without any bearing on their morality as a group of course! and so on).

This way, they'll distance themselves from criticism and people not enjoying a specific setting can just play another one.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Scribe said:


> I think so. Which makes sense to carry over to the PHB as well because that too (and the MM/DMG) should all be as generic as possible to fit into as many games as possible right?
> 
> Its like the Tiefling description from the packet.
> 
> Generic (granted with a Sigil assumption), positive, safe.
> 
> View attachment 269299



I think they're making tieflings less cool. In my experience many people like tieflings _because _they're mistrusted outcasts. If the devil-guy is just another bloke it kinda loses a lot of its appeal.

Same with the orcs, really. People like them because they're brutal and "barbaric" (which doesn't need to equal evil.)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Crimson Longinus said:


> I think they're making tieflings less cool. In my experience many people like tieflings _because _they're mistrusted outcasts. If the devil-guy is just another bloke it kinda loses a lot of its appeal.
> 
> Same with the orcs, really. People like them because they're brutal and "barbaric" (which doesn't need to equal evil.)




I think there are a lot of reasons to like non-positive, dark, evil, outcast, etc. One is it is often more interesting. Another is it is often more fun if you are being hammy about it. This came up in the wednesday thread, but I watched the first episode of that show, somewhat against my will, as my wife decided we were going to watch it, and I have to say I thought it was pretty entertaining. I don't know where the show goes from there but there was some speculation on whether the character would grow and change, and whether that would be good. I felt the thing that made the show work was her misanthropy, so I felt if she grows it would just file down those stark unpleasant edges of the characters that made her so amusing. It reminded me of Black Adder and why I enjoyed the humor of that show. He was a horrible human being, but witty and interesting. I think especially when wit, fun and humor are part of the mix, these negative traits can have a different kind of appeal. In a more serious show, Black Adder and Wednesday would both probably be repugnant characters (unless they were being dialed up to 10 like a Gary Oldman performance). In comedies this stuff works. And a lot of gaming is pretty light hearted. A bulk of the time me and my players are making one another laugh.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Galandris said:


> Indeed, we can. I am glad you're embracing the Light!
> 
> Also, I agree that it will be bland. But it is the best outcome for WotC to deflect criticism. "Risk" will be taken by setting designers, where they can introduce biological features (in this world, Dwarves are stouter than every other groups of being, because on top of all the things anyone can do to improve his stamina, they are blessed with +2 CON by their creator gods), cultural traits (in this world, the only remaining group of dwarves is part of the Undermoutain culture. That doesn't mean there can't be another culture, it's just that there is no other grouping of dwarves in the known world of Gzart.... or even "in this world, orcs are a elf-and-man eating species, that does't make them evil, but they need to eat a human or elf each year to metabolize a substance necessary to their life, so the most savage hunt, the most compasionnate farm humans and provide them with a merciful death, some even choose to eat humans as seldom as they can while other just say "I don't give a damn, I'll eat an elf a day, it keeps the doctor away"... without any bearing on their morality as a group of course! and so on).
> 
> This way, they'll distance themselves from criticism and people not enjoying a specific setting can just play another one.



I find it very sad that WotC's highest priority as a game company is apparently "deflecting criticism".


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I've been mostly against "Species" since the new playtest dropped (it just sounds too scientific to me for D&D.) I think I'm getting used to it, though. That list shows me that there's not a lot of good options. 

Though I think the entire industry would be served well by a standardized word. I get that WotC doesn't want to look like they "copied" Paizo, but Ancestry is probably the best word. I don't think (I could be wrong) that Paizo could or would stop them from using it if they chose to. They should just go with it, but if they stick with species, I'll get over it.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Hriston said:


> It's light, but it's there in the qualities of the warrior-god resonating within them and "defenders of the natural order".




That could describe followers of Ares.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Galandris said:


> Exactly! They are people blessed by their god to be tireless and tenacious. There is nothing that make them monsters, and also nothing that make them recognizable as another species. They are a group of humans with a common ancestor that granted them a magical blessing.



I've always thought of orcs as not only a different species, but a completely different genus to humans. Sharing that genus with goblins, bugbears, and hobgoblins.


----------



## Hriston

Bill Zebub said:


> That could describe followers of Ares.



To me, it's the combination of warrior identity and alignment with nature, resulting in the impression of an uncivilized or "primitive" culture. Why would followers of Ares be described as "defenders of the natural order"?

But aside from that, yeah, there's isn't much that's more savage than Ares.


----------



## Yaarel

Galandris said:


> I think it will be the best outcome. A point-buy system of advantages (not something that is unheard of in the field of RPGs...) that the player can attribute to race, star conjunction at birth, species, magic or simply I trained hard to become able to breathe underwater.



That is pretty much how superhero games work.

Think of a character concept and use the rules to build it.

The difference will be, the Players Handbook and Setting Guides will have "ready mades" for players to choose it as-is and play. Other players might want to customize the default options, or build from scratch.

The flavor of the ready-mades still need a doublecheck.


----------



## Scribe

Yaarel said:


> That is pretty much how superhero games work.
> 
> Think of a character concept and use the rules to build it.
> 
> The difference will be, the Players Handbook and Setting Guides will have "ready mades" for players to choose it as-is and play. Other players might want to customize the default options, or build from scratch.
> 
> The flavor of the ready-mades still need a doublecheck.




I think this is such a departure from D&D as it is today however, that it largely is academic. Tasha's Custom Lineage with an expanded selection of feats, is likely as close as we are going to get and it still be "D&D".


----------



## Frozen_Heart

I'd really dislike features like water breathing and anything like that to just end up as something any species can do if they pick it. Once every species can just pick any starting abilities freely, there is no longer any point having multiple playable species. It's all just humans in hats.


----------



## Yaarel

Scribe said:


> I think this is such a departure from D&D as it is today however, that it largely is academic. Tasha's Custom Lineage with an expanded selection of feats, is likely as close as we are going to get and it still be "D&D".



In practice the D&D updates seem little or no change.

There are no longer "Evil races". But there are still normal D&D Evil encounters.

Look at the MMM (Mordenkeinen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse).

Yuan-Ti are a "Monstrosity" with a number of Evil organizations that serve as old school D&D villains.

(The Grummsh cult among Orcs functions similarly.)

At the same time, Yuan-Ti are also a playable Character Option, that the DM can choose to include in the Setting.

Moreover, the Skulk is illustrative. They are "soulless shells of travelers who became lost in the Shadowfell". Essentially, the Shadow plane has magically oblivionated these individuals. The process makes their alignment Chaotic Neutral, "typically". I suppose there are still individual Skulks who have flickers of memory of their life and their alignment values.

If the Skulks lack souls, I might classify them as Undead. MMM classifies them as Monstrosity. But in either case, they seem a good example of the need for a "Shadow" planar type that is nonidentical with the "Undead" type.

In any case, when players adventure and encounter a Yuan-Ti or Skulk, the encounter feels pretty much same as it ever was.

Racist ways of generalizing seem an unnecessary part of the D&D traditions.



Finally, the rule of thumb is: if the creature has a culture and it can learn, then it has free will and any alignment.

If the creature lacks the ability to learn, then it is no longer humanlike.

The Yuan-Ti definitely has cultures, and players who want to play one. So caution is especially necessary when describing them.

The Skulk loses the ability to have culture or learn new things, and is no longer humanlike. Albeit there can be atypical individual Skulks who still cling to their humanity.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Hriston said:


> To me, it's the combination of warrior identity and alignment with nature, resulting in the impression of an uncivilized or "primitive" culture. Why would followers of Ares be described as "defenders of the natural order"?




“Natural order” has a lot of connotations…some of which are rather vile…other than tree-hugging. 



Hriston said:


> But aside from that, yeah, there's isn't much that's more savage than Ares.




That’s a much broader use of “savage” than the connotation in “noble savage.”

So, sure, if you want to selectively expand/restrict the meanings of words in order to arrive at a desired interpretation, it can be done. 

But I will stand by my claim that the new description of orcs doesn’t convey “noble savage” to somebody who doesn’t have prior conceptions. (Then again, thanks to Peter Jackson, is there anybody who doesn’t have prior conceptions?)


----------



## glass

Micah Sweet said:


> I find it very sad that WotC's highest priority as a game company is apparently "deflecting criticism".



Is it so impossible to think that their priority is "avoiding harm to marginalised groups"?


----------



## Micah Sweet

glass said:


> Is it so impossible to think that their priority is "avoiding harm to marginalised groups"?



What you're suggesting is not the same thing as deflecting criticism, which is more of a "get off our backs" kind of philosophy. I'd love for them to focus on making the game better, and avoiding harm as much as possible within that.


----------



## glass

Micah Sweet said:


> What you're suggesting is not the same thing as deflecting criticism, which is more of a "get off our backs" kind of philosophy. I'd love for them to focus on making the game better, and avoiding harm as much as possible within that.



I know it is not the same, which is why I was suggesting it as a possible alternative explanation for the recent changes. _EDIT: TBF, I suspect both motivations are in play. My suggested motivation is in play for at least some of the people directly involved, but yours is how they sell it to senior management...._


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> I think there are a lot of reasons to like non-positive, dark, evil, outcast, etc. One is it is often more interesting. Another is it is often more fun if you are being hammy about it.
> ...
> I think especially when wit, fun and humor are part of the mix, these negative traits can have a different kind of appeal.
> 
> In comedies this stuff works. And a lot of gaming is pretty light hearted. A bulk of the time me and my players are making one another laugh.



Being "hammy" and over-the-top is how the Orcs of Thar happened. The "light-heartedness" didnt translate well in print. Its humor seems dubious anyway.

In general, humor can "feel" obviously different, depending on whether it is "insider humor" where a culture makes fun of itself while playing on the subtle incongruencies that the culture takes for granted.

Completely different is "outsider humor" that disparages someone elses culture while playing on stereotypical generalizations about that other culture.

In Orcs of Thar, it is obviously outsider humor with little knowledgeability about Indigenous American cultures, and even less sensitivity toward how members of the Indigenous cultures might react to this "humor".



I think the lesson of humor is instructive for how to handle D&D setting cultures generally. If the characterization of a clearly humanlike culture is from an "outsider" who disparages it, it will probably be problematic. If the characterization of the culture is from an "insider" who notices the conflicts from within the humanlike culture, it will probably be more dignifying.

Even when the descriptions are brief, the reader can kinda tell whether the speaker is an insider or an outsider.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> Being "hammy" and over-the-top is how the Orcs of Thar happened. The "light-heartedness" didnt translate well in print. Its humor seems dubious anyway.
> 
> In general, humor can "feel" obviously different, depending on whether it is "insider humor" where a culture makes fun of itself while playing on the subtle incongruencies that the culture takes for granted.
> 
> Completely different is "outsider humor" that disparages someone elses culture while playing on stereotypical generalizations about that other culture.
> 
> In Orcs of Thar, it is obviously outsider humor with little knowledgeability about Indigenous American cultures, and even less sensitivity toward how members of the Indigenous cultures might react to this "humor".




I wasn't defending Orcs of Thar, but I don't think humor going wrong, being offensive in a particular instance, or not aging well is an argument for not using humor. And I wasn't talking about racially disparaging humor, I was defending dark humor, having hammy, extremely evil races, etc. My point was basically about how you can characters like Black Adder or Wednesday who do truly terrible things (Wednesday for example tries to kill a baby to prove a point about physics if I remember), but we laugh instead of gasp because it is obviously taking a humorous tone. Basically just saying tone can matter a lot in how we perceive these things. And that fun and humor are a big part of the hobby.


----------



## Scribe

Bill Zebub said:


> Then again, thanks to Peter Jackson, is there anybody who doesn’t have prior conceptions?




Heck, WoW Vanilla Cinematic and Burning Crusade Cinematic have 4.5 and 7.1 Million views respectively on youtube, and thats not including all the views 'in game'.

I highly highly doubt between WoW and LoTR there exists anyone in any sphere even close to 'Fantasy Fan' who doesnt have preconceptions of what an Orc is.

Oh, and add in GW Orc/Orks, just for fun.


----------



## Hriston

Bill Zebub said:


> “Natural order” has a lot of connotations…some of which are rather vile…other than tree-hugging.



Okay? That doesn't seem to address whether it's a quality that might contribute to a people's depiction as being barbaric, primitive, or savage, or whether it's an apt description of the followers of Ares who may or may not be considered such a people, so I'm really not following.



Bill Zebub said:


> That’s a much broader use of “savage” than the connotation in “noble savage.”
> 
> So, sure, if you want to selectively expand/restrict the meanings of words in order to arrive at a desired interpretation, it can be done.



That's fair. The point I'm trying to make though, is that people have been called "savages" in order to depict them as violent, bestial, and primitive -- part of the natural world to be subdued by civilization. War (Ares) is also violent, so depicting a people (orcs) as warlike also serves that purpose.



Bill Zebub said:


> But I will stand by my claim that the new description of orcs doesn’t convey “noble savage” to somebody who doesn’t have prior conceptions. (Then again, thanks to Peter Jackson, is there anybody who doesn’t have prior conceptions?)



But that's the thing. People have all kinds of conceptions they're bringing, and you or I might not be aware of the impact certain ways of describing a people might have on the way that description ends up being received. I think they can do better than the new description. For one thing, they can avoid generalizing all orcs as tireless, mighty, and the toughest and most tenacious, especially when coupled with a narrative that depicts them as warriors that defend nature.


----------



## Scott Christian

codo said:


> Lets not look at the Drizzt books as a positive example.  The Drizzt books, and to a greater extent, the drow race itself, are just dripping with racism and fetishized misogamy.
> 
> Do you really think "All Drow are inherently evil and have no free will, and we kill them on sight, except for our buddy Drizzt, he's one of the good ones." is really a good look for D&D.



I think that is _a _look for D&D. Not _all_ looks. Not _the_ look. But a look.


----------



## Galandris

Bedrockgames said:


> And that fun and humor are a big part of the hobby.




For a company, they are also extremely unsafe grounds to tread. Unless really over the top like Wednesday, there is a strong risk of ruffling feathers with jokes that will be deemed offensive. Someone said that humor didn't convey in print and its very possible to make a mistake and "that was just humour, sorry" won't work. Which doesn't mean one can't have humourous game, because knowing your players you know what is fun for the group. For WotC, trying to be a multinational mainstream company, is this worth the risk? I'd say no, unless going from the blandest of jokes.



Scribe said:


> Heck, WoW Vanilla Cinematic and Burning Crusade Cinematic have 4.5 and 7.1 Million views respectively on youtube, and thats not including all the views 'in game'.
> 
> I highly highly doubt between WoW and LoTR there exists anyone in any sphere even close to 'Fantasy Fan' who doesnt have preconceptions of what an Orc is.
> 
> Oh, and add in GW Orc/Orks, just for fun.




They might have different preconception, though. Saruman creating uruk-hai in vats, in the film, make it clear that there are apparently no babies: once born, they are affixed with their military equipment. It echoed the discourse that orcs were physically corrupted elves by the torture of Morgoth: no breeding really, but "created", so this could be a preconception from a book reader. It won't be the same ideas about orcs with people exposed to WoW or GW.


----------



## Scott Christian

codo said:


> Lets not look at the Drizzt books as a positive example.  The Drizzt books, and to a greater extent, the drow race itself, are just dripping with racism and fetishized misogamy.
> 
> Do you really think "All Drow are inherently evil and have no free will, and we kill them on sight, except for our buddy Drizzt, he's one of the good ones." is really a good look for D&D.



Thanks for avoiding the question:

Why can't a GOD make a species evil? Why can't magic make a species evil? Why can't curses make a species evil?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Galandris said:


> For a company, they are also extremely unsafe grounds to tread. Unless really over the top like Wednesday, there is a strong risk of ruffling feathers with jokes that will be deemed offensive. Someone said that humor didn't convey in print and its very possible to make a mistake and "that was just humour, sorry" won't work. Which doesn't mean one can't have humourous game, because knowing your players you know what is fun for the group. For WotC, trying to be a multinational mainstream company, is this worth the risk? I'd say no, unless going from the blandest of jokes.




I would hope this isn't the case. Humor has been vital to D&D for ages. Obviously these aren't a joke every minute, but some levity helps change up the tone nicely and create an engaging text. I get that they obviously have to navigate the culture, but going the direction of humorlessness, may be safe, but it also risks making books far less readable and enjoyable.


----------



## Galandris

Scott Christian said:


> Thanks for avoiding the question:
> 
> Why can't a GOD make a species evil? Why can't magic make a species evil? Why can't curses make a species evil?




Because if they are evil (or good, that's the same problem) as a species, then they can't have free will (since an individual member of this species can't choose to do anything other than evil). And if they are deprived of free will, they are not evil, they are Unaligned. I reiterate this is more a problem with the alignment system in D&D than anything else.

As a illustration, sure a god could gift his creation with the condition of turning into a rabid killer at the sight of a human, leading to a murderous frenzy. Having people like that as your neighbour would suck. You'd probably don't like them (anymore than having another apex predator in your vicinity). It is reasonable that you'd be justified in killing them, especially since there is no curing this condition. But they wouldn't be evil, just cursed. 

The problem is compounded when you have a PC coming from this species, but saying "err, no, I am not like every single other member of my species, I am fine with humans, thanks."


----------



## Scribe

Galandris said:


> They might have different preconception, though. Saruman creating uruk-hai in vats, in the film, make it clear that there are apparently no babies: once born, they are affixed with their military equipment. It echoed the discourse that orcs were physically corrupted elves by the torture of Morgoth: no breeding really, but "created", so this could be a preconception from a book reader. It won't be the same ideas about orcs with people exposed to WoW or GW.




Thats a deeper cut than most will take I believe.

If you asked 100 people who are not 'forum using chads' what an Orc is. I'd put money on the number one answer being 'aggressive, warlike, mini hulks, and green'.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Galandris said:


> Because if they are evil (or good, that's the same problem) as a species, then they can't have free will (since they can't choose to do anything other than evil). And if they are deprived of free will, they are not evil, they are Unaligned. I reiterate this is more a problem with the alignment system in D&D than anything else.




This is a somewhat separate issue because you could strip away all talk about demihuman races and just talk about human free will. But I do think this depends. If being evil is just an inclination and not a forgone conclusion, then I think you could still make a case for them having free will, even if is constrained by some kind of instinct, habit, etc. I think a good comparison is some of the problems with humanity people have raised. We don't have the best track record and the question of whether humans are naturally inclined towards good or towards evil has been debated in the past. And one answer has been, yes humans naturally incline towards evil but they can hone themselves into more morally perfect beings through effort. So I could see a world that has a race of sapient beetle people who are inclined towards Lawfulness, because it is like a natural impulse. But that inclination doesn't mean they don't also have will that can override the impulse (it might mean by and large the bulk of the beetle people don't seem to behave in Chaotic ways).


----------



## Galandris

Bedrockgames said:


> This is a somewhat separate issue because you could strip away all talk about demihuman races and just talk about human free will. But I do think this depends. If being evil is just an inclination and not a forgone conclusion, then I think you could still make a case for them having free will, even if is constrained by some kind of instinct, habit, etc. I think a good comparison is some of the problems with humanity people have raised. We don't have the best track record and the question of whether humans are naturally inclined towards good or towards evil has been debated in the past. And one answer has been, yes humans naturally incline towards evil but they can hone themselves into more morally perfect beings through effort. So I could see a world that has a race of sapient beetle people who are inclined towards Lawfulness, because it is like a natural impulse. But that inclination doesn't mean they don't also have will that can override the impulse (it might mean by and large the bulk of the beetle people don't seem to behave in Chaotic ways).




I generally agree with you. I also think that most people in this debate seem to consider humans to be 100% free-willed, with no instinctive drive at all, or they take human insctinct as a baseline for any sentient species that one could meet in D&D. So "a drive to do X", where X is a behaviour that would be labelled evil, is dismissed as a lack of free will, despite our own drives (sexual drives, overeating drives, fear...) governing our behaviour more often than we'd like.

This is compounded by the fact that probably every adjective, even positive one, have been historically affixed to a human group, so if you say "they tend to be X", there is a strong chance that you're copying a racist/xenophobic trope somewhere.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> What you're suggesting is not the same thing as deflecting criticism, which is more of a "get off our backs" kind of philosophy. I'd love for them to focus on making the game better, and avoiding harm as much as possible within that.




From my point of view they are doing both of those things.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Galandris said:


> This is compounded by the fact that probably every adjective, even positive one, have been historically affixed to a human group, so if you say "they tend to be X", there is a strong chance that you're copying a racist/xenophobic trope somewhere.




But that is why things like intentions, context, the specifics, etc all matter. If you are talking about a very clearly non-human group, and you aren't doing it in way where it is meant to be some kind of allegory for human racial tensions, I think it can work. One issue is we are really boxing ourselves in if literally any adjective is going to be a problem.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Galandris said:


> I generally agree with you. I also think that most people in this debate seem to consider humans to be 100% free-willed, with no instinctive drive at all, or they take human insctinct as a baseline for any sentient species that one could meet in D&D. So "a drive to do X", where X is a behaviour that would be labelled evil, is dismissed as a lack of free will, despite our own drives (sexual drives, overeating drives, fear...) governing our behaviour more often than we'd like.




And one issue you run into if creatures don't have will, but are tethered to good or evil by design, is their isn't any real moral choice being made, so you can question whether they are truly good or truly evil. You can get around this by having it be the product of a choice made at a very early point in history, like angels and demons making their choice shortly after the moment of creation, but that only works for eternal beings, not for mortal ones. 

But I think D&D alignment and moral cosmology is more epic in nature. I usually go to other games when I want more involved, real world or interesting morality (and I only play D&D once in a while these days)


----------



## Bill Zebub

Bedrockgames said:


> and you aren't doing it in way where it is meant to be some kind of allegory for human racial tensions,




It doesn't matter whether or not it is _meant_ to be an allegory.  If it is using the language and imagery of historical subjugation to suggest that it's ok to kill the imaginary people, it's just a dumb idea.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bill Zebub said:


> It doesn't matter whether or not it is _meant_ to be an allegory.  If it is using the language and imagery of historical subjugation to suggest that it's ok to kill the imaginary people, it's just a dumb idea.




I wasn’t even talking about that, or arguing for it. But I think context, intent, and the specifics always matter. And I think readers can be trusted to make a good faith interpretation


----------



## codo

Scott Christian said:


> Thanks for avoiding the question:
> 
> Why can't a GOD make a species evil? Why can't magic make a species evil? Why can't curses make a species evil?



I am not avoiding the question.  I said evil monsters are ok.  You CAN have gods or magic make evil species. (As I said in my previous post Fiends and Undead are EVIL, and I think they are fine.  What I have a problem with is claiming that an entire species is EVIL, and is ok to kill on sight, while ALSO allowing them to be PCs. 

Pick one or the other the game shouldn't have creatures who are both.  Whenever someone ends up trying to justify why a certain species should be killed on sight, except for certain specific individuals, they inevitably end up using the words real world racists used to justify their genocide.


----------



## Yaarel

Either the species is humanlike and playable as a character, with learning, culture, and individuals of any alignment.

Or the species is not-at-all humanlike and obviously unplayable as a character.


----------



## Yaarel

Mistwell said:


> yes



From a traditional point of view, using the term "Creature Type" is probably the least disruptive way to replace the term "Race".

So, Human, Elf, Dragonborn, Tiefling, etcetera are all "Creature Types".

When a player selects their "Creature Type", a number of mechanical descriptors might come with it.


With this in mind, other terms can become "Planar Type" (or "Planar Origin" as a 4e-ism):
• Astral
• Celestial
• Fiend
• Aberration

• Ethereal
• Fey
• Shadow
• Elemental

• Material

• Positive
• Negative

(The last two terms are not origins in themselves, but can modify other origins. For example, Dark Sun has a Positive Material Plane and a Negative Material Plane that are regions of Positivity or Negativity around the planet. Arguably, Fey is Positive Ether, and Shadow is Negative Ether; Celestial is Positive Aster, and Fiend is Negative Aster.)



Perhaps, the remaining 5e terms can be a "Descriptor" or a "Form Type" that signifies a set of mechanical features that a group of Creature Types might share in common:
• Beast
• Construct
• Dragon
• Giant
• Humanoid
• Monstrosity
• Ooze
• Plant
• Undead



Note, some terms might lack mechanics for a creature statblock:
• Demon
• Devil
• Yugoloth
• Goblinoid

(If there is no mechanical difference between Demon, Devil, and Yugoloth, except for alignment, I would probably delete these technical terms, and just refer to these creatures as Fiends, opposite the Celestials. Similarly, Goblinoid − it may be enough to mechanize them as Fey. These terms can still be parts of the flavor texts, such as a setting that has a Blood War between Fiends.)


----------



## Branduil

Scott Christian said:


> Thanks for avoiding the question:
> 
> Why can't a GOD make a species evil? Why can't magic make a species evil? Why can't curses make a species evil?



This is just a variation on the Thermian Argument. It is obviously possible for a fictional god to do whatever it wants. Notably, multiple real-world religions have, at various times, attempted to justify racism with the "God made us better" argument. I'm sure you can see the problem with that.

If someone's setting has humanoid creatures which are inherently evil, saying "the gods did it" does not absolve the setting of its real-world implications. Regardless of the in-universe justifications, the decision to depict an inherently evil race is a choice made by the human author.


----------



## Yaarel

There are now 151 votes in the Poll of the original post. Currently, the top votes are:

56.3% Ancestry
32.5% Species
29.8% Lineage
25.8% Heritage
22.5% Kin
21.2% Origin
19.9% Folk
11.3% Kindred


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Imo if a species is forced to just be outright evil (due to gods, magic, etc), then it is lacking any free will and shouldn't be a playable species.

A playable species should have free will and be able to be any alignment. Even if that species is mentally very 'different' from humans, free will and the ability to be any alignment is important for a player character.


----------



## Andvari

I'm not sure why alignment is being conflated with free will. You can be of a specific alignment and still act independently. Drow, as mentioned above, can act on their own even if evil. Perhaps not the best example as they are not always evil, but a classic one is devils. They are always lawful evil yet are not under mind control and can act independently. (Yes, sometimes they are summoned, bound and forced to do something, but that's not how they always operate, and magic can do this to most PCs as well)

Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. And even if it was prescriptive, it would not imply mind control.


----------



## Yaarel

Andvari said:


> I'm not sure why people are conflating alignments with free will. You can be of a specific alignment and still act independently. Drow, as mentioned above, can act on their own even if evil. Perhaps not the best example as they are not always evil, but a classic one is devils. They are always lawful evil yet are not under mind control and can act independently. (Yes, sometimes they are summoned, bound and forced to do something, but that's not how they always operate)



I view Celestials and Fiends as lacking freewill. They are more like figures in a dream.


----------



## Andvari

Maybe that's how Celestials and Fiends see humans.


----------



## Incenjucar

Fiction shows that they generally still have free will - at least if sufficiently self-aware - but they have more alignment-leaning specific natures than mortals. A good being may have an overwhelming sense of empathy, a chaotic being may get uncomfortable with consistent patterns of behavior, an evil being might get an addictive rush around even the slightest sign of pain in others, etc.


----------



## Andvari

"Creatures without free will" are usually classified as neutral or unaligned as they do not act out of personal or moral dispositions.


----------



## Yaarel

Andvari said:


> "Creatures without free will" are usually classified as neutral or unaligned as they do not act out of personal or moral dispositions.



For animals and so on, they are Unaligned because they lack freewill, relating to lacking sufficient language to imagine a different way of doings things. Instinct is everything.

But for the alignment dominions, Celestials and Fiends are thought constructs. The are paradigms, symbols. They represent and reflect the human ethical behaviors − they themselves actually are the ethical behaviors − rather than free agents who choose to initiate ethical behaviors. Celestials and Fiends are mirrors rather than persons.

By contrast, Aasimar and Tieflings, and so on, do have freewill because of their humanity.

The term Humanoid mainly means, learning, language, culture, freewill to imagine and actualize any alignment.


----------



## Andvari

Animals have free will and can likely imagine many things, depending on the kind. Language is not a requirement of imagination either. Thoughts can exist as pictures, for example. The reason animals are neutral is that they are not involved in the cosmic struggle between law and chaos or good and evil. This is in D&D terms of course, as in real life humans are just a type of animal.


----------



## Yaarel

Andvari said:


> Animals have free will and can likely imagine many things, depending on the kind. Language is not a requirement of imagination either. Thoughts can exist as pictures, for example. The reason animals are neutral is that they are not involved in the cosmic struggle between law and chaos or good and evil. This is in D&D terms of course, as in real life humans are just a type of animal.



There is a kind of critical mass sotospeak that is necessary for language to override instinct.

(By the way, when I say language, I mean semiotics, including any kind of symbol, whether word or picture.)


----------



## Andvari

I doubt it.


----------



## glass

Frozen_Heart said:


> Imo if a species is forced to just be outright evil (due to gods, magic, etc), then it is lacking any free will and shouldn't be a playable species.



I would go further than that: I would say the for a creature to be categorised as evil, it must have a degree of moral responsibility for its actions. Creatures without free will lack that, and therefore cannot be evil, although they may be destructive and dangerous.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Andvari said:


> Maybe that's how Celestials and Fiends see humans.




In Soviet Faerun, PCs play you.


----------



## Branduil

I feel like focusing on "free will" is a rabbit trail. The issue is fantasy races/species propagating real-world stereotypes and caricatures, whether or not fictional people have free will, if anyone can even define that, is besides the point.


----------



## Scott Christian

codo said:


> I am not avoiding the question.  I said evil monsters are ok.  You CAN have gods or magic make evil species. (As I said in my previous post Fiends and Undead are EVIL, and I think they are fine.  What I have a problem with is claiming that an entire species is EVIL, and is ok to kill on sight, while ALSO allowing them to be PCs.
> 
> Pick one or the other the game shouldn't have creatures who are both.  Whenever someone ends up trying to justify why a certain species should be killed on sight, except for certain specific individuals, they inevitably end up using the words real world racists used to justify their genocide.



I honestly don't see why both can't exist. As long as language is used that avoids real world racist ideology, then a cursed race that feels compelled to follow an evil god's ways can also be a PC. In my opinion, freewill exists in all species in D&D. Even the yuan-ti. But that doesn't mean the aggregate of the species doesn't use their freewill to do evil things. Which could be part of the description.

Here the problem with the argument to say PCs being the evil species is a problem. PCs are the exception in _everything_. It even says it in the PHB. They are the exception in attributes. They are the exception in their ability to learn their class powers. They are the exception to be able to communicate with their deity or touch a plane of magic. They are even the exception of their species, if you take innate magical abilities. So why can't they be the exception to an alignment.

And as a side note: I agree, alignment is part of the problem.


----------



## codo

Scott Christian said:


> I honestly don't see why both can't exist. As long as language is used that avoids real world racist ideology, then a cursed race that feels compelled to follow an evil god's ways can also be a PC. In my opinion, freewill exists in all species in D&D. Even the yuan-ti. But that doesn't mean the aggregate of the species doesn't use their freewill to do evil things. Which could be part of the description.
> 
> Here the problem with the argument to say PCs being the evil species is a problem. PCs are the exception in _everything_. It even says it in the PHB. They are the exception in attributes. They are the exception in their ability to learn their class powers. They are the exception to be able to communicate with their deity or touch a plane of magic. They are even the exception of their species, if you take innate magical abilities. So why can't they be the exception to an alignment.
> 
> And as a side note: I agree, alignment is part of the problem.



The problem is the "Cursed by God to be Evil" is how lots of racists in history have described minority groups in real life, and it is used as justification for their murder, genocide, and enslavement.  

The thing is, D&D, or any other game for that matter, doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.  If a new player to the game sees things that remind them of the racism or discrimination they experience in real life, they shouldn't have to try and figure out whether it is just clueless nerds not thinking about the larger implications, or cryptoracist dog whistles.   Lets not pretend that there aren't lot of really racists people out there who try to sneak racist content into the wider media.  Look at the whole NUTSR and their racist Star-Frontiers game, or there is the infamous KKK magic card.


----------



## Scott Christian

Branduil said:


> This is just a variation on the Thermian Argument. It is obviously possible for a fictional god to do whatever it wants. Notably, multiple real-world religions have, at various times, attempted to justify racism with the "God made us better" argument. I'm sure you can see the problem with that.
> 
> If someone's setting has humanoid creatures which are inherently evil, saying "the gods did it" does not absolve the setting of its real-world implications. Regardless of the in-universe justifications, the decision to depict an inherently evil race is a choice made by the human author.



I can see a problem with real world religions doing that. But again, that is not the debate. Same with someone's setting being racist. That is a problem. But you are taking a tremendously large leap from: In this setting this one evil god cursed these halflings and now they are evil to the author's real-world implications is that all short people are evil. 

The point I am making is not a Thermian Argument because I am not justifying anything harmful in a text. The language used that reflected real world racism needed to change. What I am pointing out the hypocrisy of other's logic. Mind flayers have free will, no? Yet, we're okay with them being evil. Frost giants have free will and a culture to boot. Yet we are okay with them being evil. Dragons, certainly with their immense power, have freewill. Yet we are okay with them being either good or evil. So it is silly, maybe even hypocritical to say, halflings can't have a natural tendency due to be evil.


----------



## Cadence

Scott Christian said:


> I can see a problem with real world religions doing that. But again, that is not the debate. Same with someone's setting being racist. That is a problem. But you are taking a tremendously large leap from: In this setting this one evil god cursed these halflings and now they are evil to the author's real-world implications is that all short people are evil.
> 
> The point I am making is not a Thermian Argument because I am not justifying anything harmful in a text. The language used that reflected real world racism needed to change. What I am pointing out the hypocrisy of other's logic. Mind flayers have free will, no? Yet, we're okay with them being evil. Frost giants have free will and a culture to boot. Yet we are okay with them being evil. Dragons, certainly with their immense power, have freewill. Yet we are okay with them being either good or evil. So it is silly, maybe even hypocritical to say, halflings can't have a natural tendency due to be evil.



It feels like things being "humanoids" makes a difference to enough people to make it a tipping point.


----------



## Scott Christian

codo said:


> The problem is the "Cursed by God to be Evil" is how lots of racists in history have described minority groups in real life, and it is used as justification for their murder, genocide, and enslavement.
> 
> The thing is, D&D, or any other game for that matter, doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.  If a new player to the game sees things that remind them of the racism or discrimination they experience in real life, they shouldn't have to try and figure out whether it is just clueless nerds not thinking about the larger implications, or cryptoracist dog whistles.   Lets not pretend that there aren't lot of really racists people out there who try to sneak racist content into the wider media.  Look at the whole NUTSR and their racist Star-Frontiers game, or there is the infamous KKK magic card.



I won't look at NUTSR because I don't support people who are racist. They don't need a click from me. And, of course there are artists that sneak their crap in. We should not support them. But cursed by evil god is not a trope that equates to racism. Just like cursed by a witch is not a trope people connect to misandry.


----------



## Scott Christian

Cadence said:


> It feels like things being "humanoids" makes a difference to enough people to make it a tipping point.



How is a hill giant or frost giant not a humanoid? They are literally humans, but bigger. Just like sprites, which are good, are humanoid, but smaller.


----------



## Galandris

Scott Christian said:


> I can see a problem with real world religions doing that. But again, that is not the debate. Same with someone's setting being racist. That is a problem. But you are taking a tremendously large leap from: In this setting this one evil god cursed these halflings and now they are evil to the author's real-world implications is that all short people are evil.
> 
> The point I am making is not a Thermian Argument because I am not justifying anything harmful in a text. The language used that reflected real world racism needed to change. What I am pointing out the hypocrisy of other's logic. Mind flayers have free will, no? Yet, we're okay with them being evil. Frost giants have free will and a culture to boot. Yet we are okay with them being evil. Dragons, certainly with their immense power, have freewill. Yet we are okay with them being either good or evil. So it is silly, maybe even hypocritical to say, halflings can't have a natural tendency due to be evil.




From a company's point of views, their goal is to maximize profit. By removing things, they'll not lose any racist dollar (because I really doubt KKK members or Nazi supporters would stop buying D&D products because of a removal of, say, dark elves from a setting) but they are confronted with a situation where a group of people actively say they don't want to see X in their game (and they might, indeed, stop buying). Therefore, their goal becomes to remove X, even if X isn't extremely logical. What's driving the change isn't the soundness of any argument but its existence and the feeling of their customers.



Scott Christian said:


> I won't look at NUTSR because I don't support people who are racist. They don't need a click from me. And, of course there are artists that sneak their crap in. We should not support them. But cursed by evil god is not a trope that equates to racism. Just like cursed by a witch is not a trope people connect to misandry.




The argument is that "Real-life racists used "_they are cursed by an evil god to be evil like him and serve his evil ways_" to explain why they could enslave and murder a minority, so this argument can't be used in fiction without replicating real life racist trope, especially as "always evil" is a justification, in game, to kill members of this race". I have never encountered this argument in real life. Honestly, I thought most racist arguments emerged in Europe and the US in the 19th century, where the concept of evil god wasn't strong (monotheism was strong). But, it doesn't matter. If people think it, they'll ask for the removal of the explanation, and it makes sense to remove them. I don't think there will be many "evil god cursing people" supporters.

Pointing out that the argument used by real-life racist was that "MY GOD has cursed THEM to be evil/soulless/generally inferior so I am justified in enslaving them and killing them" is a different argument (and even more offensive and obnoxious for reasons that this board forbids to explain) might be true, but I don't think it matters from WotC point of view to implement change based on their target audience reaction.


----------



## codo

Cadence said:


> It feels like things being "humanoids" makes a difference to enough people to make it a tipping point.



It's less being "humanoid", and more being a PC.


----------



## Cadence

Scott Christian said:


> How is a hill giant or frost giant not a humanoid? They are literally humans, but bigger. Just like sprites, which are good, are humanoid, but smaller.




Assuming One continues types like 5e, then giants are there own creature type (giant) and sprites are of type fey.

Sticking to humanoids ("Humanoids are the main peoples of the D&D world"), the 2014 5e MM currently leaves the language:  "Almost as numerous but far more savage and brutal, and almost uniformly evil, are the races of goblinoids [...], orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, and kobolds."

[Edit:  Ok.  The below is apparently only in the monster section, not the PC section.  I retract and amend that I have no clue where they're going with it.]

But in MMotM the goblinoids have been moved to fey, gnolls are monstrosity, and kobold have been moved to dragon.  I'm guessing they'll keep going that way in One.


----------



## codo

Scott Christian said:


> I won't look at NUTSR because I don't support people who are racist. They don't need a click from me. And, of course there are artists that sneak their crap in. We should not support them. But cursed by evil god is not a trope that equates to racism. Just like cursed by a witch is not a trope people connect to misandry.



The trope of a "Race" being cursed by god to be evil doesn't _always_ equate to racism, but a lot of the time it _DOES_!  Players should never even be put in the spot where they have to question if this is racist of not.  People are dealing with a lot of crap in the world right now, they shouldn't be forced to deal with it in a game they are playing to relax.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Cadence said:


> Assuming One continues types like 5e, then giants are there own creature type (giant) and sprites are of type fey.
> 
> Sticking to humanoids ("Humanoids are the main peoples of the D&D world"), the 2014 5e MM currently leaves the language:  "Almost as numerous but far more savage and brutal, and almost uniformly evil, are the races of goblinoids [...], orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, and kobolds."
> 
> [Edit:  Ok.  The below is apparently only in the monster section, not the PC section.  I retract and amend that I have no clue where they're going with it.]
> 
> But in MMotM the goblinoids have been moved to fey, gnolls are monstrosity, and kobold have been moved to dragon.  I'm guessing they'll keep going that way in One.



I don't really understand why arbitrarily classifying things as non-humanoids would matter.


----------



## Cadence

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't really understand why arbitrarily classifying things as non-humanoids would matter.




It kind of feels icky to have me to have groups of things that are "people" labeled as "the bad ones", "the savage ones", "the not smart ones", etc...

If a demon, or angel, or ooze, or undead, or extraplanar created thing has some universally not-helpful properties, then it doesn't feel as bad.  (Of course there certainly are some stories where some of the undead vampires are going for a redemption arc or whatnot...)


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Cadence said:


> It kind of feels icky to have me to have groups of things that are "people" labeled as "the bad ones", "the savage ones", "the not smart ones", etc...
> 
> If a demon, or angel, or ooze, or undead, or extraplanar created thing has some universally not-helpful properties, then it doesn't feel as bad.  (Of course there certainly are some stories where some of the undead vampires are going for a redemption arc or whatnot...)



 But it also feels icky to label things that seem like people as "not people", especially if that is done in order to attach negative labels to them. Like goblins and giants are obviously people, and labelling them as non-humanoids doesn't change that.


----------



## Charlaquin

Scott Christian said:


> Mind flayers have free will, no?



I know this is beside the point, but probably not. It’s pretty strongly implied that they’re at least being manipulated if not outright mind controlled by the elder brains.


----------



## Charlaquin

codo said:


> It's less being "humanoid", and more being a PC.



For a lot of people, it is being humanoid. Though there’s probably a strong correlation between that position and wanting all humanoids to be fair game to receive PC rules.


----------



## Cadence

Crimson Longinus said:


> Like goblins and giants are obviously people, and labelling them as non-humanoids doesn't change that.



Are giants like people?  (Were they elementals in 4e?  More mythological in a lot of books?

That hobogoblins and gnolls would be renamed to just become killable does seem yeuch.  And not really doable if we want to play them and want playable things to be humanoids.

And then in Spelljammer you have the insect and the ooze that are people.

::::

Everything except aberrations and outerplane beings?  (And then we can argue if we should all be vegetarian?  :-/   ).


----------



## Scott Christian

Galandris said:


> From a company's point of views, their goal is to maximize profit. By removing things, they'll not lose any racist dollar (because I really doubt KKK members or Nazi supporters would stop buying D&D products because of a removal of, say, dark elves from a setting) but they are confronted with a situation where a group of people actively say they don't want to see X in their game (and they might, indeed, stop buying). Therefore, their goal becomes to remove X, even if X isn't extremely logical. What's driving the change isn't the soundness of any argument but its existence and the feeling of their customers.



I agree. So they will just try to find a new way to do it that is "acceptable." They'll probably say this species on this plane is infected or the plane itself slowly causes a person to a specific alignment. I mean, if they went with the plane actually cursing the species, would anyone have an objection?
I can't think of any real life situation where humans have used a plane (like shadowfell) as the reason for their racist tropes. So will there be an objection to that?


The answer is...


There will be a bunch of objections.


----------



## Scott Christian

codo said:


> It's less being "humanoid", and more being a PC.



And again, I get that. But if the PC is the exception to everything, as stated in the PHB, why can't they be the exception in alignment?


----------



## Scott Christian

codo said:


> The trope of a "Race" being cursed by god to be evil doesn't _always_ equate to racism, but a lot of the time it _DOES_!  Players should never even be put in the spot where they have to question if this is racist of not.  People are dealing with a lot of crap in the world right now, they shouldn't be forced to deal with it in a game they are playing to relax.



This is a great point. But they are choosing to play a game in which there is creation based on species, world laws, and culture. That too, needs to be considered.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Just stop with the childish and silly "acceptable targets for kill-on-sight". You can have some like the mindless undead, but overall the game is better if the antagonists have actual motivations.

Also, it helps if we can accept that a bunch of wandering vigilantes don't necessarily need to be flawless paragons of virtue.


----------



## codo

Scott Christian said:


> I agree. So they will just try to find a new way to do it that is "acceptable." They'll probably say this species on this plane is infected or the plane itself slowly causes a person to a specific alignment. I mean, if they went with the plane actually cursing the species, would anyone have an objection?
> I can't think of any real life situation where humans have used a plane (like shadowfell) as the reason for their racist tropes. So will there be an objection to that?
> 
> 
> The answer is...
> 
> 
> There will be a bunch of objections.



The thing you are missing is that you don't need to make _All_ of a species a certain way.  Especially if you say all of a species is a certain way except for the PCs.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Scott Christian said:


> I can see a problem with real world religions doing that. But again, that is not the debate. Same with someone's setting being racist. That is a problem. But you are taking a tremendously large leap from: In this setting this one evil god cursed these halflings and now they are evil to the author's real-world implications is that all short people are evil.
> 
> The point I am making is not a Thermian Argument because I am not justifying anything harmful in a text. The language used that reflected real world racism needed to change. What I am pointing out the hypocrisy of other's logic. Mind flayers have free will, no? Yet, we're okay with them being evil. Frost giants have free will and a culture to boot. Yet we are okay with them being evil. Dragons, certainly with their immense power, have freewill. Yet we are okay with them being either good or evil. So it is silly, maybe even hypocritical to say, halflings can't have a natural tendency due to be evil.



Apparently WotC thinks the difference is "creature type: humanoid".  Change that, and Bob's your uncle!


----------



## Micah Sweet

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't really understand why arbitrarily classifying things as non-humanoids would matter.



I don't either, but WotC seems to.  Look at the gnolls, or the draconians.  Apparently you can slap a "monstrosity" label on just about anything and now its ok to kill it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> I know this is beside the point, but probably not. It’s pretty strongly implied that they’re at least being manipulated if not outright mind controlled by the elder brains.



There are plenty of stories in D&D where that's not the case, and even if it were, do elder brains have free will?  You just moved the question level up.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Mind flayers are good villains. It doesn't really matter whether they're "really evil"; in any case we are unlikely to reach an amicable compromise on whether my brains are breakfast or not.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Scott Christian said:


> Mind flayers have free will, no? Yet, we're okay with them being evil.




As far as I am aware, no part of the depiction of Mind Flayers closely parallels a depiction that has been used to justify the subjugation of real world people, especially real world people who are still suffering the effects of it.

If there were an ethnic group that currently suffers discrimination based on a false but enduring myth that they had mental powers that allowed them to enslave others and eat their brains, I would feel differently.* 

That's the difference.

*And even if there were, the argument against that portrayal would NOT be "Mind Flayers are meant to represent Bridge and Tunnel People."  It pains me that I have to say that, but apparently I do.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't really understand why arbitrarily classifying things as non-humanoids would matter.




It shouldn't, except that when writers want to portray mortal humanoids as inherently evil the tropes they invariably turn to are problematic.  Extra-planar monsters are easier to portray as evil without resorting to that.


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> There are plenty of stories in D&D where that's not the case, and even if it were, do elder brains have free will?  You just moved the question level up.



True. I was just picking nits. Bad habit of mine.


----------



## Scott Christian

codo said:


> The thing you are missing is that you don't need to make _All_ of a species a certain way.  Especially if you say all of a species is a certain way except for the PCs.



In the above example (the planar example) it is not all of a species. It is the species that exists on that plane. Since D&D is a menagerie of planes, then there are bound to be others of the species that are not cursed. 


Crimson Longinus said:


> Just stop with the childish and silly "acceptable targets for kill-on-sight". You can have some like the mindless undead, but overall the game is better if the antagonists have actual motivations.



I will state this again - no one here is saying that. It is a made-up argument. Most of the time, even when my group does encounter an evil species that is sentient, they don't kill it on sight. They haggled with an evil hag one session. And if anything should be a kill on sight target, it should be a hag. (Which, I will point out, some look like people and are all evil.)


----------



## Bill Zebub

Scott Christian said:


> And if anything should be a kill on sight target, it should be a hag. (Which, I will point out, some look like people and are all evil.)




Boy bands are a close contender.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Scott Christian said:


> I won't look at NUTSR because I don't support people who are racist.



Just tropes that are racist.


Scott Christian said:


> But cursed by evil god is not a trope that equates to racism.



Except it is.

The whole point of calling a whole people racist in or out of stories is to make it morally acceptable within the framework of that 'evil' to do whatever you want to the people you've categorized as evil.

Now I get that you might like that trope and it might be a hard pill to swallow that something you like is, unbeknownest to you, racist, because you obviously are not racist, but by ignoring everyone pointing out the problem and rushing in to defend it, you _are contributing to the problem._

Just examine the trope and its usage. Why would a writer create a group that is then labeled to be evil regardless of the excuse)? It's either to be fodder the audience isn't bothered by the hero harming, or to redeem them by having them turn against who they are and how they were born. Neither is a good look because it's not an okay thing to glorify anymore.

I'm sorry if you were a big fan of using it, but history marches on.


----------



## Yaarel

Branduil said:


> I feel like focusing on "free will" is a rabbit trail. The issue is fantasy races/species propagating real-world stereotypes and caricatures, whether or not fictional people have free will, if anyone can even define that, is besides the point.



In gaming context, "free will" refers to the ethical capacity to understand and choose any alignment.

To suggest some human ethnicities lack this capacity is inherently problematic.


----------



## Galandris

Scott Christian said:


> In the above example (the planar example) it is not all of a species. It is the species that exists on that plane. Since D&D is a menagerie of planes, then there are bound to be others of the species that are not cursed.




To reiterate, unfortunately, much like the racist trope is "our god cursed that other group to be evil" is different from "their own god made them so", it is "too close" to work. You mentionned that WotC will be confronted with the same problem down the road should they change a little thing only and I think you're right. Look at Paizo. They outright removed the existence of slavery overnight from their setting. They, correctly, analyzed that the topic is too touchy to be mentionned in a current product, so they obviously made the best choice (also, I invoke Beaumarchais on this), preferring to drop it than try to use it responsibly. I supposed the ship has also sailed where you could have "evil X" where X is not a gelatinous cube or a giant insect, something definitevely alien, in a published product targetted to mainstream audience.




Scott Christian said:


> I will state this again - no one here is saying that. It is a made-up argument. Most of the time, even when my group does encounter an evil species that is sentient, they don't kill it on sight. They haggled with an evil hag one session. And if anything should be a kill on sight target, it should be a hag. (Which, I will point out, some look like people and are all evil.)




True, but "always evil" also means irremediately evil. So, yes, they can be killed, not necessarily on sight as the made-up argument goes, (nothing precludes making with a bad guy for the greater good, as in your hag example) but if the need arise, for example because they are antagonists with a credible motivation designed to make the story interesting. While a human bandit, who is not "always evil" but acting evil, should be tried and be punished in a way that helps him reintegrate society as a better person, especially if he has he credible motivations, which might be giving exoneratory or extenuating circumstances. Killing people without trial, outside of self-defense, because they commit misdemeanors is evil-aligned and many players don't want to have to deal with morality (and just punch Nazis, who were "old-school archetype of unredeemably evil people"). So always evil have their use in fiction, for groups who eschew unnecessary killilng or vigilante killing as part of their role as agent of Good.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Vaalingrade said:


> Just tropes that are racist.
> 
> Except it is.
> 
> The whole point of calling a whole people racist in or out of stories is to make it morally acceptable within the framework of that 'evil' to do whatever you want to the people you've categorized as evil.
> 
> Now I get that you might like that trope and it might be a hard pill to swallow that something you like is, unbeknownest to you, racist, because you obviously are not racist, but by ignoring everyone pointing out the problem and rushing in to defend it, you _are contributing to the problem._
> 
> Just examine the trope and its usage. Why would a writer create a group that is then labeled to be evil regardless of the excuse)? It's either to be fodder the audience isn't bothered by the hero harming, or to redeem them by having them turn against who they are and how they were born. Neither is a good look because it's not an okay thing to glorify anymore.
> 
> I'm sorry if you were a big fan of using it, but history marches on.




People are reading way too much into a person's personal morality and ethics based on views of tropes. I can definitely see how you might find this trope racist, and I think someone using this trope to advance racist views in the real world would certainly be racist and morally bad, but I don't think a person feeling like the trope isn't the problem you think it is (or feeling it can work handled in certain ways) makes them racist (nor does it mean they like racist tropes). We used to be able to discuss media and disagree over analysis and meaning. Some people would see a particular trope as bad or good. And I do think it is fair for a company like WOTC, to err on the side of cautious because it has a large audience and a misunderstanding over a trope, could really harm their brand. But it is also enormously stifling for the arts and for gaming as a hobby when have let overly rigid attitudes about this stuff become almost like law. I don't know Scott Christian as a person and I only know some of his posts, but I wouldn't use his position in this discussion to formulate an opinion about him in the real world (beyond what kind of media he likes and whether I think his tastes are good or bad) and same for you. I don't think these things have been as objectively settled, nor do I believe they ever will be. 

I personally don't like using evil orcs. Not on moral grounds. I just find evil orc worlds dull (I even find LOTR's a bit dull for this reason, despite otherwise enjoying the trilogy). But I get why some people might, in the context of a game, want a race of monsters they can mindlessly swing swords at for an evening to blow off steam. I don't think it comes from a dark place. It is probably cathartic. Anyone who has played a shoot em up can probably see why 'evil monster that needs to be killed' can work as a concept. It doesn't have to be nefarious.


----------



## codo

Galandris said:


> To reiterate, unfortunately, much like the racist trope is "our god cursed that other group to be evil" is different from "their own god made them so", it is "too close" to work. You mentionned that WotC will be confronted with the same problem down the road should they change a little thing only and I think you're right. Look at Paizo. They outright removed the existence of slavery overnight from their setting. They, correctly, analyzed that the topic is too touchy to be mentionned in a current product, so they obviously made the best choice (also, I invoke Beaumarchais on this), preferring to drop it than try to use it responsibly. I supposed the ship has also sailed where you could have "evil X" where X is not a gelatinous cube or a giant insect, something definitevely alien, in a published product targetted to mainstream audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but "always evil" also means irremediately evil. So, yes, they can be killed, not necessarily on sight (nothing precludes making with a bad guy for the greater good, as in your hag example) but if the need arise. While a human bandit, who is not "always evil" but acting evil, should be tried and be punished in a way that helps him reintegrate society as a better person. Killing people without trial, outside of self-defense, because they commit misdemeanors is evil-aligned and many players don't want to have to deal with morality (and just punch Nazis, who were "old-school archetype of always evil people"). So always evil have their use in fiction, for group who eschew killilng as part of their role as agent of Good.



I understand the impulse to want a nice clean, compartmentalized world. Where everything fits neatly into the compartments of good guy or bad guy.  A world where you never need to make any difficult moral decisions.  A world where you are free to loot and murder your way across the world without ever having to question the morality of what you are doing.  One of the main reasons I can  understand the desire for that kind of game is that I am a middle class, straight, middle aged white guy.  I also understand the incredible amount of privilege in that position.

The game world I described is almost a textbook definition of Colonialism.  What seems like a fun, mindless adventure when you are on the top rung of society looks a bit different from the bottom.  People from a culture where they have a long history or foreigners coming to loot and murder there way across your county, might see it as a bit more than harmless fun.


----------



## Bill Zebub

It is not necessary for the official description of any monster to promote racist tropes in order for those who want inherently evil races to use them. Do people really think that just because WotC changes their description of orcs and drow, DMs all over the world are going to change how they DM? 

These changes don’t stifle art in general or this hobby specifically. At all. They just leave it up to individual tables, while removing unnecessary and insensitive language from official descriptions.


----------



## Galandris

codo said:


> I understand the impulse to want a nice clean, compartmentalized world. Where everything fits neatly into the compartments of good guy or bad guy.  A world where you never need to make any difficult moral decisions.  A world where you are free to loot and murder your way across the world without ever having to question the morality of what you are doing.  One of the main reasons I can  understand the desire for that kind of game is that I am a middle class, straight, middle aged white guy.  I also understand the incredible amount of privilege in that position.
> 
> The game world I described is almost a textbook definition of Colonialism.  What seems like a fun, mindless adventure when you are on the top rung of society looks a bit different from the bottom.  People from a culture where they have a long history or foreigners coming to loot and murder there way across your county, might see it as a bit more than harmless fun.




I am glad for you to have a group where meeting an opponent always involve making difficult ethical decision and accepting that they have become the evil they profess to fight just by running a published adventure as written, which most often provide credible enemy motivation but assumes fights will end with killing and not dealing with prisoners and what to do with them (and if they do bring them back to a town, question the morality of the local judicial system which might not be exactly giving them a fair trial). I think however that it is not a situation that fits the target audience of D&D so far, judging by published adventures. Reading this board, I was concinved that my group is probably among the most violence-eschewing groups, but even them, sometimes, would like to be able to have a lighter game (like a standard D&D adventure). But I totally agree that your group might be doing that even less.


----------



## Incenjucar

You can have the equivalent of the Fire Nation, where most of a culture has been brainwashed into supporting the evil overlords without having it be an inborn condition that can never change. Celestials fall and fiends rise, canonically and throughout actual mythology.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

For D&D to "work" it is best just accept that it is a brutal sword and sorcery world without well functioning enlightened judicial system, so somewhat decent people might actually choose to commit vigilante violence.


----------



## Incenjucar

Crimson Longinus said:


> For D&D to "work" it is best just accept that it is a brutal sword and sorcery world without well functioning enlightened judicial system, so somewhat decent people might actually choose to commit vigilante violence.



That's going to vary heavily by campaign and location in the campaign. Original flavor Tyr? Probably. Waterdeep? Might be able to turn them in instead.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bill Zebub said:


> These changes don’t stifle art in general or this hobby specifically. At all. They just leave it up to individual tables, while removing unnecessary and insensitive language from official descriptions.




I wasn't talking about the changes (see my point about WOTC having to consider its brand audience). I was talking about the judgement of the poster. The 'you just like racist tropes' response. When I think it is a lot more fair to say they disagree over whether the trope is problematic.


----------



## Galandris

Crimson Longinus said:


> For D&D to "work" it is best just accept that it is a brutal sword and sorcery world without well functioning enlightened judicial system, so somewhat decent people might actually choose to commit vigilante violence.




Indeed, it also a possibility, but it leads to embracing evil. Knowingly, as it is "choosing" to do that or, rather, being put into the position of having that as the only possible choice... unless they rebel against the "evil" unenlightened society they come from. This is also a strong departure from standard D&D adventures. Not 1980's but even 2020's ones. The alternative is to have a group argument not to mind and have a lighter game.



Incenjucar said:


> That's going to vary heavily by campaign and location in the campaign. Original flavor Tyr? Probably. Waterdeep? Might be able to turn them in instead.



Indeed. Or the various Galifar nations.

Yet we continue to see encounters in published adventure where lethal force is the expected outcome.

They even ended their spelljammer adventure with a worse situation. Spoiler in case you intend to play it:



Spoiler



A schlorp had their sun fading, so they "fueled" it with the lifeforce of other worlds, including the PCs'. At the end of the adventure, the players are expected to destroy the life-sucking device, nova'ing the schlorp's sun. Which is explained as destroying entirely the schlorp's homeworld. It is more palatable if that schlorp was "always, irredeemably evil", not "people desperate for survival who put their own survival by condemning others". If they are not always evil, then the expected outcome of the adventure is player comitting genocide on a Alderande scale, and the PC not being better than the ones who designed the life-sucking device in the first place. This is made even worse because not blowing the device means destruction of the PC's homeworld, and the adventure suggesting the PC could next race to save a few people from their world with their spelljamming ship.



@codo: how would your group deal with this kind of proposed ending in a recent published adventure?


----------



## Scott Christian

Vaalingrade said:


> Just tropes that are racist.
> 
> Except it is.
> 
> The whole point of calling a whole people racist in or out of stories is to make it morally acceptable within the framework of that 'evil' to do whatever you want to the people you've categorized as evil.
> 
> Now I get that you might like that trope and it might be a hard pill to swallow that something you like is, unbeknownest to you, racist, because you obviously are not racist, but by ignoring everyone pointing out the problem and rushing in to defend it, you _are contributing to the problem._
> 
> Just examine the trope and its usage. *Why would a writer create a group that is then labeled to be evil regardless of the excuse)? It's either to be fodder the audience isn't bothered by the hero harming, or to redeem them by having them turn against who they are and how they were born. Neither is a good look because it's not an okay thing to glorify anymore.*
> 
> I'm sorry if you were a big fan of using it, but history marches on.



For the record, in my setting, the gods don't appear, don't grant powers, and are more akin to ideologies. They certainly can't cause a species to be evil. So, just to be clear, I don't use that trope at all at my gaming table. But I have as a player been at tables whose mythos had that. No one seemed to mind.

And regarding the bold: Who decided it isn't a good look anymore? Hollywood? Nope. They seem to do it in almost every fantasy/sci-fi/superhero movie there is. Novelists? Nope. They do it as much as Hollywood. Game designers like D&D? Nope, they still do it all the time too. They're just pickier about who they do it too. But go ahead and kill all those frost giants that are evil - even though they are sentient beings with freewill that have a culture. But make a goliath evil and they are using racist tropes? 

My claim is simple, it's hypocritical. And as a side note, throw out the god debate then. Use plane-touched. Use a curse from a witch. Use a virus that was implanted in the species and passed down through DNA. None of those things are attached to a racist trope. Can those be used?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Galandris said:


> Indeed, it also a possibility, but it leads to embracing evil. Knowingly, as it is "choosing" to do that or, rather, being put into the position of having that as the only possible choice... unless they rebel against the "evil" unenlightened society they come from. This is also a strong departure from standard D&D adventures. Not 1980's but even 2020's ones.




I think there are different modes of engaging morality in media and in games. In some you are essentially not able to separate your own from the conceits of the setting (i.e. its too realistic and to embrace some simple moral premise in the game that in reality probably plays out terribly, feels wrong). When I am watching dramas, playing very character driven campaigns, I tend to be more in this zone. But when I am 'action movie mode', I think it is a different story. I enjoy the movie commando. I don't enjoy real  gun violence and am a bit of a pacifist in reality. If you break down the morality of the individual kills, the film is overly simplistic, using the thread of his daughter being kidnapped to justify all kinds of mindless violence. But that is also what an action movie needs to work (unless they have a particularly clever action movie or an especially redeemable groups of bad guys). I think some campaigns of D&D are just in action movie mode.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Galandris said:


> Indeed, it also a possibility, but it leads to embracing evil. Knowingly, as it is "choosing" to do that or, rather, being put into the position of having that as the only possible choice... unless they rebel against the "evil" unenlightened society they come from. This is also a strong departure from standard D&D adventures. Not 1980's but even 2020's ones.
> 
> 
> Indeed. Or the various Galifar nations.
> 
> Yet we continue to see encounters in published adventure where lethal force is the expected outcome.
> 
> They even ended their spelljammer adventure with a worse situation. Spoiler in case you intend to play it:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> A race had their sun fading, so they "fueled" it with the lifeforce of other worlds, including the PCs'. At the end of the adventure, the players are expected to destroy the life-sucking device, killing the race's sun. Which is explained as destroying all the race's homeworld. It is more palatable if that race was "always evil", not "people desperate for survival". If they are not always evil, then the expected outcome is genocide. This is made even worse because not blowing the device means destruction of the PC's homeworld.



I'd argue that this tension is caused by the game originally being more sword and sorcery and having mechanics to support that. Narratives of the game have moved on from that but the gameplay really hasn't, causing dissonance.

And if a lot of the game is about combat and killing, then I think it is more honest to just accept that the world is not enlightened and the characters are not morally perfect. You may call it "embracing evil", I'd just call it roleplaying an era without all our modern morals and the privilege that lets us afford them. To me that is far less jarring than continuing the bloodbath but concocting spurious reasons why this actually is totally morally enlightened thing to do.


----------



## Incenjucar

Players have been sparing and befriending their attackers in D&D for decades. There's nothing stopping that from continuing. It's been how a lot of encounters have gone in the games I've been part of since I started playing in '92. I even had a short campaign end when the players started a business with the components of the final boss after defeating them.


----------



## Galandris

Bedrockgames said:


> I think there are different modes of engaging morality in media and in games. In some you are essentially not able to separate your own from the conceits of the setting (i.e. its too realistic and to embrace some simple moral premise in the game that in reality probably plays out terribly, feels wrong). When I am watching dramas, playing very character driven campaigns, I tend to be more in this zone. But when I am 'action movie mode', I think it is a different story. I enjoy the movie commando. I don't enjoy real  gun violence and am a bit of a pacifist in reality. If you break down the morality of the individual kills, the film is overly simplistic, using the thread of his daughter being kidnapped to justify all kinds of mindless violence. But that is also what an action movie needs to work (unless they have a particularly clever action movie or an especially redeemable groups of bad guys). I think some campaigns of D&D are just in action movie mode.




Sure, I am right with you. SOMETIMES you want to let the steam off and be in "action movie mode". Which is easier with clear-cut adversary you don't have to mind about. Which doesn't preclude alternating with more serious stories. But, I was told that even calling for some of this fun of having an option of "not sparing" their enemies was speaking from a position of priviledge, so I'd really like to know how one can deal with the ending of Spelljammer ethically, without explicit or implicit "always evil" opponents.

I'd also say that the level of expectations of having D&D totally devoid of this "clear cut" situation is far above that the public expectation on films and novels is, given the success of superhero movies or action movies.




Incenjucar said:


> Players have been sparing and befriending their attackers in D&D for decades. There's nothing stopping that from continuing. It's been how a lot of encounters have gone in the games I've been part of since I started playing in '92. I even had a short campaign end when the players started a business with the components of the final boss after defeating them.




Sure, it's the opposite that can't continue (ie, not sparing their adversary and killing them because it is more convenient to do so and they are evil anyway).


----------



## Crimson Longinus

And I definitely have nothing against PCs sparing or even befriending the enemies. But that is not the default expectation in D&D and I doubt it will become one. 

And that Spelljammer ending is just bad. There really isn't a correct answer. I'm fine with occasional vigilante manslaughter in my D&D, but vigilante genocide is couple of steps too far!


----------



## Bill Zebub

Bedrockgames said:


> I wasn't talking about the changes (see my point about WOTC having to consider its brand audience). I was talking about the judgement of the poster. The 'you just like racist tropes' response. When I think it is a lot more fair to say they disagree over whether the trope is problematic.




“Racist” does not require malice or intent. Something is racist if it reinforces false stereotypes.

Unfortunately the word itself has taken on a newer meaning, and there seems to be a desire to identify and shame individuals for being “racis”t, rather than identifying and alleviating the more subtle latent racism woven into society.


----------



## Yaarel

Crimson Longinus said:


> I'd argue that this tension is caused by the game originally being more sword and sorcery and having mechanics to support that. Narratives of the game have moved on from that but the gameplay really hasn't, causing dissonance.
> 
> And if a lot of the game is about combat and killing, then I think it is more honest to just accept that the world is not enlightened and the characters are not morally perfect. You may call it "embracing evil", I'd just call it roleplaying an era without all our modern morals and the privilege that lets us afford them. To me that is far less jarring than continuing the bloodbath but concocting spurious reasons why this actually is totally morally enlightened thing to do.



Employing the "Bloodied Condition" as a mechanic, makes nonlethal combat easier, and helps gamers who want to explore other kinds of stories.

I am still experimenting with the Bloodied Condition. For example, Wisdom (Intimidation) checks determine Morale if becoming Bloodied. Often a hostile fleeing can end the encounter. Also, combat ending effects, like Stunned, I prefer to only become possible against Bloodied targets. In short, it is possible to win a combat encounter without death. Meanwhile, nonlethal zero hit points means helpless, but without death saves.

The main difficulty is convenience. Sometimes, the players need to drag an unwilling hostile around for some time, before being able to hand the hostile in to authorities, or similar. I find it hard to think of ways to make this chore fun.


----------



## Yaarel

Galandris said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> A schlorp had their sun fading, so they "fueled" it with the lifeforce of other worlds, including the PCs'. At the end of the adventure, the players are expected to destroy the life-sucking device, nova'ing the schlorp's sun. Which is explained as destroying entirely the schlorp's homeworld. It is more palatable if that schlorp was "always, irredeemably evil", not "people desperate for survival who put their own survival by condemning others". If they are not always evil, then the expected outcome of the adventure is player comitting genocide on a Alderande scale, and the PC not being better than the ones who designed the life-sucking device in the first place. This is made even worse because not blowing the device means destruction of the PC's homeworld, and the adventure suggesting the PC could next race to save a few people from their world with their spelljamming ship.
> 
> 
> 
> @codo: how would your group deal with this kind of proposed ending in a recent published adventure?




For me as DM, I would change any adventure that required players to commit genocide.

Besides, I like the Astral Elves. Their solar themes and skyey locale feel closer to the way my Norse heritage views elves.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Bedrockgames said:


> People are reading way too much into a person's personal morality and ethics based on views of tropes.



This is exactly and precisely *NOT *what I am doing.

I'm saying a thing a person likes can be racist or problematic _without_ that person being racist or problematic.

This issue arises when people become blinded by their affinity for that thing that they ignore everyone else's feelings and soldier on, put their head down nd charge in, denying, mocking and belittling everyone else in the defense of that thing.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Scott Christian said:


> My claim is simple, it's hypocritical. And as a side note, throw out the god debate then. Use plane-touched. Use a curse from a witch. Use a virus that was implanted in the species and passed down through DNA. None of those things are attached to a racist trope. Can those be used?



It's all doing a lot of backbreaking labor to get to 'this group of people is okay to harm based on right of birth -- ie their race' and is still literally racist.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Vaalingrade said:


> This is exactly and precisely *NOT *what I am doing.
> 
> I'm saying a thing a person likes can be racist or problematic _without_ that person being racist or problematic.
> 
> This issue arises when people become blinded by their affinity for that thing that they ignore everyone else's feelings and soldier on, put their head down nd charge in, denying, mocking and belittling everyone else in the defense of that thing.




Again it’s reasonable to disagree on if the trope is racist or problematic. But quips like “you just like racist tropes” are not neutral statements. And takes your subjective opinion about a trope and presents it as objective fact. I don’t think your response to that poster was at all polite. And there is a degree of judgment because racist isn’t a neutral word. It still carries a charge to it and it tends to sully the person you affix it to (even if you are just saying they like racist tropes). I think people are way too certain about their conclusions about media tropes here. There have been a lot of snipes like this in this thread, not just from you, and it is frankly tiring because it feels like posters think they can be unkind or sour with one another over this issue.

On some of these topics we are going to just disagree. But there needs to be an agree you disagree of some form. The sniping and belittling is not going to work in these threads.


----------



## Scott Christian

Vaalingrade said:


> It's all doing a lot of backbreaking labor to get to 'this group of people is okay to harm based on right of birth -- ie their race' and is still literally racist.



Fair enough. That is your take. Although it still doesn't take into account the planetouched. They were just born on the wrong plane. It has tainted them in some weird magical way. Not the entire species, but those that grew up on that plane. But, if even that is too racist for you, then I respect your opinion. I disagree with it, but I will respect it.

I have a general question for everyone here: Video games still use these tropes all the time. Any thoughts on them being held to a D&D standard, since, in effect, they are trying to simulate D&D by letting you create a character and participate in a choice-based adventure?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Bedrockgames said:


> Again it’s reasonable to disagree on if the trope is racist or problematic. But quips like “you just like racist tropes” are not neutral statements.



I mean yeah, that would be is that's what were actually being said.

Most people like things that are in some way problematic. It's just how we've grown up and how popular culture works.

The important thing si for us to realize that *we are not our hobbies. *Something you like can be racist without you being racist as long as the racist part isn't what you like about it. Look at the works of Lovecraft: it's just plain built on racism and classism, but people like the nihilism and spooky deep sea imagery and they're not racist for that. Or Mickey Mouse, born in the mage of the Minstrel Show.

Where problems happen is when people can't just listen to criticism of a thing the like without taking it as a personal attack and coming out with HOW DARE YOU CALL ME RACIST.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Scott Christian said:


> Fair enough. That is your take. Although it still doesn't take into account the planetouched. They were just born on the wrong plane. It has tainted them in some weird magical way. *Not the entire species*, but those that grew up on that plane. But, if even that is too racist for you, then I respect your opinion. I disagree with it, but I will respect it.



Something new has been added.

Something that makes a hell of a difference. Like an Everything Bagel without the rat poison.


----------



## Cadence

Vaalingrade said:


> Something new has been added.
> 
> Something that makes a hell of a difference. Like an Everything Bagel without the rat poison.




Why would you ruin perfectly could rat poison!?!

#TeamJalapenoBagel


----------



## Bill Zebub

Scott Christian said:


> I have a general question for everyone here: Video games still use these tropes all the time. Any thoughts on them being held to a D&D standard, since, in effect, they are trying to simulate D&D by letting you create a character and participate in a choice-based adventure?




I don’t know enough about what’s in video games to speak with any kind of authority, but I would hazard a guess that a big difference is that video games don’t have as much text backstory. You might mow down orcs in a video game, and they might appear as crazed primitive savages, but is there a block of text describing them, as a species, as universally brutish, stupid, violent, and promiscuous? Or is it left to the player to infer whether it’s all of them, or just the ones I’m fighting?


----------



## Yaarel

Scott Christian said:


> The planetouched. They were just born on the wrong plane. It has tainted them in some weird magical way. Not the entire species, but those that grew up on that plane. But, if even that is too racist for you, then I respect your opinion.



If the plane touching grants features that reallife Humans lack, there is no reallife racism.

Flying, aura of fire, waterbreathing, etcetera. No problem.

If the plane touching causes something that looks like a reallife racist stereotype, then problem.


----------



## Clint_L

Scott Christian said:


> I have a general question for everyone here: Video games still use these tropes all the time. Any thoughts on them being held to a D&D standard, since, in effect, they are trying to simulate D&D by letting you create a character and participate in a choice-based adventure?



Actually, video games have been working very hard to address these same issues.

This thread is astonishing to me. Almost 40 pages and why? The original term makes some folks uncomfortable, they've explained why, and fair enough. Like, you don't even have to agree with their reasons to just go, "You know what, if it makes you uncomfortable, then let's just change it." What are folks actually being asked to give up? Replacing one word in game with another word without the baggage is not a sacrifice. It is literally the least we can do.

And as long as the replacement word lacks the baggage, then it's fine. No one will care. Species is fine. It doesn't matter. Not one bit of gameplay changes. Why keep going on, and on, and on, and on (almost 40 pages now!) about something so unbelievably trivial.

It's embarrassing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Vaalingrade said:


> I mean yeah, that would be is that's what were actually being said.
> 
> Most people like things that are in some way problematic. It's just how we've grown up and how popular culture works.
> 
> The important thing si for us to realize that *we are not our hobbies. *Something you like can be racist without you being racist as long as the racist part isn't what you like about it. Look at the works of Lovecraft: it's just plain built on racism and classism, but people like the nihilism and spooky deep sea imagery and they're not racist for that. Or Mickey Mouse, born in the mage of the Minstrel Show.
> 
> Where problems happen is when people can't just listen to criticism of a thing the like without taking it as a personal attack and coming out with HOW DARE YOU CALL ME RACIST.




But not everyone has to agree with your critique of something is the point. There can be room for reasonable disagreement about this stuff.  I don't have an issue with someone critiquing something I like, or even calling something I like racist. Sometimes I might even agree with the criticism. What irritates me in discussions like this is when someone insists I agree, if I don't, and then insist affixing the label to me in that way. I just don't understand how you can't see two people could see the same trope in media, one might perceive it as problematic and the other might not. There doesn't need to be one uniform opinion on a given thing: especially some of tropes we've talked about here. Like I said, I see why you might find a given trope racist. In a lot of the cases that have come up, I just don't share your conclusion. And it isn't because I am shutting my ears not listening to you, or I feel like my identity as an RPG player is somehow at threat (RPGs are just one medium I happen to enjoy). I have just heard many of these arguments, thought about them, and disagreed with them or reached a different conclusion.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Clint_L said:


> Actually, video games have been working very hard to address these same issues.
> 
> This thread is astonishing to me. Almost 40 pages and why? The original term makes some folks uncomfortable, they've explained why, and fair enough. Like, you don't even have to agree with their reasons to just go, "You know what, if it makes you uncomfortable, then let's just change it." What are folks actually being asked to give up? Replacing one word in game with another word without the baggage is not a sacrifice. It is literally the least we can do.
> 
> And as long as the replacement word lacks the baggage, then it's fine. No one will care. Species is fine. It doesn't matter. Not one bit of gameplay changes. Why keep going on, and on, and on, and on (almost 40 pages now!) about something so unbelievably trivial.
> 
> It's embarrassing.




Keep in mind most people are not objecting to the change of the word.  A lot of what has been debated over the past tens of pages have been other tropes that connected to the OP


----------



## Vaalingrade

Bedrockgames said:


> What irritates me in discussions like this is when someone insists I agree, if I don't, and then insist affixing the label to me in that way.



Since saying it three times with bold and italics wasn't enough, ley me be very, very clear this time:

*NO ONE IS AFFIXING ANY LABEL TO YOU.*

And the constant insistence that people are is part of the problem.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Vaalingrade said:


> Since saying it three times with bold and italics wasn't enough, ley me be very, very clear this time:
> 
> *NO ONE IS AFFIXING ANY LABEL TO YOU.*
> 
> And the constant insistence that people are is part of the problem.




Happy to have this conversation but can you please not respond to me in giant red letters in this tone. It is possible we are times speaking past each other. My phrasing wasn't especially clear. But I am going to put you on ignore if you can't be cordial and not speak in a condescending manner to me. 

I didn't mean labeling me racist. I meant saying things to me like "You like racist tropes".


----------



## Mistwell

codo said:


> I understand the impulse to want a nice clean, compartmentalized world. Where everything fits neatly into the compartments of good guy or bad guy.  A world where you never need to make any difficult moral decisions.  A world where you are free to loot and murder your way across the world without ever having to question the morality of what you are doing.  One of the main reasons I can  understand the desire for that kind of game is that I am a middle class, straight, middle aged white guy.  I also understand the incredible amount of privilege in that position.
> 
> The game world I described is almost a textbook definition of Colonialism.  What seems like a fun, mindless adventure when you are on the top rung of society looks a bit different from the bottom.  People from a culture where they have a long history or foreigners coming to loot and murder there way across your county, might see it as a bit more than harmless fun.



There is a big difference between:

1) The official WOTC game should not portray things this way because it can cause harm to some customers and doesn't fit their more modern view on how the setting should be portrayed;

and

2) I am going to judge every single person I find in the world who plays the game in the way I disapprove of as immoral if they play it this way.

You're doing the later. I think it's, at best, incredibly rude. At worst, it's unethical in itself and looks like you lack empathy and the ability to view the topic from anothers positions. It makes tremendous assumptions about why people might like a game like that, their background and experiences, etc.. 

Why not just stick to your reasons for why you think it's a bad idea for WOTC to portray the world that way, rather than judging your peers like they're violating some objective universal morality which you have a firm grasp of and others are ignorant or evil if they don't.


----------



## Yaarel

Obviously, the topic of the thread will occasionally discuss the technical jargon, "Race".

I mention it on occasion.

But the purpose of this thread is to explore which technical jargon best replaces it.




The other active thread, One D&D permanently removes the term Race, might be more appropriate to focus on the term Race. (Heh, but try not to get that thread locked either.)


----------



## codo

Mistwell said:


> There is a big difference between:
> 
> 1) The official WOTC game should not portray things this way because it can cause harm to some customers and doesn't fit their more modern view on how the setting should be portrayed;
> 
> and
> 
> 2) I am going to judge every single person I find in the world who plays the game in the way I disapprove of as immoral if they play it this way.
> 
> You're doing the later. I think it's, at best, incredibly rude. At worst, it's unethical in itself and looks like you lack empathy and the ability to view the topic from anothers positions. It makes tremendous assumptions about why people might like a game like that, their background and experiences, etc..
> 
> Why not just stick to your reasons for why you think it's a bad idea for WOTC to portray the world that way, rather than judging your peers like they're violating some objective universal morality which you have a firm grasp of and others are ignorant or evil if they don't.



I'm sorry.  That came across a lot meaner than i intended.  I can get snarky, sloppy, and hyperbolic when discussing heated topics.  I never meant to call anyone racist just because they like a certain type of game.  Just because I called certain games or troupes racist, I never meant that people that like those games are racist.  

Everyone has games, or movies or other media, that they like, that is  racist.  I know I do. There are lots of things from my childhood that looking at now I can see how racist they are now.  Just calling a work of media racist is not calling the fans of the media racist. 

This just isn't the place for this. It's a to loaded and complicated issue for a d&d forum.  I am going bow out now.  Have a good night everybody.


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't either, but WotC seems to.  Look at the gnolls, or the draconians.  Apparently you can slap a "monstrosity" label on just about anything and now its ok to kill it.



I share that concern.

When looking thru the MMM, I get the impression that "Monstrosity" can mean "Killable Humanoid".

If I look more carefully, there is some nuance. For example, not all Yuan-Ti Monstrosities are Evil, just certain individuals or cultic organizations. The Skulk is "typically" Chaotic Neutral, but not invariably, and they cease to qualify as playable character because of their oblivion.

But then there are Fey Red Caps who are insta-kill Evil versions of Gnomes, and the situation starts to get icky fast. One can argue, the Red Caps cannot learn and lack culture − likewise, the Xvart.

But putting the Monstrosity label on a what seems like a Humanoid fails to address the problems of Race, especially when some of them, like the Yuan-Ti are a "Player Race".


----------



## Galandris

Yaarel said:


> I share that concern.
> 
> When looking thru the MMM, I get the impression that "Monstrosity" can mean "Killable Humanoid".




Indeed. Your Yuan-ti concern is right. By moving from "all <race> are evil" (which is to be avoided nowadays because it approximates racist slogans in réal life) to "all Yuan-Ti from city X are evil" or "all Yuan-Ti member of this particular church X are evil", which are respectively approximating xenophobic slogans and religious warriors slogans in real life used to justify war crimes, I don't think we're moving toward a solution, just moving from a problematic trope to another.


----------



## Scribe

Galandris said:


> Indeed. Your Yuan-ti concern is right. By moving from "all <race> are evil" (which is to be avoided nowadays because it approximates racist slogans in réal life) to "all Yuan-Ti from city X are evil" or "all Yuan-Ti member of this particular church X are evil", which are respectively approximating xenophobic slogans and religious warriors slogans in real life used to justify war crimes, I don't think we're moving toward a solution, just moving from a problematic trope to another.




The solution is up to the table, thats the thing.

MotM gives us a template that is workable for the majority of the population I would imagine.

Positive. Heroic. Generic. Easy stuff.

If a particular group of players says 'man forget that, goblins are just going to be a whirlwind of destruction'...fine. Who cares, thats what they are for their game, and it doesnt make a difference to anyone else.

Wizards wont be selling that, but at this stage? Just dont buy it if you dont like their approach.

As the MtG side is telling people openly and loudly 'engage with the product you like'.


----------



## Galandris

Yaarel said:


> For me as DM, I would change any adventure that required players to commit genocide.





Crimson Longinus said:


> And that Spelljammer ending is just bad. There really isn't a correct answer. I'm fine with occasional vigilante manslaughter in my D&D, but vigilante genocide is couple of steps too far!




Indeed there is some bad writing there and I also would change it. My group balks at needless killing of one, I don't think they'd enjoy being put in a no-win choice of this scale. But I'm struggling to understand how the genocidal event could get past sensitivity readers (hello, GENOCIDE) except if the Xaryxians are played from the get go as irredeemably evil like the WH40,000 orks.

And then the bad writing is limited to not saying this to the GM from the beginning of the campaign so he can portray them as such.


----------



## glass

codo said:


> the infamous KKK magic card.



Oh wow. I had not heard about that one, so I just DDGed up an article on it (or rather on its removal/banning along with half a dozen others). The article itself was fine, but the comments....



Scott Christian said:


> Mind flayers have free will, no? Yet, we're okay with them being evil.



Ilithids are an interesting case. If the had to eat the brains of sapient beings to survive, then you could make an argument that their doing so was not evil. OTOH, if they are trying to eat _your _brain, then using lethal force to prevent that is pretty well justified, regardless of their alignment. Of course, in several versions of D&D* they do not need to eat sapient brains; they can survive just fine on non-sapient brains and/or weird moss. They eat sapients because the like the taste, which I think we can agree is pretty evil. Any ilithids out there who do not do so would not be evil, and would be less likely to come into contact with the PCs.

Of course, that is all watsonian, so none of it would matter if depictions of them leaned into real-life racist tropes. But they are different enough from both actual real people and racist depiction thereof that "they're a totally different species" becomes actually meaningful rather than an excuse or a fig leaf.

The question then becomes "how different is different enough?" For me, orcs and drow are on one side of the line and ilithids and daemons are on the other, and I do not consider that "hypocritical".

(* Not sure what if anything 5e has said on the matter.)


----------



## Yaarel

Galandris said:


> Indeed. Your Yuan-ti concern is right. By moving from "all <race> are evil" (which is to be avoided nowadays because it approximates racist slogans in réal life) to "all Yuan-Ti from city X are evil" or "all Yuan-Ti member of this particular church X are evil", which are respectively approximating xenophobic slogans and religious warriors slogans in real life used to justify war crimes, I don't think we're moving toward a solution, just moving from a problematic trope to another.



I am comfortable with an organization having an Evil alignment.

The organization can officially articulate goals that are by definition Evil. The stated goals are often easy to identify as NE, LE, or CE. So the ideology itself is strictly Evil.

But when it comes to the members in the organization, the situation gets complex. There can be kids who grew up in the organization but has adults are increasingly uncomfortable with it. Some new members are only recently realizing how Evil the organization actually is. Some have few other options for survival. The Evil organization might kill "traitors". Some might feel torn between abandoning loved ones and leaving the organization. Some might genuinely seek to reform the organization from within. And so on.

Members of an Evil organization, should normally be "typically" Evil, because there may be dissent from within.



In the case of the Yuan-Ti, it is possible for absolute Evil, because the cults magical rituals cause a metamorphosis. This metamorphosis might kill the Humanoid free will, to become a truly Evil creature that is incapable of learning or changing. Especially, where the Yuan-Ti cults strive to become gods, their rituals might unite with the evilness of one of the Evil alignment outer planes.

But members who have not undergone the "apotheosis" would still be "typically" Evil.


----------



## Yaarel

@glass

Your use of the words "Watsonian" versus "Doyleist", intrigued me.

I explored their meanings, and they and related terms are useful for the D&D community.

I am mentioning my findings here. Heh, as a community service.



The terms relate to Sherlock Holmes novels. The reallife author is Doyle. But the fictional author within the stories is Watson. Hence:

Watsonian = *intradiegetic* = in-setting explanation
Doyleist = *extradiegetic* = in-reallife explanation



The words intradiegetic (in-setting explanation) and extradiegetic (in-reallife explanation) are neologisms that derive from the English term *diegetic*.

The pronunciation of diegetic is [daɪ.ə.'dʒɛ.tɪk], like die-eh-JET-ic.

Whence intra-diegetic and extra-diegetic pronounce similarly.



The term diegetic happens especially in film studies. It comes from the Greek term diegetikos (διηγητικός), which means the adjective "narrative", relating to narration, from *diegesis *(διήγησις), which means the noun "narration", or a narrative.

The pronunciation of diegesis is [daɪ.ə.'dʒi.sɪs], like die-eh-JEE-sis.

The film usage is "mimesis" (μίμησις) versus "diegesis". Mimemis [mɪ.ˈmi.sɪs], mim-EE-sis, is when the viewer watches it happen in the film. Diegesis is when there is someone in the film narrating what happened. Basically, "show" versus "tell".



So, "intradiegetic" is a fancy way of saying "in-setting" (or in-world, or in-universe, referring to the fictional setting). But intradiegetic emphasizes the narrative explanation of how something happens.

By contrast, "extradiegetic" is a fancy way of saying "in-reallife", but emphasizes the explanation for why it is that way.



For example, in D&D, the *intradiegesis* for spell slots might be that magical energy comes in quantifiable packets of energy, and that this is a curious property of the multiverse Weave, whose insights can reveal a deeper understanding of magic. But the *extradiegesis *for spell slots is they are a transmission from earlier 1e, when they served as a way to translate fiction by Vance about magic into rules for a game.


----------



## glass

Yaarel said:


> For example, in D&D, the *intradiegesis* for spell slots might be that magical energy comes in quantifiable packets of energy, and that this is a curious property of the multiverse Weave, whose insights can reveal a deeper understanding of magic. But the *extradiegesis *for spell slots is they are a transmission from earlier 1e, when they served as a way to translate fiction by Vance about magic into rules for a game.



I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure spell slots predate 1e and go all the way back to OD&D (the concept if not the exact terminology). Otherwise, good breakdown. _EDIT: Although now I think about it, I am not sure when "slots" became official terminology. I started with 2e, and I am pretty sure that _I_ called them "slots" back then, but the rules do not appear to (at least not in a cursory glance at my PHB)._


----------



## Yaarel

My commentary on the popular terms to replace race:

Seven candidates rate 20% approval or higher:

54.8% *Ancestry*
32.9% *Species*
29.0% *Lineage*
25.8% *Heritage*
22.6% *Kin*
20.6% *Origin*
20.0% *Folk*

All seven terms have official 5e usage already. But there is support to reuse them as a technical term to replace Race. Each has a different meaning, but perhaps, can work in its own way.

*Ancestry *occurs in 5e technical jargon, such as Fey Ancestry and Draconic Ancestry, in the core book, _Players Handbook_. It vaguely characterizes traits that derive from distant ancestors, such as the elves who inhabit the Fey plane before entering the Material plane, or such as the diverse species of Dragon that continue to determine the expression of Dragonborn traits. Ancestry is also the official term for Pathfinder to replace Race, but support extends to other D&D players as well. In the past, the top two contenders to replace Race have been Ancestry and Species, but Ancestry seems to benefit from a recent upsurge in approval. Its ability to achieve a majority, even if a narrow one, is remarkable. Ancestry is a term that can double either for an entire species (compare descendants of Adam, descendants of Búri, descendants of Dvalinn, descendants of Ýmir, etcetera) or for an inheritable trait within a species (compare Draconic Ancestry). By focusing on heredity only, the term Ancestry seems able to escape the cultural assumptions that come with the personal identity of a "race". Ancestry also has the benefit of emphasizing multiple ancestors, each with ones own inheritable traits.

While the term *Species *is novel, most D&D players mean "species" when they say Race. For example, the D&D Human Race is understood to mean the species _Homo sapiens_. So when Race becomes unavailable, its meaning Species still persists. The main objection to the term Species is its modern scientific connotation, sometimes in conflict with a pseudomedieval setting. Even so, players acknowledge its renaissance usage, even its medieval and ancient roots. A notable objection to Species calls attention to how the proposed D&D Species normally admix to produce offspring, thus complicating or invalidating the use of the scientific term "species". Despite objections, there seems a feeling that players can probably "get used to it" as a gaming jargon to communicate a general concept.

*Lineage* is an official 5e term that replaces Race. It appears in the supplemental book _Tashas Cauldron of Everything_ in the context of the Custom Lineage. Its current usage awkwardly means any new Race that isnt one of the official Races. A future product can easily reuse the technical jargon Lineage instead of Race. Lineage has the benefit of including the transmission of traits without biological inheritance, such as a parent Warforged constructing an offspring Warforged, or a parent Vampire siring an offspring Vampire. Even if a character descends from multiple Lineages, the singular Lineage only calls attention to one of them. This exclusion might make sense in the context of character creation rules where a character who descends from multiple Lineages only chooses one of them to determine the gaming mechanics of the character.

I am jumping ahead to mention *Kin*. Kin too is an official technical term that replaces Race. Albeit, it is undefined, mentioned in passing, and obscure. In _Tashas_, the Custom Lineage mentions that fellow members of the Lineage are called a Kin. In reallife, "kin" means ones extended family. In some contexts, it includes a wider kinship system that extends to an entire tribal nation or even multiple tribes, all understood as ones legal next-of-kin. Kin means family while including family relations by marriage, adoption, and other nonbiological family members. D&D can use the term Kin to technically mean inherited traits without implying a culture, but its assumption of cultural characteristics requires caution for the same reason that the term Race requires caution. Even so, the term Kin enjoys connotations of being both endearing and archaic, with tight-knit bonds, and medieval usage. Kin can also function secondarily to mean the members of a "kind", such as the "kin of Elves", which can serve toward a D&D approximation for Species.

The next terms, Heritage, Origin, and Folk mainly refer to the culture of an ethnicity but might also include biologically inherited characteristics as well. To emphasize a culture is a culture, can help avoid the problematic where Race tends to bioessentialize cultural stereotypes.

*Heritage* is official 5e jargon. In the supplemental book _Fizbans Treasury of Dragons_, it describes different Species of Dragonborn, each transmitting traits from a different Species of Dragon: Chromatic Dragonborn, Gem Dragonborn, or Metallic Dragonborn. The taxonomy of Dragon is complex, including magical engineering, and Heritage vaguely alludes to such complexity. Heritage is an official term for the indy 5e publisher, Level Up Advanced 5th Edition, here at ENWorld. It alludes to both nature and nurture, but separately. In the character creation process, the Heritage "Traits" represent the heredity. Meanwhile, the Heritage associates a number of possible "Cultures" that relate to it. For example, a Dwarf might grow up in the High Elf Culture, thus be part of the elven Heritage even when lacking the biological elven Traits. The inclusion of diverse Cultures helps avoid the reductionism of bioessentializing cultural stereotypes. In reallife, I use the term "heritage" often enough, such as when referring to Norse heritage, Jewish heritage, African American heritage, and so on. It connotes an ethnic identity that derives from a biological progeny but emphasizes the transmission of its cultural identity to the future offspring, and includes outsiders who marry into it or otherwise join its cultural identity to become insiders of it. Heritage is cultural and requires effort, and if taken for granted can diminish and vanish among future generations.

*Origin* is an official 5e term, such as Sorcerous Origin in the _Players Handbook_. It identifies an inheritable trait. The trait can be a Bloodline that partially transmits some other species, or alternatively originates in some novel event, such as a pact with a Dragon or a Fey, or some other exposure to a magical energy. But from then on, the characteristic can transmit to future offspring. In the One D&D playtest UAs, Origin is a jargon that means the decision points during the character creation process, until the choice of Class. Character Origin includes: the assignment of Abilities, the selection of Species, and the cultural Background and Feat. These are the preludes to ones decision to become a member of a Class. The term origin can reuse more narrowly to replace Race. In reallife, "origins" (often plural) refers to the persistent influences from ones parentage or ethnicity. Altho narrower than "race", similar generalizations might make this sense of "origins" problematic. One D&D uses Origin for separate choices of Abilities, Species and cultural Background, to help avoid unfortunate generalization.

*Folk *exists in D&D 5e in terms such as Merfolk and Lizardfolk. In these contexts, the one-syllable term Folk replaces "maid" and "man", and means a "person". Folk is gender-neutral to include any person regardless of male, female, both, or neither, as well as of any age. The term connotes endearment and quaintness, such as in the expression, "How are you folks doing?" Alternatively, it can refer to a Kin, the members of ones family. Also in the widest sense, Folk can mean the citizenry, especially in the context of the citizens of a self-governing nation. This widest meaning relates terms like "folk music" referring to the expression of a traditional ethnic culture. It emphasizes the people of a culture, as opposed to a state governmental decree. It applies in "folk lore" to concepts such as the "fairy folk". Sadly the term "folk" has currency in reallife racist discourse, misconstrued to mean racial purity and supremacism. Perhaps for One D&D, the term Folk in the sense of any person might be most useful.

In sum, each of these popular terms to replace Race already enjoys official usage in D&D 5e. The preference for these terms suggests a conservative impulse − at least here at ENWorld − to maintain a jargon that is already familiar within the D&D traditions.


----------



## Kinematics

Yaarel said:


> The preference for these terms suggests a conservative impulse − at least here at ENWorld − to maintain a jargon that is already familiar within the D&D traditions.



Not necessarily. More likely it's just an alignment between people who happen to be players and people who write books to use terms that make a reasonable amount of sense for conveying certain types of information. Language is language.


Personally, I think 'species' is the worst possible option for the new term.  Aside from the scientific issues that have already been elaborated on in the thread, it holds connotations that seem extremely derogatory in the context of how they're trying to use it.

'Species' is used to identify different types of biologically distinct creatures. It is not limited to what we would consider player races, whether humanoid (human, dwarf, elf), goblinoid (goblins, orcs), fey (eladrin, centaurs), certain monstrosities (minotaurs), or whatever other general category they've been placed in.  'Species' would also apply to identifying owlbears, wargs, trench worms, stirges, oozes, pine trees, etc.  It does not have the connotative restriction that 'race' has which limits it to sentient/sapient/intelligent/civilized creatures.

As such, designating someone as a member of a 'species' in any context other than an analytical scientific one is quite dehumanizing.  A dwarf is linguistically equivalent to a primordial ooze. An orc is on the same level as a species of mold.  It avoids people's hangups about real-life racism by trading that in for a vastly more degrading form of racism.

A 'species' of animal is something to be analyzed and checked for threat risk, perhaps elevated as high as being considered a pet, or lowered to the level of something that needs to be exterminated.  It distances you from having to think of said creatures as human or people.  Even "the human species" is used when considering humans as creatures that exist on the planet, not parents or friends or, well, _humans_.


As for other terms, unfortunately we don't have a more generalized term in the English language that means the same thing as what 'race' is used for in D&D. 'Human' would probably be the best term if it didn't conflate with the specific species that it also refers to.  Perhaps 'mortal'? Or 'mortal race', which may help distance it from real-world use of 'race'.

'Ancestry' and 'lineage' are shorthand for, "What race were your ancestors?" 'Heritage' is shorthand for "What racial traits did you inherit from your parents?"  'Kin' and 'folk' are closer to what Level Up defines as Culture. (Note: I like Level Up's separation of race and culture into Heritage and Culture, but D&D seems to be(?) keeping those components together, so this inconsistency may not be as troublesome there.)  Similarly with the other suggested options, in which they're either failing to convey some of the important meaning, or papering over a word that people object to in a different context.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Kinematics said:


> Personally, I think 'species' is the worst possible option for the new term.  Aside from the scientific issues that have already been elaborated on in the thread, it holds connotations that seem extremely derogatory in the context of how they're trying to use it.
> 
> 'Species' is used to identify different types of biologically distinct creatures. It is not limited to what we would consider player races, whether humanoid (human, dwarf, elf), goblinoid (goblins, orcs), fey (eladrin, centaurs), certain monstrosities (minotaurs), or whatever other general category they've been placed in.  'Species' would also apply to identifying owlbears, wargs, trench worms, stirges, oozes, pine trees, etc.  It does not have the connotative restriction that 'race' has which limits it to sentient/sapient/intelligent/civilized creatures.
> 
> As such, designating someone as a member of a 'species' in any context other than an analytical scientific one is quite dehumanizing.  A dwarf is linguistically equivalent to a primordial ooze. An orc is on the same level as a species of mold.  It avoids people's hangups about real-life racism by trading that in for a vastly more degrading form of racism.
> 
> A 'species' of animal is something to be analyzed and checked for threat risk, perhaps elevated as high as being considered a pet, or lowered to the level of something that needs to be exterminated.  It distances you from having to think of said creatures as human or people.  Even "the human species" is used when considering humans as creatures that exist on the planet, not parents or friends or, well, _humans_.



That is just a bizarre complaint. Humans are a species. People generally are fine with this.


----------



## Kinematics

Crimson Longinus said:


> That is just a bizarre complaint. Humans are a species. People generally are fine with this.



So are chimps and gorillas. And when people push humans as a species, there are many who push back, either with complaints mocking how "humans descended from monkeys", or in comparing (some) humans with animals. In fact, one of the most common racist tropes is displaying black people in a way that looks like some sort of ape, equivocating the idea between them and mere animals.

Saying people are generally fine with this is ignoring very large swaths of inconveniences.  I would assert that people who are fine with understanding that humans are species are also perfectly able to separate the concept of a fantasy race from a real-world race.  Given that the change is to address people who have issues with how the word 'race' suggests real-world issues, it also suggests that real-world concepts of species, and how that relates to humans or other sapient creatures, is very much on topic.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Also, species has another definition: kind or sort.

Which more accurately depicts some of the species, which do not have ancestry or kin.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Kinematics said:


> And when people push humans as a species, there are many who push back, either with complaints mocking how "humans descended from monkeys"



Those people can be safely ignored because they hate D&D anyway.


----------



## Scribe

Kinematics said:


> I would assert that people who are fine with understanding that humans are species are also perfectly able to separate the concept of a fantasy race from a real-world race.




I'd say so. I'd also say that's not who this label change, is meant to target.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Kinematics said:


> So are chimps and gorillas.



Yes, so what?



Kinematics said:


> And when people push humans as a species, there are many who push back, either with complaints mocking how "humans descended from monkeys", or in comparing (some) humans with animals. In fact, one of the most common racist tropes is displaying black people in a way that looks like some sort of ape, equivocating the idea between them and mere animals.
> 
> Saying people are generally fine with this is ignoring very large swaths of inconveniences.  I would assert that people who are fine with understanding that humans are species are also perfectly able to separate the concept of a fantasy race from a real-world race.  Given that the change is to address people who have issues with how the word 'race' suggests real-world issues, it also suggests that real-world concepts of species, and how that relates to humans or other sapient creatures, is very much on topic.



I really don't think that offending creationists is a sensible worry.


----------



## Galandris

Crimson Longinus said:


> Yes, so what?




It enables species to be totally outside the same range of characteristics. If orcs, dwarves, elves and humans are races (ie, cosmetical difference among a single species "playable humanoid"), it is logical, as have been implemented, that there is very few stat difference between them. Once they are different species, you can have mighty +2 STR halfing barbarians, because nobody would dispute that two different species can have different capabilities (some great apes are stronger than humans, and it doesn't offend anyone). Whether it is a benefit or a detriment remains to be seen and may depend on the point of view of the reader with regard to how schlorps should work mechanically.


----------



## Hriston

Crimson Longinus said:


> That is just a bizarre complaint. Humans are a species. People generally are fine with this.



It isn't bizarre. Humans are one species just like we are one race. As other people besides me have pointed out in this thread, when you divide people into separate species the way people are divided into races, you replace the language of racism with the language of virulent racism. I'm not sure that's in the direction D&D should go at this point, which is why I'm in favor of the word _people _to specify the box from which we select whether our character is a dwarf or an elf.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Kinematics said:


> So are chimps and gorillas. And when people push humans as a species, there are many who push back, either with complaints mocking how "humans descended from monkeys", or in comparing (some) humans with animals. In fact, one of the most common racist tropes is displaying black people in a way that looks like some sort of ape, equivocating the idea between them and mere animals.




Humans are a species though. I think when you run into trouble is dividing humans into different species among themselves (that in my opinion is where you get into the realm of the racialist science that caused so many atrocities in the 20th century). 



Kinematics said:


> Saying people are generally fine with this is ignoring very large swaths of inconveniences. * I would assert that people who are fine with understanding that humans are species are also perfectly able to separate the concept of a fantasy race from a real-world race. * Given that the change is to address people who have issues with how the word 'race' suggests real-world issues, it also suggests that real-world concepts of species, and how that relates to humans or other sapient creatures, is very much on topic.




I think this bolded part gets at a key part of the disagreement and I think if we can put aside some of the emotion that comes up in these debates and hear what different people are saying, we will see there is actually a few different ways of intellectually juggling these things going on, that is leading us to different conclusions and different stances on the ethics of how demihumans ought to be conceived of in an RPG. I would take the bolded a step further and say people who are generally okay with this idea, not only separate the concept of fantasy race from real world race, they see it as a whole other category (something much closer to the gulf between a human and a neanderthal or maybe even an even more distantly related human-like hominid). They are positing races that have no connection to real world races (though things may be drawn in from the real world for flavor, which is I think where a lot of disagreements arise) and see them as vastly different things than differences among human groups. A bit like raves or species you might have in science fiction (where there is a thought experiment around things like the lifespan, physiology, etc impacts their culture). It’s more about trying to imagine other forms or sentient life or trying to imagine beings operating on more mythic levels. I think his people are approaching that stuff is going to shape how troubled by the terminology and groupings here. 

I think the argument in favor of shifting to species is it eliminates confusion that Demi humans might be thought of like different racial groups. By calling them species you are at least clarifying these are not meant to be like human races at all but more like differences between humans and other intelligent hominids that became extinct


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hriston said:


> It isn't bizarre. Humans are one species just like we are one race. As other people besides me have pointed out in this thread, when you divide people into separate species the way people are divided into races, you replace the language of racism with the language of virulent racism. I'm not sure that's in the direction D&D should go at this point, which is why I'm in favor of the word _people _to specify the box from which we select whether our character is a dwarf or an elf.




The interesting thing here is I feel very much the opposite, as I do share a lot of the real world concerns people have expressed. But I think when you start turning elves and dwarves into people, in the sense of a people, like Italians, Germans, etc. That is when you start running into problems because the races in D&D are clearly not meant to be anything like the differences between people. In real life, as you say we are one race, we are one species. The difference between someone who is Italian and someone who is Chinese is cultural. And physical differences are superficial. But the physical differences between a dwarf and human are enormous, the difference between an elf and halfling equally so. I think using people to refer to beings in a setting that are visibly a different species from humans, actually opens the door more into that old racialist science and that old way of talking about peoples (which led to the kind of thinking that underpinned Nazi Germany). I am not saying that it would lead there, or that people advocating for peoples are consciously invoking that. But I don't have much issue with race or species in D&D, because I can make the distinction in my mind between a human and an elf, and they don't really compare to the difference between two different human groups in the real world (elves are visibly something way beyond normal human). But when I hear people talk about the elven people, that actually starts to make me much more uncomfortable (and not because it is humanizing elves but because they represent the kind of difference among people that racists used to believe in when they talked about difference races or different peoples in the world).


----------



## Frozen_Heart

And we've looped back round to: Are the DnD schmorps all just different ethnicities of human? Or are they completely different species?

And no one can agree on the answer.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Frozen_Heart said:


> And we've looped back round to: Are the DnD schmorps all just different ethnicities of human? Or are they completely different species?
> 
> And no one can agree on the answer.



Ultimately if you see them as just ethnicities, then you must remove all mechanical differences. Saying that different human ethnicities have essential differences is highly problematic. Though to me even the question is absurd. It seems pretty clear to me that a turtle person or a bird person are not just a different human ethnicity!


----------



## Galandris

Crimson Longinus said:


> Ultimately if you see them as just ethnicities, then you must remove all mechanical differences. Saying that different human ethnicities have essential differences is highly problematic. Though to me even the question is absurd. It seems pretty clear to me that a turtle person or a bird person are not just a different human ethnicity!




Indeed but there is a continuum. Some people will be offended that a 8 ft half-orc had a STR bonus the 2 ft halfling lacked (and don't view the differences between orcs and humans and elfs wider than Italians and Chinese), some people are now offended that there is no mechanical difference between them with regard to strength. And there are nuances all the way for each mechanical distinction.

There is a strong possibility that D&D can't please everyone and is bound to offend.

Maybe they should leave handling of schlorps to setting books. But it would make character creation rules very difficult to follow.


----------



## CreamCloud0

Galandris said:


> Indeed but there is a continuum. Some people will be offended that a 8 ft half-orc had a STR bonus the 2 ft halfling lacked (and don't view the differences between orcs and humans and elfs wider than Italians and Chinese), some people are now offended that there is no mechanical difference between them with regard to strength. And there are nuances all the way for each mechanical distinction.
> 
> There is a strong possibility that D&D can't please everyone and is bound to offend.
> 
> Maybe they should leave handling of schlorps to setting books. But it would make character creation rules very difficult to follow.



my opinion is that each species is genetically distinct from each other and _should_ have some sort of trait that grants a mechanical advantage corresponding to thier strengths in the fluff, they don't need fixed ASI but they should at least have the 'default ASI' listed as reference for those who want to know.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Crimson Longinus said:


> Ultimately if you see them as just ethnicities, then you must remove all mechanical differences. Saying that different human ethnicities have essential differences is highly problematic. Though to me even the question is absurd. It seems pretty clear to me that a turtle person or a bird person are not just a different human ethnicity!



Yep I totally agree with you. Each schmorp is a completely different species of organism (some being completely artificial beings). They're not all just human ethnicities.

A triton should be better in the water than an aarakocra, just like how a fish is better in the water than a bird.

(incoming person explaining how aarakocra are penguins in their setting, and therefore the traits should not be assigned to species).


----------



## Vaalingrade

I... I didn't know I needed penguinkkocras, but here we are.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Did anybody say Baatezu or Tanar'ri yet?


----------



## Yaarel

Kinematics said:


> As for other terms, unfortunately we don't have a more generalized term in the English language that means the same thing as what 'race' is used for in D&D.



The problem with the word "race" is what this word means, and how it gets used.

1DD needs a term that means something different.



Kinematics said:


> Note: I like Level Up's separation of race and culture into Heritage and Culture.



Yeah. As far as I can tell, the best solution for the gaming jargon is to separate the inborn traits from the cultural ways of doing things.

Of course, when describing the other cultures (and also when describing the inborn traits), it helps to try understand it and to characterize it from an insiders point of view, rather than whatever stereotypes from an outsiders point of view.





Kinematics said:


> 'Human' would probably be the best term if it didn't conflate with the specific species that it also refers to.  Perhaps 'mortal'? Or 'mortal race', which may help distance it from real-world use of 'race'.



5e has the term Humanoid.

The helpful definition for this term is to describe characters that are comparable to the human species (_Homo sapiens_) in both mind (freewill, learning and cultures) and body (two hands, two legs, or close enough).

So even tho Warforged is strictly unrelated to the human species − indeed the warforged species descends from a different kingdom of life unrelated to cellular organisms! − it still is comparable to a human.





Kinematics said:


> but D&D seems to be(?) keeping those components together,



It seems to me, 5e and 1DD can cleanly distinguish between:

• Species (Human, Elf, Warforged, etcetera)
• Culture (Background and Class)

Like a "deck" comprising an assemblage of "cards", a Culture comprises an assemblage of Backgrounds.

Different D&D cultures "typically" offer different Backgrounds.


----------



## Yaarel

Regarding the size and strength of a species, I feel it should be the other way around.

Strength and Constitution should be the PREREQUISITE to determine Size.

For example, if a character has a +3 in both Strength and Constitution, the player can choose for the character to be Large size.

Meanwhile, there are no longer any sized weapons. Instead, each increment higher than Medium gains an additional +1d6 damage to one melee attack each round, that relies on Strength.

For a PC species that tends toward Large, this extra damage can be automatic for every member of the species, and calculated for balance as part of the species Traits.

A player character of a largish species that has high Strength and Constitution thus actually is Large also gains an additional 5-foot Reach for melee attacks.


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> The interesting thing here is I feel very much the opposite, as I do share a lot of the real world concerns people have expressed. But I think when you start turning elves and dwarves into people, in the sense of a people, like Italians, Germans, etc. That is when you start running into problems because the races in D&D are clearly not meant to be anything like the differences between people. In real life, as you say we are one race, we are one species. The difference between someone who is Italian and someone who is Chinese is cultural. And physical differences are superficial. But the physical differences between a dwarf and human are enormous, the difference between an elf and halfling equally so. I think using people to refer to beings in a setting that are visibly a different species from humans, actually opens the door more into that old racialist science and that old way of talking about peoples (which led to the kind of thinking that underpinned Nazi Germany). I am not saying that it would lead there, or that people advocating for peoples are consciously invoking that. But I don't have much issue with race or species in D&D, because I can make the distinction in my mind between a human and an elf, and they don't really compare to the difference between two different human groups in the real world (elves are visibly something way beyond normal human). But when I hear people talk about the elven people, that actually starts to make me much more uncomfortable (and not because it is humanizing elves but because they represent the kind of difference among people that racists used to believe in when they talked about difference races or different peoples in the world).




My impression is, when Tolkien describes the difference between Elf, Dwarf, and Hobbit, he means EXACTLY the difference between Italian, German, etcetera. Tolkien describes the difference between one Human ethnicity and an other Human ethnicity in the same way as Elf, Dwarf, etcetera. When Tolkien says "race", he means this word in its pseudoscience racist sense that confuses genetics with culture.

But D&D players − at the least the players who I know − mean "species" when describing Elf, Dwarf, and Dragonborn.

When I look back at Gygax and 1e, maybe he gets muddled like Tolkien did. But even if so, D&D normally keeps clear that the Human race is the entire human race comprising every human ethnicity. This sets the precedent that Elf, Dwarf, etcetera are Nonhuman and different species.


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> My impression is, when Tolkien describes the difference between Elf, Dwarf, and Hobbit, he means EXACTLY the difference between Italian, German, etcetera. Tolkien describes the difference between one Human ethnicity and an other Human ethnicity in the same way as Elf, Dwarf, etcetera. When Tolkien says "race", he means this word in its pseudoscience racist sense that confuses genetics with culture.




Have you read the Silmarillion?  I struggle to think of how anyone could think the difference between elves and men in Tolkien is akin to nationalities.  The near infinite difference in lifespan, the differences in death...


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> My impression is, when Tolkien describes the difference between Elf, Dwarf, and Hobbit, he means EXACTLY the difference between Italian, German, etcetera. Tolkien describes the difference between one Human ethnicity and an other Human ethnicity in the same way as Elf, Dwarf, etcetera. When Tolkien says "race", he means this word in its pseudoscience racist sense that confuses genetics with culture.




I don't get that impression at all. I think he drew on real world material for flavor but I don't think these were either stand ins for ethnic and racial groups, nor do I think the differences were anything like the difference between human groups. But I also think we've had the Tolkien discussion a lot and I am not the best defender of Tolkien's views as I enjoyed the books but haven't immersed myself in the lore like some others here.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> But D&D players − at the least the players who I know − mean "species" when describing Elf, Dwarf, and Dragonborn.
> 
> When I look back at Gygax and 1e, maybe he gets muddled like Tolkien did. But even if so, D&D normally keeps clear that the Human race is the entire human race comprising every human ethnicity. This sets the precedence that Elf, Dwarf, etcetera are Nonhuman and different species.



I agree with this, which is why I think species is workable as a term. I think the most important thing is to retain this understanding of what races mean in D&D.


----------



## Yaarel

Cadence said:


> Have you read the Silmarillion?  I struggle to think of how anyone could think the difference between elves and men in Tolkien is akin to nationalities.  The near infinite difference in lifespan, the differences in death...



It is more like, if some ethnicities have a longer lifespan than other ethnicities. Tolkien viewed this as genetic.

For Tolkien, magic magnifies the differences, but he consistently describes human "races" − even for Elf and Dwarf.

Consider, during his era, British folklore made Elves and Dwarves fairy SPIRITS. But Tolkien radically reimagines them as humans of flesh-and-blood differing mainly by belonging to different "races".


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't get that impression at all. I think he drew on real world material for flavor but I don't think these were either stand ins for ethnic and racial groups, nor do I think the differences were anything like the difference between human groups. But I also think we've had the Tolkien discussion a lot and I am not the best defender of Tolkien's views as I enjoyed the books but haven't immersed myself in the lore like some others here.



Well, some argue that Tolkien races are stand-ins for specific groups. For example, the villainous races resemble Asians and Africans.

Perhaps more so, Tolkien imagined what a folklore Elf, Dwarf, or Hobbit might be like if they were a human race.

To this thought experiment, Tolkien expends enormous effort to invent new languages, new customs, new physical appearances, and so on − all appropriate to a pseudoscientific human "race".


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> It is more like, if some ethnicities have a longer lifespan than other ethnicities. Tolkien viewed this as genetic.
> 
> For Tolkien, magic magnifies the differences, but he consistently describes human "races" − even for Elf and Dwarf.
> 
> Consider, during his era, British folklore made Elves and Dwarves fairy SPIRITS. But Tolkien radically reimagines them as humans of flesh-and-blood differing mainly by belonging to different "races".



Being flesh and blood doesn't make them human.  He uses "race of men" for example using one of the older definitions in the OED and not.thr modern one.

On the other hand, he clearly still has different divisions of men that many have argued map on to human races (in what are often argued are racist ways).  And similarly has different groups of elves if you want to try doing a mapping with them.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> Well, some argue that Tolkien races are stand-ins for specific groups. For example, the villainous races resemble Asians and Africans.
> 
> Perhaps more so, Tolkien imagined what a folklore Elf, Dwarf, or Hobbit might be like if they were a human race.
> 
> To this thought experiment, Tolkien expends enormous effort to invent new languages, new customs, new physical appearances, and so on − all appropriate to a pseudoscientific human "race".




Again, we've had this discussion before and I think the points have been made. And I don't think giving them culture, language, new physical appearances means its in line with pseudoscience around race (it is more like a thought experiment of what if other hominids survived and co-existed with humans, with their own cultures and languages). To me that is just interesting. I don't agree with your conclusions here but I also don't want to get the thread bogged down in stuff (especially since there has been a mod warning). That's the last I will say on the Tolkien side of things. 

What I will say is Tolkien isn't the only thing that matters when it comes to D&D races. Elrik had an influence, Three Hearts, Three Lions had an influence, they've also taken on a life of their own. But I see demihumans much more in the realm of being different species. They a human-like because they are intelligent hominids, but clearly all humans are a single race in D&D, as you point out, which means that encompasses all the human ethnicities. I think that is one thing that shows pretty clearly these are creatures of a much more substantial difference from humans (than being similar to the differences among humans).


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> It is more like, if some ethnicities have a longer lifespan than other ethnicities. Tolkien viewed this as genetic.




"Longer lifespan" seems a bit of an understatement?

The lifespan of the one is until the world ends the other is typical real human or (if extended) centuries. The one goes beyond the world to a fate even the Valar don't know when they die, and the other goes to the land of the Valar.


----------



## Hriston

Bedrockgames said:


> The interesting thing here is I feel very much the opposite, as I do share a lot of the real world concerns people have expressed. But I think when you start turning elves and dwarves into people, in the sense of a people, like Italians, Germans, etc. That is when you start running into problems because the races in D&D are clearly not meant to be anything like the differences between people. In real life, as you say we are one race, we are one species. The difference between someone who is Italian and someone who is Chinese is cultural. And physical differences are superficial. But the physical differences between a dwarf and human are enormous, the difference between an elf and halfling equally so. I think using people to refer to beings in a setting that are visibly a different species from humans, actually opens the door more into that old racialist science and that old way of talking about peoples (which led to the kind of thinking that underpinned Nazi Germany). I am not saying that it would lead there, or that people advocating for peoples are consciously invoking that. But I don't have much issue with race or species in D&D, because I can make the distinction in my mind between a human and an elf, and they don't really compare to the difference between two different human groups in the real world (elves are visibly something way beyond normal human). But when I hear people talk about the elven people, that actually starts to make me much more uncomfortable (and not because it is humanizing elves but because they represent the kind of difference among people that racists used to believe in when they talked about difference races or different peoples in the world).



Your fear of nationalism doesn't trump the need to remove racism from D&D. Peoples have the right to exist in all their diversity and to be recognized as such.


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> (it is more like a thought experiment of what if other hominids survived and co-existed with humans, with their own cultures and languages)



We are saying moreorless the same thing here.

Tolkien posits a thought experiment: "what if other hominids coexisted with their own culture and languages?"

... But the more these "hominids" resemble the species _sapiens_, the more Tolkien relies on the pseudoscience of his era to characterize these "hominids" as if human "races".





Bedrockgames said:


> I see demihumans much more in the realm of being different species.



I also view Elf etcetera as different species of life. In some ways, they are radically Nonhuman.

For example, the Fey Elf is a spirit of the immaterial Fey plane. There is no flesh-and-blood. There is no DNA. There is no biology.

But the Elf can still a 5e "Humanoid".





Bedrockgames said:


> They a human-like because they are intelligent hominids.



Nordic traditions color my view here.

In the Norse animistic traditions, mountains, lakes, rivers, sky, sun, sunlight, and daylight, are all conscious living persons.

Elves are the army of sunlight. Literally.

So when this sunlight takes the form of a human of flesh-and-blood, the sunlight is using the same magic that human shamans use to take the form of a wolf or falcon.

While in human form, the sunlight actually is a human, and can reproduce offspring genetically with a human, albeit typically exhibits some telltale evidence of the true form being the sunlight.

Likewise, when a human takes the form of an other animal, the animal typically evidences the true human form, such as human eyes in an otherwise normal animal.





Bedrockgames said:


> but clearly all humans are a single race in D&D, as you point out, which means that encompasses all the human ethnicities.



Fortunately! This is the saving grace of D&D!





Bedrockgames said:


> I think that is one thing that shows pretty clearly these are creatures of a much more substantial difference from humans (than being similar to the differences among humans).



Plus, for a fantasy gaming, figuring out ways to carry out thought experiments about what Nonhuman lifeforms is part of the fun.


----------



## Yaarel

Cadence said:


> "Longer lifespan" seems a bit of an understatement?
> 
> The lifespan of the one is until the world ends the other is typical real human or (if extended) centuries. The one goes beyond the world to a fate even the Valar don't know when they die, and the other goes to the land of the Valar.



I am hoping reallife near-future medical technologies will grant all of us longer lifespans.

Perhaps children are being born today who will never die? The longer one stays alive − the better the medical technology gets.

The fantasy Elf is a thought experiment that invites gamers to explore what impact a long lifespan might have on us.



Consider also, in Norse traditions, the æsir sky beings stay immortal by means of magical technology − the golden apples.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> ... But the more these "hominids" resemble the species _sapiens_, the more Tolkien relies on the pseudoscience of his era to characterize these "hominids" as if human "races".




Again I don't want to get into Tolkien. But to clarify this point, no, that isn't what I meant by Hominid. My point was another hominid species akin to neanderthals or one of the various intelligent hominids who existed around the time of homosapiens. I think that is categorically different from something like the ideas surrounding race (which has posited human subspecies, this isn't meant as a category similar to that level of narrow distinction)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> Nordic traditions color my view here.
> 
> In the Norse animistic traditions, mountains, lakes, rivers, sky, sun, sunlight, and daylight, are all conscious living persons.
> 
> Elves are the army of sunlight. Literally.
> 
> So when this sunlight takes the form of a human of flesh-and-blood, the sunlight is using the same magic that human shamans use to take the form of a wolf or falcon.
> 
> While in human form, the sunlight actually is a human, and can reproduce offspring genetically with a human, albeit typically exhibits some telltale evidence of the true form being the sunlight.
> 
> Likewise, when a human takes the form of an other animal, the animal typically evidences the true human form, such as human eyes in an otherwise normal animal.




Fair enough, but you are drawing on beliefs that aren't informing my understanding and I think a lot of peoples understanding of this issue.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hriston said:


> Your fear of nationalism doesn't trump the need to remove racism from D&D. Peoples have the right to exist in all their diversity and to be recognized as such.




I don't what connection you are making here. Or what broader argument you are trying to make. No one is saying people don't have a right to exist as groups, but I am saying once you start referring to something as different from a human, as a say an elf, as a people then you are getting into territory that can start to sound a lot of the kind of ethnonationlism you saw in the 20th century (which resulted in genocide). If you want to have a debate about ethnonationalism, I don't think this is the thread or forum for that conversation.


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> Fair enough, but you are drawing on beliefs that aren't informing my understanding and I think a lot of peoples understanding of this issue.



Sure. At the same time, these Norse folkbeliefs relate to the mythic material that D&D draws from − including Tolkiens reinvention of the earlier British folklore about Elves.

For example, there is a reason why the Elves are both Nonhuman and able to reproduce children with Humans normally.

While manifesting in a Human form, the Elf is humanlike flesh-and-blood.

D&D 5e characterizes this as a shift from immaterial Fey to flesh-and-blood Material. Yet there is still a telltale evidence of their Nonhuman origin − their "Fey Ancestry", their innate magic, and their Trance.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> Sure. At the same time, these Norse folkbeliefs relate to the mythic material that D&D draws from − including Tolkiens reinvention of the earlier British folklore about Elves.
> 
> For example, there is a reason why the Elves are both Nonhuman and able to reproduce children with Humans normally.
> 
> While manifesting in a Human form, the Elf is humanlike flesh-and-blood.
> 
> D&D 5e characterizes this as a shift from immaterial Fey to flesh-and-blood Material. Yet there is still a telltale evidence of their Nonhuman origin − their "Fey Ancestry", their innate magic, and their Trance.




Sure, but I think with D&D the origins, one vary by edition, and two tend to be vaguely mythic but with an assumption of variations of explanation from campaign to campaign. A lot of GMs just do the "Elves were created by god Y, Gnomes were created by god Z" sort of thing. I think how this gets handled with depend very much on the campaign cosmology.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> The fantasy Elf is a thought experiment that invites gamers to explore what impact a long lifespan might have on us.




While I think we do have to use our own experience as a baseline or analog (since none of us have lived as an elf), I don't see this as a thought experiment on what humans would do with long life spans (a much more appropriate approach to that thought experiment would be a science fiction setting where humans achieve longer life spans and you play out what that leads to). I've done immortal elves in my own campaigns, and for me, it definitely wasn't a thought experiment of what would humans do with long life spans (though as I said I obviously had to draw on human experience). It was very much what would happen if you had a race of beings who didn't die, and whose lives only ended if they were infected with a terrible disease or violently killed. I found that interesting and figured maybe there are three basic cultural answers that emerged to that, and played out those answers in different elven groups. Obviously there can be more than three answers, but just for simplicity I kept it to the three that I was able to see clearly. 

Can something like that be an exploration of human psychology and culture? Yes. Star Trek does this a lot (where it answers very human problems by positing alien races, often to deal with issues in the real world). That is one way to approach these thought experiments. But the re are other approaches where you take a more 'lets see how far away from human' this can get psychologically. I think both are fine, both are enjoyable. Both have their purpose. 

And again, every thought experiment is limited by the fact that a human mind is conducting it. But I don't think that means all thought experiments come back to human. Sometimes the fun is trying to imagine beyond those limitations to the best of your ability.


----------



## Scott Christian

I would say the question of balance, as it relates to classes and overall combat performance, is something that greatly propels this argument over semantics.


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> With D&D the origins, one vary by edition, and two tend to be vaguely mythic but with an assumption of variations of explanation from campaign to campaign. ... I think how this gets handled with depend very much on the campaign cosmology.




Regardless of the cosmology of a particular D&D setting, for the gaming mechanics to separate the inborn species Traits from learned cultural Background helps avoid problems. The setting creators still need to be charitable when describing an in-setting culture. But at least the existences of several cultures that any species can choose from helps relativize any particular unfortunate reallife stereotype.



Bedrockgames said:


> While I think *we do have to use our own experience as a baseline* or analog (since none of us have lived as an elf), *I don't see this as a thought experiment* on what humans would do with long life spans (a much more appropriate approach to that thought experiment would be a science fiction setting where humans achieve longer life spans and you play out what that leads to). I've done immortal elves in my own campaigns, and for me, it definitely wasn't a thought experiment of what would humans do with long life spans (though as I said I obviously had to draw on human experience). It was very much *what would happen if you had a race of beings who didn't die*, and whose lives only ended if they were infected with a terrible disease or violently killed. I found that interesting and figured maybe there are three basic cultural answers that emerged to that, and played out those answers in different elven groups. Obviously there can be more than three answers, but just for simplicity I kept it to the three that I was able to see clearly.
> 
> *Can something like that be an exploration of human psychology and culture? Yes.* Star Trek does this a lot (where it answers very human problems by positing alien races, often to deal with issues in the real world). That is one way to approach these thought experiments. But the re are other approaches where you take a more 'lets see how far away from human' this can get psychologically. I think both are fine, both are enjoyable. Both have their purpose.
> 
> And again, every thought experiment is limited by the fact that a human mind is conducting it. But I don't think that means all thought experiments come back to human. Sometimes the fun is trying to imagine beyond those limitations to the best of your ability.



Heh, not really seeing how it is even possible for the Elf to be anything other than: what if a human was in such-and-such a situation. As you say, "we" humans "have to use our own experience as a baseline".

For example, here in the ENWorld threads there was an interesting discussion about Elf cultures. To what degree did their lifespans impact their culture? I found intriguing the suggestion, that with eternity ahead of them, it makes sense to require a century of self-exploration to discover who oneself is, before "growing up". It is sorta like spending some years in college for self-exploration to decide what one wants to do with ones life. But it isnt just what to do for the next few decades, one has to decide moreorless for eternity to come. (Meanwhile, there is probably a kind of going back to school later on in life, to choose a different course.)

Obviously, all of this is human psychology that we project (consciously or unconsciously) onto the concept of an Elf.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> Heh, not really seeing how it is even possible for the Elf to be anything other than: what if a human was in such-and-such a situation. As you say, "we" humans "have to use our own experience as a baseline".
> 
> For example, here in the ENWorld threads there was an interesting discussion about Elf cultures. To what degree did their lifespans impact their culture? I found intriguing the suggestion, that with eternity ahead of them, it makes sense to require a century of self-exploration to discover who oneself is, before "growing up". It is sorta like spending some years in college for self-exploration to decide what one wants to do with ones life. But it isnt just what to do for the next few decades, one has to decide moreorless for eternity to come. (Meanwhile, there is probably a kind of going back to school later on in life, to choose a different course.)
> 
> Obviously, all of this is human psychology that we project (consciously or unconsciously) onto the concept of an Elf.



sure some of this is inescapable. My point is there is a big difference between endeavoring to imagine different races of beings with the aim of exploring humanity and doing so with the aim of exploring something outside humanity. We are limited by the fact we are human but you are doing as well as you can to imagine beyond that (and the striving, rather than succeeding at it, is what I think makes it rewarding)


----------



## Hriston

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't what connection you are making here. Or what broader argument you are trying to make. No one is saying people don't have a right to exist as groups, but I am saying once you start referring to something as different from a human, as a say an elf, as a people then you are getting into territory that can start to sound a lot of the kind of ethnonationlism you saw in the 20th century (which resulted in genocide). If you want to have a debate about ethnonationalism, I don't think this is the thread or forum for that conversation.



You're the one bringing up these concerns. I agree they don't contribute to the conversation. Nothing about the existence of many peoples around the globe suggests the inevitability of the kind of extreme ethnic nationalism to which you keep alluding. Why all the handwringing about a word that humanizes rather than others fantasy races?


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> sure some of this is inescapable. My point is there is a big difference between endeavoring to imagine different races of beings with the aim of exploring humanity and doing so with the aim of exploring something outside humanity. We are limited by the fact we are human but you are doing as well as you can to imagine beyond that (and the striving, rather than succeeding at it, is what I think makes it rewarding)



By virtue of these D&D species being Humanoid, they have humanlike cultures that we reallife humans can relate to.

Indeed, there will be characters from the D&D Human species who are members of these Nonhuman-founded cultures.

We can imagine what we as humans would be like within the thought experiment of these posited fantasy setting cultures.



Despite the Nonhuman species having traits that Human lacks, such as firebreathing or spectral wings, the CULTURES of these Nonhumans are human.

Likewise, there will be Nonhumans who are born into cultures that Humans founded.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> Despite the Nonhuman species having traits that Human lacks, such as firebreathing or spectral wings, the CULTURES of these Nonhumans are human.
> 
> Likewise, there will be Nonhumans who are born into cultures that Humans founded.




I think they are a blend. Obviously you are going to adopt human cultural elements, but you are also trying to imagine non-human culture as much as possible. I mean that is the point of science fiction when they imagine alien societies (think the aliens in Childhood's End and how different their civilization is from ours: and many of the differences revolve around them having wings and flight. Now that might not be sufficiently different for you, and if it is not, fair enough. But for me it is certainly more than enough to be persuaded by the author and suspend disbelief (which is the aim here, of creating a culture that is believable enough to the readers or the players to be accepted as a non-human culture). And of course one can always draw on other species as well. But until we meet another advanced species with cultures as varied as humans, we are going to build off what we know.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hriston said:


> You're the one bringing up these concerns. I agree they don't contribute to the conversation. Nothing about the existence of many peoples around the globe suggests the inevitability of the kind of extreme ethnic nationalism to which you keep alluding. Why all the handwringing about a word that humanizes rather than others fantasy races?



My point has nothing to do with the existence of many people around the globe. It is a problem with conflating peoples (which is a term we use to designate human groups) with species/races like dwarves, elves, etc. Because I think that gets you much closer to the kinds of ethnonationalist concerns I am talking about (which thought of peoples not just as different ethnic groups but as people with hugely varied physiology, which was used to justify racist policies and violence). 

I never made the statement you seem to be thinking I was making. Again though I don't think this is handwringing. If it isn't handwringing for people to express concern about race (and I don't share their conclusions but I think the concern they raise is a fair one), then I think worrying about how describing species in a setting as peoples has stronger parallels to the kind of ethnic nationalism I was talking about is also fair (and frankly that kind of ethnic nationalism is much more of a concern to me personally). My point is if you are worried about the connotations of the term race, peoples seems just as, if not more, prone to issues. Species I think at least clarifies we are speaking about something very different from human groups. 

In terms of humanizing or othering fantasy races. I am pretty neutral on that, because they are fictional groups. They don't represent real people, they are mythic beings in a fantasy game and aren't people in the real world. So if you want to humanize them more, I certainly think that can lead to interesting stories. But if you want more monstrous, detached or aloof fantasy races that can also create an interesting feel as well.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> By virtue of these D&D species being Humanoid, they have humanlike cultures that we reallife humans can relate to.




I don't know that I can relate to a being that lives for hundreds of years more than a human. Part of what is interesting about elves to me is I have to imagine what they are like because they don't strike me instantly as being like us. Now you can argue but you are just imagining a human who lives for centuries, and fair enough, but a human that lives for 900 years isn't the same as a human as we understand it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hriston said:


> You're the one bringing up these concerns. I agree they don't contribute to the conversation.




Fair enough. I am not trying to beat a dead horse. But because of the nuances involved here, I just wanted to take pains to explain my position so it is not misunderstood


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know that I can relate to a being that lives for hundreds of years more than a human. Part of what is interesting about elves to me is I have to imagine what they are like because they don't strike me instantly as being like us. Now you can argue but you are just imagining a human who lives for centuries, and fair enough, but a human that lives for 900 years isn't the same as a human as we understand it.



In-setting, there are Humans who are members of the High culture founded by Elves. Viceversa, there are Elves who are members of the Waterdeep culture founded by Humans. All of these in-setting cultures are relatable to Humans.

It is especially in this aspect of Culture that the species can be described as Humanoid − even when some are biologically unrelated.


----------



## Hriston

Bedrockgames said:


> My point has nothing to do with the existence of many people around the globe. It is a problem with conflating peoples (which is a term we use to designate human groups) with species/races like dwarves, elves, etc. Because I think that gets you much closer to the kinds of ethnonationalist concerns I am talking about (which thought of peoples not just as different ethnic groups but as people with hugely varied physiology, which was used to justify racist policies and violence).



But the word _people_, especially in a fantasy context, doesn't confer a human identity. Fantasy invites us to imagine people who are not human. This in itself is the problem, but I don't think the solution is to get rid of the fantasy. I don't think the fantasy is inherently racist. Would you agree that an elf or a dwarf, as they are imagined, is a person? I don't think the solution is to deny their personhood. That looks to me like the worst kind of racism, where we are designating a class of non-people. It was just over 150 years ago that it was still the law in my country, the USA, that an enslaved person counted as only three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation and taxation. Is that the kind of language that should be used in D&D, that a member of this or that PC species is not a person?



Bedrockgames said:


> I never made the statement you seem to be thinking I was making. Again though I don't think this is handwringing. If it isn't handwringing for people to express concern about race (and I don't share their conclusions but I think the concern they raise is a fair one), then I think worrying about how describing species in a setting as peoples has stronger parallels to the kind of ethnic nationalism I was talking about is also fair (and frankly that kind of ethnic nationalism is much more of a concern to me personally). My point is if you are worried about the connotations of the term race, peoples seems just as, if not more, prone to issues. Species I think at least clarifies we are speaking about something very different from human groups.



The word _race _is being removed because of its ties to racist discourse. The basis of racism is the division of people into different races. These categories are then used to justify racist ideologies and practices. D&D has a problem because the division of people into such categories is a staple of the fantasy D&D tries to facilitate, and D&D has fallen into the trap of mirroring real-world stereotypes and hurtful language that have been used to justify racism. The solution, if D&D is going to continue to be a purveyor of this type of fantasy, is to be conscientious about what you say and to not fall into the trap.

During the time I've been alive which is the late 20th and early 21st century, I've heard the word _people _(in the singular sense) used respectfully in public discourse in the USA to refer to this or that community. To me, it's a term that recognizes the dignity and personhood of the members of the group. Although the concept of "a people" is central to ethnic nationalism, I don't think it necessarily entails the ethnocentrism that can lead to ethnic nationalism. It also forms a conceptual basis for human rights law, international law, constitutional law, and claims of popular sovereignty.

I don't think _species_ does the work you say it does here, or that it's the work that's needed for D&D to avoid racist content. I don't think anyone needs clarification about whether PC races are meant to represent human groups. The problem is that D&D has used racist language to describe fictional non-human groups, so to clarify that the non-humans are different species from the humans doesn't help if racist content is still included. Also, in the past there have been other real-world species of humans such as _Homo habilis _and _Homo erectus, _so just because a group is stated to be a separate species doesn't mean it's not human.



Bedrockgames said:


> In terms of humanizing or othering fantasy races. I am pretty neutral on that, because they are fictional groups. They don't represent real people, they are mythic beings in a fantasy game and aren't people in the real world. So if you want to humanize them more, I certainly think that can lead to interesting stories. But if you want more monstrous, detached or aloof fantasy races that can also create an interesting feel as well.



This is the problem that's being addressed by removing _race. _The othering of fantasy races in D&D mirrors the real-life othering of real-life out-groups. D&D doesn't need to participate in that and shouldn't.


----------



## Yaarel

Hriston said:


> But the word _people_, especially in a fantasy context, doesn't confer a human identity. Fantasy invites us to imagine people who are not human. This in itself is the problem, but I don't think the solution is to get rid of the fantasy. I don't think the fantasy is inherently racist. Would you agree that an elf or a dwarf, as they are imagined, is a person? I don't think the solution is to deny their personhood. That looks to me like the worst kind of racism, where we are designating a class of non-people. It was just over 150 years ago that it was still the law in my country, the USA, that an enslaved person counted as only three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation and taxation. Is that the kind of language that should be used in D&D, that a member of this or that PC species is not a person?



Of course, an Elf is a person.

The awkwardness is because the Elf species comprises many "peoples": High, Wood, Uda, Loren, Aeven, Grugach, Valley, Summer, Winter, etcetera. Very many peoples! The Grugach Elves are a people.

Humans too comprise very, very, very, many, many peoples.

This sense of "a people" means the citizens of a government, whence citizenry and nation, the same meaning as a sense of "folk".


----------



## Scott Christian

Hriston said:


> D&D has a problem because the division of people into such categories is a staple of the fantasy



This.    This is what everyone is struggling with.


----------



## Hriston

Yaarel said:


> Of course, an Elf is a person.
> 
> The awkwardness is because the Elf species comprises many "peoples": High, Wood, Uda, Loren, Aeven, Grugach, Valley, Summer, Winter, etcetera. Very many peoples! The Grugach Elves are a people.



Yes, and I would go so far as to say that among the High Elves, the Elves of Nargothrond are a people and the Elves of Gondolin are a people, and yet you can also speak of the Elven People and still be correct.



Yaarel said:


> Humans too comprise very, very, very, many, many peoples.



Sure, but you could also say that humans are one people.



Yaarel said:


> This sense of "a people" means the citizens of a government, whence citizenry and nation, the same meaning as a sense of "folk".



I'm using a singular definition of _people_ meaning "a plurality of persons considered as a whole". _Folk, _on the other hand, is never singular in English. It always refers to multiple people or people in general.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Of all the choices here, if 1D&D is either getting rid of the half-races or making them very rare, then species works best. After all, in the real world, lions and tigers are different species and can interbreed, and the same with horses and donkeys. So humans and elves or humans and orcs can be different species and still interbreed, if that is kept in the game.

As for the other popular poll choices of Heritage or Lineage or Ancestry, I don't like those because they feel like we are talking about my character's great-great-great-grandparents and not about the character and who their parents are. Save those types of words for Backgrounds and specific Feats and the character's back-story, not for the general mechanics that are used in regular character creation.


----------



## Yaarel

Hriston said:


> Yes, and I would go so far as to say that among the High Elves, the Elves of Nargothrond are a people and the Elves of Gondolin are a people, and yet you can also speak of the Elven People and still be correct.
> 
> Sure, but you could also say that humans are one people.
> 
> I'm using a singular definition of _people_ meaning "a plurality of persons considered as a whole". _Folk, _on the other hand, is never singular in English. It always refers to multiple people or people in general.




Maybe technically no. It is not correct to say: "The Elven People".

There are two main meanings for the word "people".
• Persons, the word people serves as a nonstandard plural for "person": one person, many people.
• A people, plural peoples, means a self-governing citizenry. "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, ..."

Elves are people. And Humans and Elves together are people. Persons.

But Elves are not "a people": they are many peoples.


----------



## Hriston

Yaarel said:


> Maybe technically no. It is not correct to say: "The Elven People".
> 
> There are two main meanings for the word "people".
> • Persons, the word people serves as a nonstandard plural for "person": one person, many people.
> • A people, plural peoples, means a self-governing citizenry. "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, ..."
> 
> Elves are people. And Humans and Elves together are people. Persons.
> 
> But Elves are not "a people": they are many peoples.



Do you think the "_Long List of the Ents_", as recited by Treebeard, is incorrect when it names "the elf-children" as the eldest of "the free peoples"?

Or more to the point, do you think J. R. R. Tolkien, Merton Professor of English Language and Literature from 1945 to 1959, was using incorrect English when he wrote it?

Your gloss of the singular meaning of _people_ is very narrow. It has a much wider application consistent with the definition I gave in my previous post, or with this one out of three definitions from a standard dictionary: 
the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.​"the native peoples of Canada"​There is no requirement that the group be composed of citizens of any particular political community or place, and although the right of peoples to self determination is asserted by the UN Charter, it is not by virtue of self-government that a people is defined but rather by a common culture, history, etc.


----------



## Kinematics

Yaarel said:


> 5e has the term Humanoid.
> 
> The helpful definition for this term is to describe characters that are comparable to the human species (Homo sapiens) in both mind (freewill, learning and cultures) and body (two hands, two legs, or close enough).



I'd considered that, but it's a technical term which excludes numerous playable races. Fey (eg: eladrin, centaurs) are not humanoids, nor are goblinoids and monstrosities (eg: minotaurs), etc, which is why I listed them as examples in the earlier post I made.

If not for that, it would have been a reasonable choice (as long as you can stretch "humanoid" to include something like a centaur).


----------



## Yaarel

Hriston said:


> Do you think the "_Long List of the Ents_", as recited by Treebeard, is incorrect when it names "the elf-children" as the eldest of "the free peoples"?
> 
> Or more to the point, do you think J. R. R. Tolkien, Merton Professor of English Language and Literature from 1945 to 1959, was using incorrect English when he wrote it?



As I noted earlier, as a product of the pseudoscience of his era, Tolkien describes the Elf (and Dwarf, Hobbit, Ent, etcetera) in the same way that racists describe a "race".

When he refers to the "race" of Elf as if "a people", it is part of his bioessentializing a culture.



Hriston said:


> Your gloss of the singular meaning of _people_ is very narrow. It has a much wider application consistent with the definition I gave in my previous post, or with this one out of three definitions from a standard dictionary:
> the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.​"the native peoples of Canada"​There is no requirement that the group be composed of citizens of any particular political community or place, and although the right of peoples to self determination is asserted by the UN Charter, it is not by virtue of self-government that a people is defined but rather by a common culture, history, etc.



The nation or ethnic group is an example of the meaning "citizenry". For example, the Indigenous peoples of Canada have self-governing tribal councils and similar autonomous governmental bodies.

When people refers to populating an area generally, it has the sense of supplying many "persons" (of any gender or age or ethnicity).


----------



## Yaarel

Kinematics said:


> I'd considered that, but it's a technical term which excludes numerous playable races. Fey (eg: eladrin, centaurs) are not humanoids, nor are goblinoids and monstrosities (eg: minotaurs), etc, which is why I listed them as examples in the earlier post I made.
> 
> If not for that, it would have been a reasonable choice (as long as you can stretch "humanoid" to include something like a centaur).



Yeah. And I considered that.

There are playable species that lack the Humanoid description. For example, Yuan-Ti is a Monstrosity.

One solution is, a species can have more than one description. For example, it seems obvious that Eladrin is a "Fey Humanoid".

This is especially easy if, like 4e, One D&D distinguishes between Planar Origin and Creature Type. So the Eladrin is the Humanoid Type of Fey Origin. Likewise, a Centaur is a Fey Humanoid. (Reallife British folklore was comfortable interpreting Greek concepts as if "fairy".)



I am finding the term Monstrosity to be nonuseful and in some contexts problematic. Nonuseful: why is an Owlbear a Monstrosity rather than a Beast? If it looks like a beast and walks like a beast, and behaves like a beast, then it is a Beast. Problematic: sometimes Monstrosity comes across as if an always "Evil race", an overall impression that Yuan-Ti gives off, even if technically imprecise.

Regarding Goblinoids, their statblock can say Fey. The flavor can mention belonging to a family of goblinoid species.

Similarly Devil, Demon, or Yugoloth. These need to say Fiend. But the flavor can mention belonging to a family of devils, etcetera.



If a playable species intentionally rejects the Humanoid descriptor, it is a signal, that the player should not play it normally, as if a human. Rather it should be more like figure in a dream. It has presence and behavior, but there is no person nor freewill. Compare the Fiend Gnoll.


----------



## Hriston

Yaarel said:


> As I noted earlier, as a product of the pseudoscience of his era, Tolkien describes the Elf (and Dwarf, Hobbit, Ent, etcetera) in the same way that racists describe a "race".



Can you give an example of this?



Yaarel said:


> When he refers to the "race" of Elf as if "a people", it is part of his bioessentializing a culture.



I don't recall him saying anything about the biology of elves, so I can't imagine how bioessentialism is part of their depiction in his work.



Yaarel said:


> The nation or ethnic group is an example of the meaning "citizenry".



Well, now you're using a rather expansive definition of _citizenry _to compensate for your narrowing of the meaning of _people._ The point is that any community or ethnic group can be referred to as a people. Elves as a group share certain commonalities that make up the elven identity. Therefore, they are a people.



Yaarel said:


> For example, the Indigenous peoples of Canada have self-governing tribal councils and similar autonomous governmental bodies.



Okay, but that's not what makes them peoples. It's their common culture, history, etc. that define them as peoples. For example, a community living under the rule of a foreign power is nevertheless a people.



Yaarel said:


> When people refers to populating an area generally, it has the sense of supplying many "persons" (of any gender or age or ethnicity).



Um, yeah, that's the verbal usage of _people. _How is that relevant?


----------



## Yaarel

Hriston said:


> Well, now you're using a rather expansive definition of _citizenry _to compensate for your narrowing of the meaning of _people._ The point is that *any community* or ethnic group can be referred to as a people. Elves as a group share certain commonalities that make up the elven identity. Therefore, they are a people.



An ethnicity can be called "a people": sharing culture, language, religion, but especially autonomous self-government.
Elves arent an ethnicity.
Elves are many ethnicities.
Elves are many peoples.

Not any community is "a people". The D&D community isnt "a people". But we are a community.


----------



## Hriston

Yaarel said:


> An ethnicity can be called "a people": sharing culture, language, religion,



Agreed



Yaarel said:


> but especially autonomous self-government.



No, this is a false criteria. Peoples have the right to self-determination, but this right may not be realized which doesn't make them non-peoples.



Yaarel said:


> Elves arent an ethnicity.
> Elves are many ethnicities.
> Elves are many peoples.



Do elves in your view share a common cultural background or ancestry that distinguishes them from non-elves? If not, then why do we have the common term _elf? _Your premise here seems to be that an ethnicity can't comprise many ethnicities, and that a people can't comprise many peoples. I don't subscribe to that belief.



Yaarel said:


> Not any community is "a people". The D&D community isnt "a people". But we are a community.



We are both a community and a people. "A people" to quote Wikipedia "is any plurality of persons considered as a whole."

ETA: It can also be said that members of the D&D community are a species of RPGer.


----------



## Hriston

I think perhaps the term _identity _should be added to the list.


----------



## Scribe

Yaarel said:


> Strength and Constitution should be the PREREQUISITE to determine Size.
> 
> For example, if a character has a +3 in both Strength and Constitution, the player can choose for the character to be Large size.




Interesting idea, and a good way to apply a restriction to those strongman halflings.


----------



## MarkB

Hriston said:


> I think perhaps the term _identity _should be added to the list.



Right, because that's not a loaded term in modern society at all.


----------



## Scribe

Hriston said:


> I think perhaps the term _identity _should be added to the list.




In relation to what is roughly a biological analog?


----------



## Hriston

MarkB said:


> Right, because that's not a loaded term in modern society at all.



Well, less loaded than _race _anyways. I guess _group identity _or _social identity _would be more along the lines of what I meant. There are a few other options for terms less loaded than _race. _I think _people _is one, or _community _for that matter.


----------



## Hriston

Scribe said:


> In relation to what is roughly a biological analog?



Sorry, I don't know what you mean by this.


----------



## Scribe

Hriston said:


> Sorry, I don't know what you mean by this.




Identity, is not a term that I would use to describe the nature of a being in terms of the definition of its specific real traits, at a biological level. Its just not how the word is used in the current English speaking world.


----------



## MarkB

Hriston said:


> Well, less loaded than _race _anyways. I guess _group identity _or _social identity _would be more along the lines of what I meant. There are a few other options for terms less loaded than _race. _I think _people _is one, or _community _for that matter.



Race as used in D&D is about biological identity. All the terms you suggested above are about social identity. That's a useful thing to define for a character, but it's not the thing that's being defined by the term formerly known as race.


----------



## Hriston

Scribe said:


> Identity, is not a term that I would use to describe the nature of a being in terms of the definition of its specific real traits, at a biological level. Its just not how the word is used in the current English speaking world.



That's not what I was suggesting. I was talking about its group identity. I.e. does it identify as an orc, or a dwarf, or a human?


----------



## Galandris

Schlorp.

_You will all come to accept schlorp._


----------



## Scribe

Hriston said:


> That's not what I was suggesting. I was talking about its group identity. I.e. does it identify as an orc, or a dwarf, or a human?




And I'm saying the word, _identity_, is a poor usage when considering its current contextual use.


----------



## MarkB

Hriston said:


> That's not what I was suggesting. I was talking about its group identity. I.e. does it identify as an orc, or a dwarf, or a human?



And when used in that context it strays far too close to sexual identity, which is at least as fraught a real-world subject as racial identity.


----------



## Hriston

MarkB said:


> Race as used in D&D is about biological identity. All the terms you suggested above are about social identity. That's a useful thing to define for a character, but it's not the thing that's being defined by the term formerly known as race.



No, it isn't. Look at the races in the PHB. Dwarves get weapon training, tool proficiency, language proficiency, possible armor training, and they're knowledgeable about stonework. These are all cultural traits. Even darkvision is explained by the fact that dwarves customarily live underground.

D&D races have always been abstract packages of traits many of which are easily interpreted as cultural if not outright stated to be so, and the idea that race in D&D only represents biology is revisionist.


----------



## MarkB

Hriston said:


> No, it isn't. Look at the races in the PHB. Dwarves get weapon training, tool proficiency, language proficiency, possible armor training, and they're knowledgeable about stonework. These are all cultural traits. Even darkvision is explained by the fact that dwarves customarily live underground.
> 
> D&D races have always been abstract packages of traits many of which are easily interpreted as cultural if not outright stated to be so, and the idea that race in D&D only represents biology is revisionist.



A lot of those are stripped out in One D&D, and many traits cannot easily be explained as cultural. How does a human brought up by dragonborn manage to breathe fire?


----------



## CreamCloud0

this is why i think biological species and learned culture should be separated into different build categories, you can be an elf biologically but of been raised by and socially identify as a member of halfling society or as one of the dragonborns or any other culture, you have trance and charm resist, you can speak halfling but not a word of elvish and picked up some of their natural hospitality.


----------



## Hriston

Scribe said:


> And I'm saying the word, _identity_, is a poor usage when considering its current contextual use.



Huh?


----------



## Hriston

MarkB said:


> A lot of those are stripped out in One D&D, and many traits cannot easily be explained as cultural. How does a human brought up by dragonborn manage to breathe fire?



I'm sorry, is "human brought up by dragonborn" an option in one of the current playtests?

Anyway, you made a claim about "Race as used in D&D". I don't think whatever's in the playtest is definitive of what that is.


----------



## Kinematics

Yaarel said:


> I am finding the term Monstrosity to be nonuseful and in some contexts problematic. Nonuseful: why is an Owlbear a Monstrosity rather than a Beast? If it looks like a beast and walks like a beast, and behaves like a beast, then it is a Beast. Problematic: sometimes Monstrosity comes across as if an always "Evil race", an overall impression that Yuan-Ti gives off, even if technically imprecise.



There was a thread on the Monstrosity category a while back that showed a lot of people had issues with it, and it seems to always be a bit of a grab-bag of stuff that didn't fit elsewhere. The main definition that seemed to be of use was "a creature that only came into existence due to the magical manipulation (or perhaps magical warping) of other 'natural' creatures". This would include a lot of chimeric mixes (eg: owlbear, yuan-ti, minotaur, hippogryph, etc), as well as unnaturally sized creatures (eg: crag cat, ankheg, giant slug, etc).

They're not 'evil' so much as 'unnatural'.  Of course 'unnatural' is a bit of a vague term, and it's sometimes hard to properly define what is 'natural' in a world of magic and gods and multiple planes of existence.


----------



## Scribe

Hriston said:


> Huh?




Its certainly not this difficult, take it easy.


----------



## Kinematics

Hriston said:


> D&D races have always been abstract packages of traits many of which are easily interpreted as cultural if not outright stated to be so, and the idea that race in D&D only represents biology is revisionist.



I would say not so much revisionist as subject to refactoring. A certain tool (race) has been accumulating stuff for a long time, and is currently a bucket of traits that are a mix of inherent/biological and social/cultural. There are a lot of reasons to want to make use of those trait categories separately, so you want to refactor the system to isolate the concepts and provide a proper separation of concerns. It's just an easier system to use and expand on, as seen in Level Up's Heritage and Culture building blocks.

Since the social/cultural side of things is easily identified using the Culture category, that leaves the biological side of things to be identified as 'race'. Except race has issues both with real-life hangups, and the historical baggage of being the identifying term that encompassed both biological and cultural aspects of one's development.

So it's not unreasonable to want another term that you can use to help people grasp what you're defining, and keep it separate from the old term. But one of many problems is changing the term used (such as species), but not changing the trait categorization (that is, leaving in cultural elements).  Changing race to another word, but having it mean the same thing, would be revisionism. Changing it to mean only one aspect of the previous trait grouping would be refactoring, but with the possibility of some confusion over which version is meant at any given time if you don't change the term itself.


----------



## Scott Christian

Hriston said:


> No, it isn't. Look at the races in the PHB. Dwarves get weapon training, tool proficiency, language proficiency, possible armor training, and they're knowledgeable about stonework. These are all cultural traits. Even darkvision is explained by the fact that dwarves customarily live underground.
> 
> D&D races have always been abstract packages of traits many of which are easily interpreted as cultural if not outright stated to be so, and the idea that race in D&D only represents biology is revisionist.



I think it is very clear that some of the abilities are learned through their culture and others are innate. Here are some quotes out of the PHB:
"As a forest gnome, you have a _natural_ knack for illusion and _inherent_ quickness and stealth."
"As a rock gnome, you have a _natural_ inventiveness and hardiness..."
"Your half-orc character has certain traits _deriving from your orc ancestry_."
"As a stout halfling, you're hardier than average and have some resistance to poison. Some say that stouts have _dwarven blood_."
"Your elf character has a variety of _natural_ abilities, the results of _thousands of years of elven refinement_."
"Your dwarf character has an assortment of _inborn_ abilities, the part and parcel of dwarven _nature_."

So when you have clarifiers like these prior to listing a species traits, which include resiliencies and vision and magic use, then many people can, and should, assume that much of these are innate. If Wizards wants to change all that, that's fine. But it is incorrect to call the other people revisionists when these things are stated as such.

Edit: I get that you are implying that it is both too.


----------



## Yaarel

Hriston said:


> D&D races have always been abstract packages of traits many of which are easily interpreted as cultural if not outright stated to be so, and the idea that race in D&D only represents biology is revisionist.



The above quote is the part that coheres with reallife racism. The "revisionism" is to intentionally prevent racism.

When biological traits and cultural traits are confused together, then the perception is that cultural traits are inherently biological. (Some forumers refer to this as making culture bioessential.) When this happens, value systems such as patriotism become actual racism. The perception is, the other cultures are less human, and to mix with them makes ones own biology less pure. All of this worldview is hatespeech translated into a pseudoscience.

Tolkien is riddled with this kind of racist way of thinking. As are some parts of D&D traditions. − Because of the failure to distinguish what is inherent with what is learned.

Modern genetics has shown that the what separates one humans appearance and an other humans appearance is genetically trivial. We all come from the same ancestors − recently. (Our ancestral _Homo sapiens_ probably resemble Ethiopians today.)

The important distinctions are cultural − and there are many styles of being human.





Hriston said:


> We are both a community and a people. "A people" to quote Wikipedia "is any plurality of persons considered as a whole."



There seems to be confusion between different meanings of the English word "people".

1. "people" (*plural*) = persons, the nonstandard plural of "person": one person, two people.
2. "the people" (plural) = the citizens of a government.
3. "a people" (*singular*) = an autonomous ethnicity: one people, two peoples.

(Note, the citizens of the US are both plural "the people" in contrast to the government, and singular "a people" as a melting-pot ethnicity.)



The quote from Wikipedia is definition 1: "any plurality of persons considered as a whole". It even says, the plural of person.
Examples of taking a group of persons "as a whole":

The joke: "There are two kinds of people. Those who divide the world into two kinds of people. And those who dont."
= two kinds of "persons"
≠ two kinds of "peoples"

"I'll have my people call your people."
= my persons and your persons
≠ my ethnicity and your ethnicity

D&D people versus Pathfinder people.
= persons who prefer D&D versus persons who prefer Pathfinder
≠ an ethnicity of D&D versus an ethnicity of Pathfinder

For the English word "people": definition 1 ("persons") is common and normal. But definition 3 ("an ethnicity") is rare, and seems to be causing confusion.



Even definition 2 ("the citizens" versus the government) is uncommon − and often misleading since it is unlikely every citizen participates in the generalization. For example, to say, During the French Revolution the people overthrew the aristocracy, wrongly implies that every French nonaristocrat stopped supporting the aristocracy.



All in all, the term "a people" seems to confuse, and worse, seems able to cohere with a racist worldview.


----------



## Hriston

Scribe said:


> Its certainly not this difficult, take it easy.



Um, yeah, have a good one.


----------



## Yaarel

Kinematics said:


> I would say not so much revisionist as subject to refactoring. A certain tool (race) has been accumulating stuff for a long time, and is currently a bucket of traits that are a mix of inherent/biological and social/cultural. There are a lot of reasons to want to make use of those trait categories separately, so you want to refactor the system to isolate the concepts and provide a proper separation of concerns. It's just an easier system to use and expand on, as seen in Level Up's Heritage and Culture building blocks.



Also, the new editions of D&D have new mechanics that didnt exist the in earlier editions.

For example, features that used to get lumped into race as if biological, now clearly belong in cultural Background and its Skills. A reorganization is helpful.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I think the whole monoculture thing is just a simplification. And that varies a lot by setting. A lot of settings will have multiple elven cultures for example. With dwarves and elves, it can sometimes be easier to talk of them broadly. But I also think creatures that different from humans would probably have different cultural tendencies. Not every dwarven culture would be the same, but being able to see in the dark, would probably lead to big differences (like having an easier time building underground cities). I also think culture can be linked to a species biology. The problem is when people try to link different human cultures to different ethnicities or races as a matter of some kind of inherent quality. That isn't the case because humans are basically the same physically. But humans have cultural tendencies as a species. And we are different from other species. I imagine other species of hominids that are distant enough from us would also have cultural tendencies. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. The logical leap of humans have cultural tendencies as a species, so fictional species like dwarves and elves might also have cultural tendencies is fairly reasonable I think. Obviously some abilities would be more rooted in culture, some more in biology (infra vision for example). Some are on the line (a dwarves affinity for stone work could be explained as cultural, but in another setting it might be an innate affinity due to their origins: if they were created by a stone god for example).  

On separating abilities that come from culture and race/species, I think there are so many games that do that well, because they aren't built around the level of abstractions of class, race and levels as D&D is. I actually tend to prefer games like that. But I've also found the more D&D messes with character creation in this respect, and the more it tries to achieve that kind of simulation of reality, the less it seems to work as a game (I just don't think it is built for that kind of complexity). A big strength of D&D in may view is a very simple character creation process of rolling attributes, picking your race, your class, etc. The more D&D has added other things to that process, the more it tries to do what other games do, I think the less interest I have in it (simply because I can find a game that emulates cultural effects ten times better than D&D since those games are built around doing that from the ground up).


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> Humans are basically the same physically. But humans have cultural tendencies as a species. And we are different from other species.



The most significant genetic feature of the human species is the brain evolving the capacity of speech and the ability to learn and teach new things.

This human reliance on speech, whence clothing and jewelry and their symbolic uniforms to artificially create new self-identities, is so radical, many humans cease to even self-identify with other species of animals. Even bonobo and chimpanzee who are genetically similar to us can seem unrelated.

Speech is also why culture matters more than instinct. Different human groups learn and teach different ways of adapting, surviving, and flourishing. These artificial differences are of more consequence than any trivial genetic difference. Humans evolve by means of evolving cultures far more rapidly and dramatically than by means of mutating genetics.





Bedrockgames said:


> The logical leap of humans have cultural tendencies as a species, so fictional species like dwarves and elves might also have cultural tendencies is fairly reasonable I think.



The problem is. Elves and Dwarves understood as separate species are still TOO HUMAN.

Consider how many D&D gamers characterize Dwarves as if vikings with Scottish accents. Reallife ethnicities.

And to declare reallife ethnicities as if inborn traits of a separate species, is actual racism. (Also, to culturally appropriate an others ethnicity, such as misrepresenting vikings, is problematic.)



And even if the D&D game was no longer about Humans, but rather about Cats and Dogs and other animals: gamers seem likely to declare Nigerians are Cats and Russians are Dogs, or whatever, and the worst kinds of racism become endemic to the game.



I can see no other solution for the future of the D&D traditions.

1. There must be a clean separation between biology and culture: biological Species versus cultural Background.

2. The biological traits must be strictly nonhuman, such as wings and firebreathing.

3. The cultural traits are strictly human. Any reallife human can participate and self-identify with the fantasy culture.

Any biological Trait that is plausibly human, such as being slightly higher Intelligence or slightly higher Strength is historical racism and eugenics. D&D must end this kind of racist thinking, as soon as possible.



The Dwarf can have inborn Traits but only ones that are clearly nonhuman. No reallife human has Darkvision. So Dwarves adapting underground can have Darkvision. But things like being miners is cultural. The setting will have have innate Humans who happen to be members of the dwarven-founded ethnicities. They too will be miners like other members of their respective community. Perhaps these Human-born miners will routinely wear a magic ring of Darkvision, or learn the Darkvision cantrip, in order to work in their mines. It is similar to how some Humans where contact lenses in order to drive cars, in order to participate in a culture that builds cars and travels distances to work.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> The problem is. Elves and Dwarves understood as separate species are still TOO HUMAN.
> 
> Consider how many D&D gamers characterize Dwarves as if vikings with Scottish accents. Reallife ethnicities.



I will respond to your other points when I have more time but on this one I think we just have a fundamentally different point of view. I tend to regard the Scottish accents, the Viking workstation as pretty accidental qualities: flavors layered onto them so there is something to grab onto (creating a culture whole cloth is hard so we work by analogy). But the deeper things like dwarves tendency to live underground, like elves longevity impacting how they govern, those things I think make sense in terms of connecting their physical characteristics to their culture. 

I don’t agree they are too human. I’ve never confused Vikings for dwarves or vice versa. Not have I confused dwarves for Scottish people.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> The Dwarf can have inborn Traits but only ones that are clearly nonhuman. No reallife human has Darkvision. So Dwarves adapting underground can have Darkvision. But things like being miners is cultural. The setting will have have innate Humans who happen to be members of the dwarven-founded ethnicities. They too will be miners like other members of their respective community. Perhaps these Human-born miners will routinely wear a magic ring of Darkvision, or learn the Darkvision cantrip, in order to work in their mines. It is similar to how some Humans where contact lenses in order to drive cars, in order to participate in a culture that builds cars and travels distances to work.




Dwarves being miners is both cultural and related to their dark vision. Dark vision lends itself to living underground, living underground lends itself to mining. Now dwarves can have culture that goes against this, humans have created societies and experimented with things that go against our natural social tendencies. Dwarves can live above ground if they want and they don’t have to be miners.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> The setting will have have innate Humans who happen to be members of the dwarven-founded ethnicities. They too will be miners like other members of their respective community. Perhaps these Human-born miners will routinely wear a magic ring of Darkvision, or learn the Darkvision cantrip, in order to work in their mines. It is similar to how some Humans where contact lenses in order to drive cars, in order to participate in a culture that builds cars and travels distances to work.




Sure but as you pony out they would require magic to be as adept as dwarves mining. And living underground would be much harder for a human


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> Dwarves being miners is both cultural and related to their dark vision. Dark vision lends itself to living underground, living underground lends itself to mining. Now dwarves can have culture that goes against this, humans have created societies and experimented with things that go against our natural social tendencies. Dwarves can live above ground if they want and they don’t have to be miners.



Dwarves will comprise various cultures. Some of these cultures might prominently feature mining, even value and celebrate mines, perhaps even transmit religious traditions using mines as analogies to attempt descriptions of abstract spiritual concepts.

Dwarves can have a Background relating to a particular culture who "prominently" (either frequently or prestigiously) employs a specific method of mining.

The D&D gaming rules MUST avoid confusing this cultural Background trait with a biologically inborn Species trait that is true for EVERY Dwarf.


----------



## Hriston

Kinematics said:


> I would say not so much revisionist as subject to refactoring. A certain tool (race) has been accumulating stuff for a long time, and is currently a bucket of traits that are a mix of inherent/biological and social/cultural. There are a lot of reasons to want to make use of those trait categories separately, so you want to refactor the system to isolate the concepts and provide a proper separation of concerns. It's just an easier system to use and expand on, as seen in Level Up's Heritage and Culture building blocks.
> 
> Since the social/cultural side of things is easily identified using the Culture category, that leaves the biological side of things to be identified as 'race'. Except race has issues both with real-life hangups, and the historical baggage of being the identifying term that encompassed both biological and cultural aspects of one's development.
> 
> So it's not unreasonable to want another term that you can use to help people grasp what you're defining, and keep it separate from the old term. But one of many problems is changing the term used (such as species), but not changing the trait categorization (that is, leaving in cultural elements).  Changing race to another word, but having it mean the same thing, would be revisionism. Changing it to mean only one aspect of the previous trait grouping would be refactoring, but with the possibility of some confusion over which version is meant at any given time if you don't change the term itself.



I was talking about the claim made by @MarkB that "Race as used in D&D is about biological identity" which I took to mean _only about biological identity._ (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that, @MarkB.) That claim is revisionist (as in _revsisionist history) _because the use of _race_ as a game element in D&D has included things other than biology in every edition of the game of which I can think. Another way of saying this is that it's a false claim.


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> Dwarves will comprise various cultures. Some of these cultures might prominently feature mining, even value and celebrate mines, perhaps even transmit religious traditions using mines as analogies to attempt descriptions of abstract spiritual concepts.
> 
> Dwarves can have a Background relating to a particular culture who "prominently" (either frequently or prestigiously) employs a specific method of mining.
> 
> The D&D gaming rules MUST avoid confusing this cultural Background trait with a biologically inborn Species trait that is true for EVERY Dwarf.




Tremorsense + Darkvision -> advantage when mining all else being equal
Powerful Build -> advantage when being a furniture mover all else being equal
Wings -> advantage when doing aerial reconnaissance all else being equal
Shapeshifting -> advantage when doing disguise things all else being equal
etc...

Of course not all else will be equal otherwise for individuals,  having an something that gives an advantage a career doesn't mean one will want to do that, not having something that gives someone an advantage at something won't mean someone won't want to do it.


----------



## Cadence

Hriston said:


> I was talking about the claim made by @MarkB that "Race as used in D&D is about biological identity" which I took to mean _only about biological identity._ (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that, @MarkB.) That claim is revisionist (as in _revsisionist history) _because the use of _race_ as a game element in D&D has included things other than biology in every edition of the game of which I can think. Another way of saying this is that it's a false claim.




It feels like the point folks are trying to make is that the playtest material for One, the more recent products that have redone races, and the way WotC has been phrasing things is that it looks like Race is heading towards being predominantly about biological things and not cultural things - and may end up pretty much only being about them. What was done in past editions doesn't seem relevant to where One is going in this regard.  

What was done in the past is certainly relevant to judging statements about what was done in the past though!


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> The most significant genetic feature of the human species is the brain evolving the capacity of speech and the ability to learn and teach new things.
> 
> This human reliance on speech, whence clothing and jewelry and their symbolic uniforms to artificially create new self-identities, is so radical, many humans cease to even self-identify with other species of animals. Even bonobo and chimpanzee who are genetically similar to us can seem unrelated.




Certainly our intelligence sets us apart, and so does speech (though it seems we are learning more and more that other animals are capable of pretty complex communication). Still I can imagine a world where bonobos, chimpanzees or gorillas evolve alongside humans into equally intelligent beings capable of speech like humans, but whose physiology gives them different cultural tendencies. I would imagine if a chimpanzee retained its strength (which is significantly greater than a person's), that would shape their culture. And I can imagine a world where neanderthals remain, and their culture might be substantially different from human culture. We know Neanderthals made music for example. I would be curious if their hearing senses were similar or different from our own, and if there is a difference, how different their musical tendencies might be. I'm not informed enough about other primates to continue this thought experiment without further research, but you get my point. 

And I think that is another thing that is significant: these are thought experiments. They are based on things that don't exist. We live in a world where humans are the only advanced and intelligent species (there are other intelligent species but you get my point I think). So we have to imagine what other species of hominids might be like, or other beings who might vaguely resemble humans but have different physical features, builds, life spans, etc. You and I might answer that thought experiment differently, and it seems we do. But I also think there is room for legitimately different answers here. 



> Speech is also why culture matters more than instinct. Different human groups learn and teach different ways of adapting, surviving, and flourishing. These artificial differences are of more consequence than any trivial genetic difference. Humans evolve by means of evolving cultures far more rapidly and dramatically than by means of mutating genetics.




I agree with you our speech is very important, and I agree we have a variety of cultures, a variety of ways of adapting. But I think you could also flip that and say our intelligence, our ability to adapt, is one of the things that shape human culture (again we are doing a thought exeperiment because we don't have other cultures to compare to). But I would push back against the role of instinct, the role of our biology. I think we like to think of ourselves as not part of the natural world, but we are. And we have drives that shape us, and affect our culture. We might not have a predators reflexes, but we are not purely cultural beings. Obviously things vary, and culture can stretch what is possible, but there are basic human relationships (like immediate family) that are hard for culture to uproot. We also need things like human interaction, we need to laugh, we have, I would say, a pretty clear inbuilt instinct to make music and perform rituals. Those can be expressed in different ways in specific cultures, but there is an underlying humanity there that I think is part of our nature.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> The D&D gaming rules MUST avoid confusing this cultural Background trait with a biologically inborn Species trait that is true for EVERY Dwarf.




I don't know that it must. Again, I have no issue with a general statement like "because of their dark vision and innate ability to sense changes in elevation, as well as their lower center of gravity and enhanced constitution, drwarves are well suited to living underground, and many dwarven cultures gravitate towards underground living and mining.


----------



## Yaarel

Some of the points you make are careful and I share a similar attitude.

However this quote is wrongminded:


Bedrockgames said:


> Still I can imagine a world where bonobos, chimpanzees or gorillas evolve alongside humans into equally intelligent beings capable of speech like humans, but whose physiology gives them different cultural tendencies.



This quoted concept, that other races are like humans but not quite as human as humans are: is precisely historical Darwinian-misconstruing ... full-on ... RACISM!



In any case, when the gaming rules CLEANLY distinguish between NONHUMAN biologies and HUMAN cultures, it seems to thread the needle to avoid this racism of the previous centuries.

How we characterize these fantasy cultures remains a challenge, but at least, they will be, by definition, human cultures that reallife humans can comprehend and participate in.


----------



## Hriston

Scott Christian said:


> I think it is very clear that some of the abilities are learned through their culture and others are innate. Here are some quotes out of the PHB:
> "As a forest gnome, you have a _natural_ knack for illusion and _inherent_ quickness and stealth."
> "As a rock gnome, you have a _natural_ inventiveness and hardiness..."
> "Your half-orc character has certain traits _deriving from your orc ancestry_."
> "As a stout halfling, you're hardier than average and have some resistance to poison. Some say that stouts have _dwarven blood_."
> "Your elf character has a variety of _natural_ abilities, the results of _thousands of years of elven refinement_."
> "Your dwarf character has an assortment of _inborn_ abilities, the part and parcel of dwarven _nature_."
> 
> So when you have clarifiers like these prior to listing a species traits, which include resiliencies and vision and magic use, then many people can, and should, assume that much of these are innate. If Wizards wants to change all that, that's fine. But it is incorrect to call the other people revisionists when these things are stated as such.
> 
> Edit: I get that you are implying that it is both too.



I think it's notable that out of all those quotes, only the one about dwarven blood (said in an unreliable narrator voice) says anything about biology.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> Dwarves will comprise various cultures. Some of these cultures might prominently feature mining, even value and celebrate mines, perhaps even transmit religious traditions using mines as analogies to attempt descriptions of abstract spiritual concepts.



again I think we are talking about simplification here. The whole monocultural elves and dwarves thing, is usually a matter of simplification in the PHB, but something that tends to show more complexity and variety in actual settings. I don't think making general cultural statements about dwarves, elves, humans, and halflings is an issue. It is a simplification and one can argue more variety would be more realistic, but ultimately this is also a game, and a particularly simple one that abstracts a lot. But like I said there are also lots of games that do more realistic complexity and variety with culture better than D&D. 

And yes you can have a variety of drwarven cultures but saying something like 'dwarves tend to live below ground and often mine' isn't that different or any worse than saying 'humans tend to live above ground and often farm or raise herds of animals'. That is just a general statement, it doesn't preclude a city like Derinkuyu from existing among humans for example, nor does it preclude dwarves from having a city like Rome.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> Some of the points you make are careful and I share a similar attitude.
> 
> However this quote is wrongminded:
> 
> This quoted concept, that other races are like humans but not quite as human as humans are: is precisely historical Darwinian-style ... full-on ... RACISM!




No, I have to push back strongly on this. First I wasn't talking about human races. So nothing I said had anything to do with existing human races or ethnicities (which I have said don't have any physical differences nor any kind of different inherent cultural differences). I was imagining if bonobos evolved into a species of intelligent, tool using, speaking and civilized beings, how their may be noticeable cultural differences from humans. That is maybe drawing on ideas of natural selection, evolution, but it isn't a racist idea. It is entirely conceivable that a different species could evolve alongside humans, be humanlike to a degree but have different cultural tendencies.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> In any case, when the gaming rules CLEANLY distinguish between NONHUMAN biologies and HUMAN cultures, it seems to thread the needle to avoid this racism of the previous centuries.
> 
> How we characterize these fantasy cultures remains a challenge, but at least, they will be, by definition, human cultures that reallife humans can comprehend and participate in.




But the issue is we are talking about races/species that don't exist in the real world and aren't real human races or ethnicities. These are fictional beings. And I think reducing demihumans to just being varieties of real world human culture makes them a lot more boring personally. One of the reasons I enjoy fantasy is because it has things like dwarves and elves who aren't just humans in funny hats.


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> Some of the points you make are careful and I share a similar attitude.
> 
> However this quote is wrongminded:
> 
> This quoted concept, that other races are like humans but not quite as human as humans are: is precisely historical Darwinian-misconstruing ... full-on ... RACISM!




"If gorillas or chimpanzees kept most of their other general traits like larger/smaller size, differences in strengths and agility, brachiation, lifespan, etc... but had near human intelligence, they would develop the same kind of cultures as each other or that humans would" seems strange to me.

(Which doesn't mean one shouldn't be careful about which road one goes down and how it's done. Or that a human couldn't be raised by intelligent apes or vice-versa).


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> again I think we are talking about simplification here. The whole monocultural elves and dwarves thing, is usually a matter of simplification in the PHB, but something that tends to show more complexity and variety in actual settings. I don't think making general cultural statements about dwarves, elves, humans, and halflings is an issue. It is a simplification and one can argue more variety would be more realistic, but ultimately this is also a game, and a particularly simple one that abstracts a lot. But like I said there are also lots of games that do more realistic complexity and variety with culture better than D&D.
> 
> And yes you can have a variety of drwarven cultures but saying something like 'dwarves tend to live below ground and often mine' isn't that different or any worse than saying 'humans tend to live above ground and often farm or raise herds of animals'. That is just a general statement, it doesn't preclude a city like Derinkuyu from existing among humans for example, nor does it preclude dwarves from having a city like Rome.



Personally, I want the Players Handbook to be Human-only. Human be the only species options described.

Then each Setting Guide describes whatever other playable species are prominent in its setting. The Guide describes them according the flavor that is true for its setting. Each Guide might refer to the same Elf species with the same biological traits, but the Backgrounds for the elf-founded cultures will differ between the Guides.

Some D&D Settings will be better at avoiding reallife racism than others. We can learn from trial-and-error. Meanwhile keep the core rules of the Players Handbook as setting-neutral as possible.

I feel One D&D does well to have four core rule books:
• Players Handbook: Human-only, every rule necessary to play a complete game of D&D.
• Forgotten Realms Guide: the flavor of the FR setting, playable Nonhuman species according to FR cultures.
• DMs Guide: how to homebrew new cosmologies and worldbuilding for very different kinds of Settings, including Modern etcetera, encounter building for new adventures, magic items, and playtested variant gaming rules.
• Monster Manual: hostile encounters including traps. Possibly with FR flavor if other Settings have their own Monster flavors.

Altho the Forgotten Realms Guide is a default core, the book is self-contained and easy to swap out. It is easy to use an other Setting Guide instead, such as the Eberron Guide, the Dragonlance Guide, indy Amethyst Guide, any of the Magic the Gathering Guides, or any other Setting Guide. The Human-only Players Handbook will provide gaming rules that are as setting-neutral as possible (especially avoiding cosmology) to work seemlessly with the DMs choice of any setting. Especially the DMs Guide will encourage the DM to homebrew an entirely new setting.


----------



## Yaarel

Cadence said:


> "If gorillas or chimpanzees kept most of their other general traits like larger/smaller size, differences in strengths and agility, brachiation, lifespan, etc... but had near human intelligence, they would develop the same kind of cultures as each other or that humans would" seems strange to me.
> 
> (Which doesn't mean one shouldn't be careful about which road one goes down and how it's done. Or that a human couldn't be raised by intelligent apes or vice-versa).



Notice "Strength" and "Dexterity" are now cultural (like Ability Score Improvements while leveling) − no longer biological.

Precisely to avoid reallife historical racism.

Color-coding gaming options is unethical when it perpetuates reallife racism.


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> Notice "Strength" and "Dexterity" are now personal − no longer biological.
> 
> Precisely to avoid reallife historical racism.




That strength and dexterity vary by individuals doesn't mean that some species generally tend to have a lot more of the one or other. That the distribution of bear-oid's  physical strength stochastically dominates that of thr cheetah-oids, and the cheetah-oids distribution of speed stochastically dominates that of  the bear-oids seems like things one would expect to find in anthropomorphic bears and cheetah's.  (I would not be surprised if no actual cheetah could match the median actual bear in measures of strength, and no actual bear could match the median actual cheetah in speed).


----------



## Yaarel

Cadence said:


> That strength and dexterity vary by individuals doesn't mean that *some species* generally *tend to have* a lot *more *of the one or other.



This is the racism of the 1800s and the 1900s.

The racists wrongly believed that the European "race" tended to have a higher Intelligence than the African "race".

The racist "explained" their hatespeech via the pseudoscience as if these races were different species or subspecies.

"Slightly better" is the worst kind of reallife racism, historically.


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> Notice "Strength" and "Dexterity" are now cultural (like Ability Score Improvements while leveling) − no longer biological.
> 
> Precisely to avoid reallife historical racism.
> 
> Color-coding gaming options is unethical when it perpetuates reallife racism.




Your edit feels like it significantly changed your point from what I just replied to.

Then just use typical size range, brachiation, and powerful build.   That the percentiles in size for chimps << gorillas, and that chimps have brachiation and gorillas have powerful build makes it feel like if they were isolated groups that some things that are part of culture (say architecture?)  would probably develop differently, while there may be no reason for other things to.


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> This is the racism of the 1800s and the 1900s.
> 
> The racists wrongly believed that the European "race" tended to have a higher Intelligence than the African "race".
> 
> The racist "explained" their hatespeech via the pseudoscience as if these races were different species or subspecies.
> 
> "Slightly better" is the worst kind of reallife racism.




I'm fairly well read on issues about real life racism.  I am fine with ability score ASIs, especially mental ones being taken out to avoid accidentally stumbling on to tropes.

But I wasn't talking  about human beings or things particularly like them  I was talking about species that differ in major ways from each other.  Bears and cheetahs in particular.

Likening everything to real life racism [edited: doesn't seem helpful].


----------



## Yaarel

Cadence said:


> I'm not talking about human beings.  I'm talking about species that differ in major ways from each other.  Bears and cheetahs in particular.
> 
> Likening everything to real life racism makes is uselessly asinine.  Do better.



Describing gaming options as if anthropomorphics − namely humans − makes reallife racism a perpetual possibility endemic within D&D.

There must be a methodology to categorically END D&D racist traditions.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> This is the racism of the 1800s and the 1900s.




But that was based on ideas about differences between humans. Cadence is literally talking about bear people and cheetah people having different stats.



Yaarel said:


> The racists wrongly believed that the European "race" tended to have a higher Intelligence than the African "race".
> 
> The racist "explained" their hatespeech via the pseudoscience as if these races were different species or subspecies.
> 
> "Slightly better" is the worst kind of reallife racism, historically.




And we all agree that was wrong. I've pointed out many times my concern about some of the terminology being proposed linking to German ideas about the Aryans and the racialist science of the early 20th century (which I think is insidious and led to genocide). There is a lot people can learn from that history. The reason that was wrong is human races and ethnicities aren't subspecies. And it is always wrong to treat people cruelly or differently because of perceived differences. We are all basically the same. But you can agree with that, while also realizing there is a possible alternate history where other species similar to humans developed intelligence and did have vastly different physical or mental characteristics without rebounding to real world human racism. You can also imagine a world where mythical beings are substantially different from humans, like elves who live for hundreds of years, can see in the dark, are more physically dexterous than humans and have natural resistance to certain types of magic. You can imagine that and not believe in racial pseudoscience about real humans. One if fantasy and the other is reality. When you are engaging fantasy I think you are dealing with things on a much more mythic level. You are trying to create wonder by having a variety of humanoids that are similar to but not the same as human, to create the impression of world filled with all kinds of possibilities.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> Personally, I want the Players Handbook to be Human-only. Human be the only species options described.




That is fair if that is what you want, but it absolutely isn't what I want from D&D. When I play D&D I want elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings. I'll take other options like half orcs, half elves, and whatever else. But I want a nice range of races/species to choose from, and I like to have the classic fantasy races to at least be part of that mix. 

And again there are lots of games that approach this very differently and do it well (like I said I mostly don't play D&D I usually play more grounded fantasy games). I just don't think D&D needs to change what it does well to chase this, when there are games that do it so much better.


----------



## Cadence

@Yaarel 

If one wanted to do  British faerie knights or Norse alfar as beings in D&D (in the Monster Manual) that could also be used as a PC options, how would you want them described?


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> That is fair if that is what you want, but it absolutely isn't what I want from D&D. When I play D&D I want elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings. I'll take other options like half orcs, half elves, and whatever else. But I want a nice range of races/species to choose from, and I like to have the classic fantasy races to at least be part of that mix.
> 
> And again there are lots of games that approach this very differently and do it well (like I said I mostly don't play D&D I usually play more grounded fantasy games). I just don't think D&D needs to change what it does well to chase this, when there are games that do it so much better.



Different Settings have different nice ranges of species to choose from.

There is no reason to entangle the Players Handbook with only one of these settings. Especially, the other core book, the DMs Guide, encourages DMs to create their own new Setting. The Players Hsndbook does best to stay setting-neutral to avoid getting in the way of the creativity of the DM.


----------



## Zaukrie

I don't know how which non offensive word they chooses matters. Does anyone pay attention to the word during play?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> Different Settings have different nice ranges of species to choose from.
> 
> There is no reason to entangle the Players Handbook with only one of these settings. Especially, the other core book, the DMs Guide, encourages DMs to create their own new Setting. The Players Hsndbook does best to stay setting-neutral to avoid getting in the way of the creativity of the DM.




Again, your preference is fair if that is what you want. I just wouldn't mistake one's preference for an ought. While I can appreciate what you want out of the players handbook, like I said, I much prefer having some core races, knowing that those races will undoubtedly change in specific settings or that I might rework them a bit for my own campaigns. This is one of the reasons I like simple, somewhat generic race entries in the PHB. 

While I do think PHBs should be setting neutral. It is still important for D&D to have some amount of flavor in its core books. It need not mention specific places, but I don't want it to be so neutral it doesn't pop for me. Again they can sometimes have some vague details or even a few specifics knowing these things will change from campaign to campaign. But there is a kind of default D&D I think that the PHB tends to help provide to GMs and Players. 

You don't want to interfere with GM creativity but you also do want to spark it.


----------



## Scribe

Zaukrie said:


> I don't know how which non offensive word they chooses matters. Does anyone pay attention to the word during play?




During play? No.

But if the word during play was the issue, race wouldnt be getting replaced.


----------



## Yaarel

Cadence said:


> @Yaarel
> 
> If one wanted to do  British faerie knights or Norse alfar as beings in D&D (in the Monster Manual) that could also be used as a PC options, how would you want them described?



Heh, this is a pertinent question. Because, as you seem to remember, some of my settings do have mythologically accurate Faerie Knights and Alfar.

It is a challenge to translate them accurately within the context of D&D rules and gaming balance.

To describe them, I start with the reallife folkbeliefs (from an academic, often archeological perspective).

Mostly, the Alfar come from Icelandic texts as well as Norwegian and Swedish contexts, such as place names, and earlier strata within later folkbeliefs.

Mostly, the Fairie come from the records of the reallife Scottish witch trials, where witches describe their encounters with various Elves. Anything that is clearly foreign, such as Christian theology can be safely ignored. Meanwhile, Shakespeare plays happen to describe the English folkbeliefs in Fairy in considerable detail when piecing together all of the comments made in passing. Works like the Merry Wives of Windsor, The Tempest, Midsummer Nights Dream, are especially useful, but also stray comments in other plays that arent really about Fairies. For example, children disguise themselves as Fairies, thereby terrifying the onlookers. We can see from this, the Fairies actually look like humansize youth, are luminous, and Humans value their fateful blessings but are terrified of their fateful curses. Moreover, the more powerful they are, the younger they appear (and likewise the more innocent but less ethically mature). So where the Fairy Queen Titania is described as a toddler, we can see she typically appears as if a human two-year-old. And so on. Generally, the English culture argued that their Nonchristian nature beings arent evil demons, just immature children. There is lots of information about Fairies when one looks for it.

The origins of the folkbeliefs are animistic nature beings. Understanding animism helps. These beings are literal features of nature.

In the Norse traditions, the Alfar are various patterns of sunlight. These military formations of sunlight comprise numerous persons. The light is a person. The light behaves the way it does because it "likes" to and "chooses" to behave that way.

In the British traditions, the Fairy are fertile soil. To see notable areas of lush vegetation, such as a cluster of trees, is itself evidence that Fairies live there. The Scottish and English traditions tend to blend Celtic folkbeliefs about Sidhe (Scot. Sith) with other folkbeliefs of Anglians and Saxons. There is some Nordic influences too. But Britain evolves its own unique folkbeliefs. There are regional distinctions. In the south, in England, the Fairies normally manifest out of the soil to appear as if small human children. But in the north, in Scotland, the Elves (aka the Sith) appear as if human adults. In all cases, the British apparitions are immaterial spirits manifesting from the soil. Some of the Scottish witches compare the Elves to a "shadow" that has a form but without any substance.

And so.



To translate these reallife ethnic heritages into D&D gaming rules is a sensitive ethical challenge. On the one hand, it is cool to preserve these traditions in interesting ways that the world today can enjoy. At the same time, caution is necessary to avoid misrepresentation or insult.



The Norse folkbeliefs translate well into D&D. Unlike other cultures that have all-powerful "gods", the different kinds of Norse nature beings are all moreorless equally powerful as each other. In the Eddas and over a hundred Sagas, there are examples of individuals, a powerful Human individual, a powerful Dvergar individual, a powerful Æsir individual, and so on, each able to defeat the other in that story. Heh, in one story, a Human punches out Óðinn and throws him overboard. For D&D, this seems identical to the concept of Character Level. The Norsesque species have features that moreorless balance with each other. A Human is just as powerful as an Æsir. But. Óðinn isnt a more powerful species − he is simply a higher level character. So the next challenge is to compare which D&D classes compare well to which Norse folkbeliefs. Generally speaking, the 5e Bard is awesome for almost every example of Norse spell effect. Of course, there are no musical instruments, the Nordic lands lacked them. The Norse mages do magic by means of thoughts (Hugar), often using speech and sometimes using novel runic inscriptions as a technique to focus thoughts. I am comfortable with translating Norse Hugar into D&D "Psionics", as the method of spellcasting. Despite the Psionic "Spellcasting Focus", the features of the Bard class work uncannily well. It turns out, basing the Bard on mythologically Celtic folkbeliefs ended up helping out Nordic folkbeliefs as well. Much of it is variations of shamanic animism. Heh, Norse mages are typically psionic Bards.

In addition to Bard, an other surprisingly useful D&D class is Paladin: the abjuration magic coheres well with Norse warrior magic. The Norse males can and did do magic, but it was a social taboo for a male to be cowardly, so it was dishonorable to use magic to harm enemies from a distance. But to use magic to heal and empower oneself and ones allies, in order to face an enemy courageously in battle, face-to-face. Hence the Paladin is awesome. Because I personally like mages, I would also use the Cleric class as a fullcaster, but flavor it exactly like the Paladin class, to represent warrior magic.

Note, the Norse nature beings are literally features of nature. The sunlight is alive, conscious, and sapient. One can communicate (telepathically) with sunlight, and viceversa. On rare occasions, the sunlight projects outofbody sotospeak to manifest in a Human form. Sometimes this form more like a ghostly apparition. But occasionally it is a full-on form of flesh-and-blood. (There is a detailed story about a mountain who becomes a human.) Note, not every sunlight mind is able to materialize in this way. If a mind does this, it is because the mind knows how to do the magic to be able to do this. Almost by definition, an Alfar who can manifest out from the sunlight must be a mage. The Alfar can also teach a Human how to do this, translating back and forth between sunlight and flesh. Viceversa, a Human can teach an Alfar some of the magic that the Human knows how to do. Even the Æsir are learning and teaching the same kinds of magic that Human mages are doing. There is no difference. Indeed, the first Human mages were taught by Jǫtnar how to magic. It is typical for Norse mages to go into a magical trance, to travel outofbody to visit with outofbody nature beings, for these beings to train them to do magic.

In D&D, the Druid class can be useful − not really for the Norse Humans − but the druidic elemental magic helps to actualize the weather magic, and similar, that the sky beings can do. Meanwhile, the Sámi mages do weather magic, and animal shapeshifting is also prominent, so the Druid with some tweaks can help toward these Nordic folkbeliefs.

From a D&D perspective, all of this is caster classes and class levels. High level casters learn how to cast higher level spells. This is true for Humans, Dvergar, Alfar, Jǫtnar, Æsir, Vanir, and Corpses. It is all levels in caster classes.

In the Scottish folkbeliefs, the Elves are immaterial spirits. The D&D 5e concept of the Fey plane works out well. The Scottish Elves are fertile soil, literally. When they project outofbody, they do so as immaterial spirits. D&D represents this well enough. The Fey Plane is an immaterial spiritworld. But the spirits moving thru the Fey Plane appear as virtual bodies whose form behaves as if a material body, or close enough to one anyway. So the Scottish Elves are moreorless like Humans when projecting out-of-soil, except they are Fey, not Material. The Elves rarely materialize into the flesh-and-blood of the Material Plane, and Humans rarely spiritualize into the immateriality of the Fey Plane, but there are stories about this kind of translation happening. For the Scottish witches and Fairie Knights, I am leaning toward the Warlock class, and Fey subclass themes, except healing magic is central. So spells like Cure Wounds and such are necessary for this kind of Warlock to have. Also notably, the Warlocks comprise a community who visit each other across the Fey-Material veil.

Anyway, in the case of Norse, Sámi, Scottish, and English folkbeliefs, it is easy to talk about Nonhuman species who are Humanoid and comparable to the Human species, and who have a strictly Human culture. For example, the Nordic nature beings speak Nordic languages and participate in local Nordic cultures and customs. Scottish nature beings speak Scots and Gaelic, and participate in Scottish cultures and customs. These are Human cultures.


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> While I do think PHBs should be setting neutral. It is still important for D&D to have some amount of flavor in its core books. It need not mention specific places, but I don't want it to be so neutral it doesn't pop for me. Again they can sometimes have some vague details or even a few specifics knowing these things will change from campaign to campaign. But there is a kind of default D&D I think that the PHB tends to help provide to GMs and Players.
> 
> You don't want to interfere with GM creativity but you also do want to spark it.



As far as I can tell, the Players Handbook does well to be Human-only, along with a minimalist Medievalesque flavor where magic is real.

The DMs Guide can inspire more details to spark imagination.

The Forgotten Realms Guide will detail deeper and wider flavors. In addition to Nonhuman options, it can add new spells and items, that are pertinent to the unique cultures that populate this particular Setting.

Also, wisdom from 4e. Start local and small, in a specific region. Or better yet, offer a selection of specific regions around the planet! Then gradually expand outward from there.

If there is a reallife objection to some aspect of the Setting, it is easier to fix a single town, rather than fix everything that exists in Forgotten Realms.


----------



## Scribe

Yaarel said:


> As far as I can tell, the Players Handbook does well to be Human-only, along with a minimalist Medievalesque flavor where magic is real.




How to kill off interest, in one book. lol


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> As far as I can tell, the Players Handbook does well to be Human-only, along with a minimalist Medievalesque flavor where magic is real.
> 
> The DMs Guide can inspire more details to spark imagination.
> 
> The Forgotten Realms Guide will detail deeper and wider flavors. In addition to Nonhuman options, it can add new spells and items, that are pertinent to the unique cultures that populate this particular Setting.




Again if that is what you want from D&D, I can't tell you you are wrong. It is your preference so that is fair. This just isn't what I look for in the PHB. 



Yaarel said:


> Also, wisdom from 4e. Start local and small, in a specific region. Or better yet, offer a selection of specific regions around the planet! Then gradually expand outward from there.




Here I think I agree in part. Start local and small can be good. And I often do that. But I also think there is value with starting broad prior to beginning small. I think the macro and the micro are both important to world building. But for published material, I want a complete setting, at least in the broad strokes.


----------



## Yaarel

Scribe said:


> How to kill off interest, in one book. lol





Bedrockgames said:


> Again if that is what you want from D&D, I can't tell you you are wrong. It is your preference so that is fair. This just isn't what I look for in the PHB.



To be fair, there are many fun fantasy stories about Humans doing magic − without referencing other species.

Meanwhile, the Setting Guides become the go-to places for more flavorful options, and have the design space to go into far more flavor than the core rules can.

But an important benefit is to separate D&D core from bad decisions that occasionally happen in a Setting.



Even today, right now, when the designers are actively trying to avoid racism, the Spelljammer setting turns out in hindsight to be appalling. The racist slave origins of the Hadozee and its adventure forcing players to commit racist genocide. WTF! We laugh at NuTSR. But this is WotC doing this.

Could you imagine if the core rules flavor of the Players Handbook was pushing this racist yuck?

Keeping the Players Handbook setting-neutral and far away from the dangers of Setting flavors is helpful in the long run.


----------



## Scribe

Yaarel said:


> To be fair, there are many fun fantasy stories about Humans doing magic − without referencing other species.



No doubt, but I dont think D&D is going to ever go that path at this point. There are dozens of <insert character option name here> now, I cannot even possibly name them all off the top of my head.

We wont be going back to just Humans, heck, D&D hasnt been about 'just humans' since forever.


----------



## Yaarel

Scribe said:


> No doubt, but I dont think D&D is going to ever go that path at this point. There are dozens of <insert character option name here> now, I cannot even possibly name them all off the top of my head.
> 
> We wont be going back to just Humans, heck, D&D hasnt been about 'just humans' since forever.



My proposal is four core books:
• Players Handbook
• Forgotten Realms Guide
• DMs Guide
• Monster Manual

So, One D&D will still have many Nonhuman options, organized into one of the core four books. These options will come with specific in-setting flavors, including cosmology, diverse cultures, organizations, beliefs, customs, and so on.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> Keeping the Players Handbook setting-neutral and far away from the dangers of Setting flavors is helpful in the long run.




I don't think it is healthy for the hobby, or beneficial to peoples creativity, to be this afraid of setting flavors. Again our bar is probably different, I tend to take an approach of we should trust the audience to read things charitably enough and have enough of a nuanced material that they aren't taking offense at something that merely has the optics of potentially being offensive, versus something that is genuinely offensive. That bar is going to be subjective of course, but I would say it needs to be set at a reasonable place, so designers, writers, etc can still be creative and it doesn't feel like they have trope police looking over their shoulder all the time (I think that is a pretty impossible situation to be truly creative).

Also I don't think shifting those choices away from the core book, if they are still objectionable to people, really does much. If people are going to object to something, they will object to it. In your spelljammer example, which I haven't really followed closely so I am not especially suited for weighing in on the specifics, seems to have gained tremendous traction on forums and on twitter, yet it has nothing to do with he core book.


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think it is healthy for the hobby, or beneficial to peoples creativity, to be this afraid of setting flavors. Again our bar is probably different, I tend to take an approach of we should trust the audience to read things charitably enough and have enough of a nuanced material that they aren't taking offense at something that merely has the optics of potentially being offensive, versus something that is genuinely offensive. That bar is going to be subjective of course, but I would say it needs to be set at a reasonable place, so designers, writers, etc can still be creative and it doesn't feel like they have trope police looking over their shoulder all the time (I think that is a pretty impossible situation to be truly creative).
> 
> Also I don't think shifting those choices away from the core book, if they are still objectionable to people, really does much. If people are going to object to something, they will object to it. In your spelljammer example, which I haven't really followed closely so I am not especially suited for weighing in on the specifics, seems to have gained tremendous traction on forums and on twitter, yet it has nothing to do with he core book.



Moving setting content to a separate book, a Setting Guide, creates a safer space for creative authors to play. Because. If the setting gets something important wrong, it is easy to swap out the problematic setting for a different setting without such a problem.

Then, it is easier to update a problematic setting and swap it back in. The bad alternative would be to need to rewrite the entirety of the D&D edition if the problem was baked into the core rules themselves ruining everything everywhere.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Yaarel said:


> My proposal is four core books:
> • Players Handbook
> • Forgotten Realms Guide
> • DMs Guide
> • Monster Manual
> 
> So, One D&D will still have many Nonhuman options, organized into one of the core four books. These options will come with specific in-setting flavors, including cosmology, diverse cultures, organizations, beliefs, customs, and so on.



Not everyone is invested in FR. Your proposal "forces" non-FR groups (specifically groups with homebrewed settings) to have to purchase an additional book to gain mechanics for non-human options. That is a terrible idea.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Crimson Longinus said:


> Just stop with the childish and silly "acceptable targets for kill-on-sight". You can have some like the mindless undead, but overall the game is better if the antagonists have actual motivations.
> 
> Also, it helps if we can accept that a bunch of wandering vigilantes don't necessarily need to be flawless paragons of virtue.




I think, the line is, if they raise children and thus those children can be tought to not be evil.

Most of the dilemmas in oir 2e games arose, when we found goblin noncombat children and women.
Somw of us argued, that we kill them, because they will be monsters when grown up. Some of us argued they could be raised to be good.

So this is the situation I really like to avoid.
Fey don't raise children, gnolls of 5e don't, orcs and uruk-hai of lotr also don't.
Mind flayers also have no children, but they infest other peoples with a tadpole.
A bit more ambiguous, but still in the realm of monsters.


----------



## Vaalingrade

AnotherGuy said:


> Not everyone is invested in FR. Your proposal "forces" no-FR groups (specifically groups with homebrewed settings) to have to purchase an additional book to gain mechanics for non-human options. That is a terrible idea.



I think the intention is that the good species will still be in the PH, but the FR-specific junk goes in the FR book and is more fleshed out there because there's room.

And hopefully the good settings will also have setting books again.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Vaalingrade said:


> I think the intention is that the good species will still be in the PH, but the FR-specific junk goes in the FR book and is more fleshed out there because there's room.



That was already being done.
And no that is not what the poster was proposing. They proposed a PHB for with humans only.


----------



## Yaarel

Yeah, I do mean, the Players Handbook is Human-only.



AnotherGuy said:


> Not everyone is invested in FR. Your proposal "forces" non-FR groups (specifically groups with homebrewed settings) to have to purchase an additional book to gain mechanics for non-human options. That is a terrible idea.



"Forcing" gamers "to have to purchase an additional book":

Heh, I can picture the Hasbro board of directors wringing their hands in delight.



At the same time, I assume the following will be true:

1. Gamers can purchase the 2024 Forgotten Realms Guide for the Nonhumans options according to FR flavor.
2. Gamers can still use the species that are in the 2014 Players Handbook.
3. Gamers can also download a free update for the 2014 PH species with the new rules for Ability Scores and Backgrounds.
4. Possibly, the 2024 DMs Guide will list several Nonhuman species as samples for homebrew worldbuilding.
5. The Town of Blackmoor and the City of Greyhawk might be an additional 50th Anniversary Setting Guide with updated 1e flavor.
6. There might also be a different Setting Guide with a different selection of Nonhuman options, such as MtG.
7. Gamers can download the free 2024 SRD with a number of Nonhuman species without flavor, to flavor themselves.
8. Probably, gamers can download a free 2024 Basic D&D game with simple Nonhuman options.
9. Indy publishers will have other Setting Guides ready for the 2024 Anniversary Edition launch.
10. DnDBeyond online will continue to have its list of Nonhuman species, with SRD ones for free, like it currently does now.
11. All of the above will be accessible via DnDBeyond.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> Yeah, I do mean, the Players Handbook is Human-only.
> 
> 
> "Forcing" gamers "to have to purchase an additional book":
> 
> Heh, I can picture the Hasbro board of directors wringing their hands in delight.
> 
> 
> 
> At the same time, I assume the following will be true:
> 
> 1. Gamers can purchase the 2024 Forgotten Realms Guide for the Nonhumans options according to FR flavor.
> 2. Gamers can still use the species that are in the 2014 Players Handbook.
> 3. Gamers can also download a free update for the 2014 PH species if wanting them with the new rules for Ability Scores and Backgrounds.
> 4. Possibly, the 2024 DMs Guide will list several Nonhuman species as samples for homebrew worldbuilding.
> 5. The Town of Blackmoor and the City of Greyhawk might be an additional 50th Anniversary Setting Guide with updated 1e flavor.
> 6. There might also be a different Setting Guide with a different selection of Nonhuman options, such as MtG.
> 7. Gamers can download the free 2024 SRD with a number of Nonhuman species without flavor, to flavor themselves.
> 8. Probably, gamers can download a free 2024 Basic D&D game with simple Nonhuman options.
> 9. Indy publishers will have other Setting Guides ready for the 2024 Anniversary Edition launch.
> 10. DnDBeyond online will continue to have its list of Nonhuman species, with SRD ones for free, like it currently does now.
> 11. All of the above will be accessible via DnDBeyond.




I just don't understand why you would make the PHB human only. It seems like players want options like dwarves, elves, etc. And especially if you move that material to the FR book, people would get resentful because a lot of people have no interest in FR and don't plan on buying the FR book (not a knock on the setting but I would imagine a sizable portion of the hobby doesn't buy forgotten realms books). 

D&D is already asking a lot from consumers with three core books (even when I started I had to slowly buy the three core books over like a year or two). That is a big investment for a lot of people, especially if you are in say highschool or college (which I am sure a lot of people are). So putting portions of the game in other books seems like a move that would potentially be off-putting to anyone who has to save for these books.


----------



## Vaalingrade

AnotherGuy said:


> That was already being done.
> And no that is not what the poster was proposing. They proposed a PHB for humans only.



Oh. That would be a non-starter if you want anyone new to play this game ever.


----------



## Yaarel

Bedrockgames said:


> I just don't understand why you would make the PHB human only.



Human-only makes the core rules practicably setting-neutral.



Bedrockgames said:


> It seems like players want options like dwarves, elves, etc.



Different players want different species. Different Settings feature different species. Setting-neutral core rules makes diverse preference easier.

For example, many old-schoolers want 1e Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, and Half Orc.

Many new schoolers want Elf, Dragonborn, and Tiefling.

Meanwhile Aardling and Goliath are on the way. Maybe Genasi and ten other species too.

Gnomes are important to many groups who have one player who loves them.

Magic The Gathering settings often have a completely different selection of Nonhuman species.

DM homebrewers do whatever they please.

The core rules need to get out of the way of all of these possible Setting preferences.



Bedrockgames said:


> And especially if you move that material to the FR book, people would get resentful because a lot of people have no interest in FR and don't plan on buying the FR book (not a knock on the setting but I would imagine a sizable portion of the hobby doesn't buy forgotten realms books).



The purpose of moving the Setting species into the FR Guide, is for players who want a different Setting, such as an Eberron Guide with its own versions of Nonhuman species. The Human-only Players Handbook will work seemlessly with any Setting that the DM prefers.



Bedrockgames said:


> D&D is already asking a lot from consumers with three core books (even when I started I had to slowly buy the three core books over like a year or two).



The rest of my post listed several ways to get the Nonhuman species options for free.


----------



## Incenjucar

If nothing else, goliaths are an important addition because of the Critical Role fans.

I really hope Aardlings land well. Any excuse for an ancient Egyptian aesthetic that isn't just applied to villains, and there are a bunch of stories to tell about animal-headed spirit beings that don't quite apply to actual animal people.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Hriston said:


> I don't recall him saying anything about the biology of elves, so I can't imagine how bioessentialism is part of their depiction in his work.




That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both the term and the argument being made.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> Human-only makes the core rules practicably setting-neutral.




I don't see this as a plus though. The core book always came with a vague amount of flavor to it. Which again is easy to customize once you make your campaign (and you can always strip out demihumans if you want a human only setting)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> Human-only makes the core rules practicably setting-neutral.
> 
> 
> Different players want different species. Different Settings feature different species. Setting-neutral core rules makes diverse preference easier.
> 
> For example, many old-schoolers want 1e Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, and Half Orc.
> 
> Many new schoolers want Elf, Dragonborn, and Tiefling.
> 
> Meanwhile Aardling and Goliath are on the way. Maybe Genasi and ten other species too.
> 
> Gnomes are important to many groups who have one player who loves them.
> 
> Magic The Gathering settings often have a completely different selection of Nonhuman species.




Sure but you can just include a nice selection of classic and new races, with the statement that particular options may not be available depending on the setting being used.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> The purpose of moving the Setting species into the FR Guide, is for players who want a different Setting, such as an Eberron Guide with its own versions of Nonhuman species. The Human-only Players Handbook will work seemlessly with any Setting that the DM prefers.




I understand your reasoning, I just don't think this is what most people want. The one constant I have seen is players wanting some standard races in the book, and if a setting deviates from standard races, they expect some explanation from the GM


----------



## Scribe

Yaarel said:


> Human-only makes the core rules practicably setting-neutral.




Its going to be 'setting neutral' by being multiverse based if the first race pack is any indication.

Either that, or the text is a hold over for the upcoming Planescape book.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

It is pretty pointless to argue whether PHB should be human only. There is exactly 0% chance of this happening.


----------



## Incenjucar

Something tragic would have to happen for elves, gnomes, halflings, and dwarves to be removed from the PHB within our lifetimes. Even if nobody plays them anymore, it's hard to break off that tradition.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Something amazing would have to happen to rid us of gnomes again.

They tried. They really tried. Then everyone in their grandpa suddenly 'remembered' that the gnome was their absolute favorite right behind half orc.


----------



## Zaukrie

Scribe said:


> During play? No.
> 
> But if the word during play was the issue, race wouldnt be getting replaced.



It is non non-offensive outside play either......so, yes, it would (and is).


----------



## Scribe

Zaukrie said:


> It is non non-offensive outside play either......so, yes, it would (and is).



I...think we agree? It's being replaced for out of play reasons?


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Vaalingrade said:


> Something amazing would have to happen to rid us of gnomes again.
> 
> They tried. They really tried. Then everyone in their grandpa suddenly 'remembered' that the gnome was their absolute favorite right behind half orc.



Hey we've had a gnome in our party for the last 6 months and she's been awesome!


----------



## Incenjucar

Gnomes are just too fun to draw.


Vaalingrade said:


> Something amazing would have to happen to rid us of gnomes again.
> 
> They tried. They really tried. Then everyone in their grandpa suddenly 'remembered' that the gnome was their absolute favorite right behind half orc.



Not getting to play the gnome lawyer bard I generated back in 3E still weighs on my mind.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Incenjucar said:


> Gnomes are just too fun to draw.
> 
> Not getting to play the gnome lawyer bard I generated back in 3E still weighs on my mind.




Tom Bosley probably played a role in peoples love for gnomes


----------



## Bedrockgames

Frozen_Heart said:


> Hey we've had a gnome in our party for the last 6 months and she's been awesome!




I always had a soft spot for the Gnome Illusionist and tinker gnomes. Gnomes seemed to me just as much a part of the game as halflings or dwarves. It wasn't until I got on the internet that I even became aware there were people who strongly disliked them


----------



## Zaukrie

Scribe said:


> I...think we agree? It's being replaced for out of play reasons?



I guess so. Which is why I don't think the word matters, as long as it isn't offensive. heck, make up a word if they want for all care.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Bedrockgames said:


> I always had a soft spot for the Gnome Illusionist and tinker gnomes. Gnomes seemed to me just as much a part of the game as halflings or dwarves. It wasn't until I got on the internet that I even became aware there were people who strongly disliked them



I think that it's largely because they heavily lean into the 'steampunk' type of theme, just like artificers.

And so just like artificers, many people struggle to fit them into their settings, even though logically they can be themed in ways other than that.


----------



## Mecheon

Yaarel said:


> Human-only makes the core rules practicably setting-neutral.



Its not setting neutral though, its Dungeons and Dragons. It always has an implied setting. Anything they produce is in that "Here's D&D's assumptions about things" flavour they have. No matter the setting, D&D elves have some shared assumptions, even as far off as Dark Sun ones

also like, aside from the INCREDIBLY POOR eyes on "You only get humans in the base game and everything else is a purchase" that new players would have on the game, you know the level of unhappy folks would be with a humans only book would be absolutely legendary


----------



## codo

Zaukrie said:


> I guess so. Which is why I don't think the word matters, as long as it isn't offensive. heck, make up a word if they want for all care.



This is why I a pushing for species.  It is kind of dry, sterile, and boring, but in the end I think that is a good thing.  I think it is best to use a strictly out of game term, that is in no way connected to the in-game fiction.  

The entire concept of "Fantasy Races" is at its core a potential minefield of issues.  The very idea of using different "types" of "people" to examine different aspects of human nature and the human psyche, may be a useful literary device, and can create some excellent stories, it is dangerously interconnected with real world issues of racism, stereotyping, and eugenics.

It doesn't help that Tolkien, who is basically the creator of the modern fantasy genre, and a massive influence on everything that came after, was not just a man of his times, he was a man stuck centuries if not millennia in the past.  His work is obsessed with sacred bloodlines, racial purity, and bio-essentialism.   Lets not forget this is the man who described orcs as, "Squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types."

I love Tolkien's work.  The sheer depth and breadth of his worldbuilding is unparalleled.  Truthfully most other fantasy comes across as cheap knock offs of his work.  However the more I really look at his work, and force my self to look past my instinctive fanboy love, I am forced to admit that the man had his issues.


----------



## Hriston

Yaarel said:


> The above quote is the part that coheres with reallife racism. The "revisionism" is to intentionally prevent racism.



I'm not sure if you meant to say what the words you wrote seem to mean, but I have to say I disagree. To prevent the inclusion of racism, we first have to see the game for what it is. Thinking it has always been the way we thought it was or thought it should have been is not helpful. That's what I mean by _revisionism _which, in this case, is a form of denial.



Yaarel said:


> When biological traits and cultural traits are confused together, then the perception is that cultural traits are inherently biological. (Some forumers refer to this as making culture bioessential.) When this happens, value systems such as patriotism become actual racism. The perception is, the other cultures are less human, and to mix with them makes ones own biology less pure. All of this worldview is hatespeech translated into a pseudoscience.
> 
> Tolkien is riddled with this kind of racist way of thinking. As are some parts of D&D traditions. − Because of the failure to distinguish what is inherent with what is learned.
> 
> Modern genetics has shown that the what separates one humans appearance and an other humans appearance is genetically trivial. We all come from the same ancestors − recently. (Our ancestral _Homo sapiens_ probably resemble Ethiopians today.)
> 
> The important distinctions are cultural − and there are many styles of being human.



Okay, so to take an extreme example, because Dwarf is perceived as a biological category (dwarves after all being somewhat physically different from other groups), then Dwarven Combat Training creates the impression that dwarves are biologically determined to use certain weapons. I can see how that's a bad look, but I'm not sure it's worse than something that's explicitly a cultural inclination.



Yaarel said:


> There seems to be confusion between different meanings of the English word "people".
> 
> 1. "people" (*plural*) = persons, the nonstandard plural of "person": one person, two people.
> 2. "the people" (plural) = the citizens of a government.
> 3. "a people" (*singular*) = an autonomous ethnicity: one people, two peoples.
> 
> (Note, the citizens of the US are both plural "the people" in contrast to the government, and singular "a people" as a melting-pot ethnicity.)
> 
> 
> 
> The quote from Wikipedia is definition 1: "any plurality of persons considered as a whole". It even says, the plural of person.
> Examples of taking a group of persons "as a whole":
> 
> The joke: "There are two kinds of people. Those who divide the world into two kinds of people. And those who dont."
> = two kinds of "persons"
> ≠ two kinds of "peoples"
> 
> "I'll have my people call your people."
> = my persons and your persons
> ≠ my ethnicity and your ethnicity
> ​D&D people versus Pathfinder people.
> = persons who prefer D&D versus persons who prefer Pathfinder
> ≠ an ethnicity of D&D versus an ethnicity of Pathfinder
> 
> For the English word "people": definition 1 ("persons") is common and normal. But definition 3 ("an ethnicity") is rare, and seems to be causing confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even definition 2 ("the citizens" versus the government) is uncommon − and often misleading since it is unlikely every citizen participates in the generalization. For example, to say, During the French Revolution the people overthrew the aristocracy, wrongly implies that every French nonaristocrat stopped supporting the aristocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> All in all, the term "a people" seems to confuse, and worse, seems able to cohere with a racist worldview.



There's no confusion on my end. Just look at a dictionary:
*peo·ple*​/ˈpēp(ə)l/​_noun_​plural noun: *people*; noun: *people*; plural noun: *peoples*; noun: *one's people*; plural noun: *one's peoples*​
1. human beings in general or considered collectively.​"the earthquake killed 30,000 people"​
the citizens of a country, especially when considered in relation to those who govern them.
noun: *the people*
"his economic reforms no longer have the support of the people"
those without special rank or position in society; the populace.
noun: *the people*
"he is very much a man of the people"
US
the state prosecution in a trial.
"pretrial statements made by the People's witnesses"
2. the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.​"the native peoples of Canada"​
3. the supporters or employees of a person in a position of power or authority.​"I've had my people watching the house for some time now"​
Your first two meanings fall under definition 1. Your third is definition 2, which is also the definition that covers the Wikipedia quote due to its use of the indefinite article _a, _as in "a people". Try substituting "a people" (or "peoples" where a plural form is needed) into any of the example sentences beside the one for definition 2 without changing the meaning. It can't be done.


----------



## Scott Christian

Hriston said:


> I think it's notable that out of all those quotes, only the one about dwarven blood (said in an unreliable narrator voice) says anything about biology.



I am having a hard time believing you actually mean this. If you do, then I guess that is your interpretation. And, as I said, I am fine with however they do it. But to read the PHB section on races, and see all the words that imply biology, and then say they don't, seems disingenuous. And again, I am fine if they want to go back and say they didn't mean it that way. That is okay. But when they wrote the word natural over and over, and inborn, and inherent, there is a motif there that any reader can extrapolate.


----------



## Hriston

Cadence said:


> It feels like the point folks are trying to make is that the playtest material for One, the more recent products that have redone races, and the way WotC has been phrasing things is that it looks like Race is heading towards being predominantly about biological things and not cultural things - and may end up pretty much only being about them. What was done in past editions doesn't seem relevant to where One is going in this regard.
> 
> What was done in the past is certainly relevant to judging statements about what was done in the past though!



The statement wasn't made about the One D&D playtest or where D&D is headed in the future. It was about how "Race" is "used in D&D" which is a multi-edition series of games published from 1974 up to the present. I don't think it's accurate to say _race_ in that context is about representing a character's biology. It's about a much broader depiction of the character as a type of fantasy person.


----------



## Cadence

Hriston said:


> The statement wasn't made about the One D&D playtest or where D&D is headed in the future. It was about how "Race" is "used in D&D" which is a multi-edition series of games published from 1974 up to the present. I don't think it's accurate to say _race_ in that context is about representing a character's biology. It's about a much broader depiction of the character as a type of fantasy person.




Hence my last sentence "What was done in the past is certainly relevant to judging statements about what was done in the past though!"

Going forward it feels like they're mostly (if not entirely) aiming for biology, and so it felt to me that's the context the poll might be most usefully answered in.


----------



## Hriston

Bill Zebub said:


> That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both the term and the argument being made.



Is it the same thing as biological determinism? Because that relies on a physiological component on which to blame a person's behavior. So if we're going to say that elves in the works of J. R. R. Tolkien are bioessentialist, then we have to imagine there's something distinct about their physiology that makes them different from humans, but from what I can recall, those kinds of details aren't provided. Is it just that people are just assuming because they're elves they have a different set of biological characteristics? I'd be happy if someone wanted to break down the argument for me.


----------



## Hriston

Scott Christian said:


> I am having a hard time believing you actually mean this. If you do, then I guess that is your interpretation. And, as I said, I am fine with however they do it. But to read the PHB section on races, and see all the words that imply biology, and then say they don't, seems disingenuous. And again, I am fine if they want to go back and say they didn't mean it that way. That is okay. But when they wrote the word natural over and over, and inborn, and inherent, there is a motif there that any reader can extrapolate.



I was only responding to the quotes you provided which I've copied below, and I think we're in agreement that there's a mixture of biological and cultural attributes in D&D races and it's often not clear which is which. I didn't say that implications couldn't be made about whether a given trait is biological or not, only that it isn't outright stated to be so except in that one case. Something can be natural, inherent, or even inborn for your character without having to do with your biology, especially in a world of magic. Traits derived from your ancestors may have been passed down culturally, etc.

"As a forest gnome, you have a _natural_ knack for illusion and _inherent_ quickness and stealth."
"As a rock gnome, you have a _natural_ inventiveness and hardiness..."
"Your half-orc character has certain traits _deriving from your orc ancestry_."
"As a stout halfling, you're hardier than average and have some resistance to poison. Some say that stouts have _dwarven blood_."
"Your elf character has a variety of _natural_ abilities, the results of _thousands of years of elven refinement_."
"Your dwarf character has an assortment of _inborn_ abilities, the part and parcel of dwarven _nature_."


----------



## Yaarel

The dictionary that I like best for American English is the _American Heritage Dictionary_. When I was in college I compared a bunch of dictionaries because I needed one that supplied excellent etymologies. Since then, this dictionary has be continued to prove itself both precise and accurate while remaining succinct. I love this online website TheFreeDictionary.com because it cites the _American Heritage Dictionary_ for American dialects and the _Collins English Dictionary_ for British dialects, and sometimes adds other dictionaries if necessary to help catch a specific nuance or technical jargon.

Here in brief:
1. a plural of _person_
2a. a body of persons in the same country under one government
2b. citizens
3. (pl. peoples) a body of persons sharing a culture
4. persons with regard to their group: city people, farming people [= city persons, farming persons]

Honestly the _Collins English Dictionary_ does better here laying out this particular entry. But both dictionaries are clear.

Anyway none of these definitions means "a race". Either it means anyone anywhere indefinitely, or it means a specific culture or state. Elves are many cultures and many governments. Elves are many peoples and many citizenries.





Hriston said:


> There's no confusion on my end. Just look at a dictionary:
> 
> *peo·ple*​/ˈpēp(ə)l/​_noun_​plural noun: *people*; noun: *people*; plural noun: *peoples*; noun: *one's people*; plural noun: *one's peoples*​
> 1. human beings in general or considered collectively.​"the earthquake killed 30,000 people"​
> the citizens of a country, especially when considered in relation to those who govern them.
> noun: *the people*
> "his economic reforms no longer have the support of the people"
> those without special rank or position in society; the populace.
> noun: *the people*
> "he is very much a man of the people"
> US
> the state prosecution in a trial.
> "pretrial statements made by the People's witnesses"
> 2. the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.​"the native peoples of Canada"​
> 3. the supporters or employees of a person in a position of power or authority.​"I've had my people watching the house for some time now"​
> Your first two meanings fall under definition 1. Your third is definition 2, which is also the definition that covers the Wikipedia quote due to its use of the indefinite article _a, _as in "a people". Try substituting "a people" (or "peoples" where a plural form is needed) into any of the example sentences beside the one for definition 2 without changing the meaning. It can't be done.



Which dictionary are you citing? It is a less good dictionary. It fails to make clear the first, main, and most frequent meaning which is: a nonstandard plural for the noun "person". Altho the plural "persons" happens in official and formal writing, it is uncommon in spoken usage. Instead, English speakers mostly use the term "people" when referring to more than one "person": one person, two people. Moreover, the dictionary entry fails to make clear that definition 2. is a singular countable noun: one people, two peoples.

Definition 1 first says:
"the earthquake killed 30,000 people"
This means exactly the same thing as:
"the earthquake killed 30,000 persons"

But then the subdefinitions switch to a different meaning, which is "citizens", leaving the main meaning "persons" unclear.

I wouldnt use the dicitionary that you cite, whichever one it is.


----------



## Hriston

Cadence said:


> Hence my last sentence "What was done in the past is certainly relevant to judging statements about what was done in the past though!"
> 
> Going forward it feels like they're mostly (if not entirely) aiming for biology, and so it felt to me that's the context the poll might be most usefully answered in.



Where they're aiming remains to be seen. The poll is about replacing the term, not about predicting how PC races will be handled in future publications.


----------



## Yaarel

codo said:


> This is why I a pushing for species.  It is kind of dry, sterile, and boring, but in the end I think that is a good thing.  I think it is best to use a strictly out of game term, that is in no way connected to the in-game fiction.
> 
> The entire concept of "Fantasy Races" is at its core a potential minefield of issues.  The very idea of using different "types" of "people" to examine different aspects of human nature and the human psyche, may be a useful literary device, and can create some excellent stories, it is dangerously interconnected with real world issues of racism, stereotyping, and eugenics.
> 
> It doesn't help that Tolkien, who is basically the creator of the modern fantasy genre, and a massive influence on everything that came after, was not just a man of his times, he was a man stuck centuries if not millennia in the past.  His work is obsessed with sacred bloodlines, racial purity, and bio-essentialism.   Lets not forget this is the man who described orcs as, "Squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types."
> 
> I love Tolkien's work.  The sheer depth and breadth of his worldbuilding is unparalleled.  Truthfully most other fantasy comes across as cheap knock offs of his work.  However the more I really look at his work, and force my self to look past my instinctive fanboy love, I am forced to admit that the man had his issues.



I appreciate your post.

I dont need my heroes to be perfect. I can admire someone because of the good things they accomplished and still cautiously critique any less good things.


----------



## Cadence

Hriston said:


> Where they're aiming remains to be seen. The poll is about replacing the term, not about predicting how PC races will be handled in future publications.




It feels odd to me to pick the term that will be used for  PC "races" in the future without considering how those PC races will be handled. But ok.


----------



## Yaarel

The term "race" is generally unhelpful for D&D.

Of its meanings:
• It is scientifically wrong
• It is antiquated (and typically racist)
• It is archaic convoluted legalese (such as the US census bureau)

None of its meanings is actually useful for gaming.

Mainly, D&D originally used this term "race" because it is antiquated. It sounded pseudomedieval, in the sense that some medievalists around year 1900 also used this term when referring to the medieval period. But this same usage is intrinsic to reallife "racism", especially when applied as a pseudoscience.

In the US census, the usage of the archaic legalese "race" means one of five American melting-pot ethnicities. For example, where Italian and Polish are separate ethnicities in Europe, in the US these and others historically tended to mix together to form a distinctive White American ethnicity. Likewise, where Mali and Gabon are different nations, in the US these and others historically tended to blend together to form a Black American ethnicity. Generally, a Pan-Europe American ethnicity and a Pan-Africa American ethnicity.

Black American is a distinctive "ethnicity". It is distinct from Jamaican, for example. US citizens of African descent may or may not self-identify with the ethnic culture. Likewise, a Black community can include members of European ancestry, such as spouses as well as kids who grow up in it.

Even in the archaic legalese of the census bureau that is peculiar to US history, the term "race" is increasingly meaningless. The US government officially recognizes exactly five "races": White, Black, Native, Asian, and Pacific Islander. But each of these categories is problematic. For example. The Native tends to prefer the term Indigenous, while tending to self-identify as distinct tribes. The White includes the "Mideast and North Africa" or "MENA" who will in the future be counted as a separate "race", and who can include Jewish Americans. Asian includes India and China who no one ever views as if a same "race". Meanwhile, Latino is officially counted, but is officially not a race, and may or may not overlap the official races. Plus there is an additional "Other Race" category that is counted but remains unofficial.

Meanwhile the term "Brown race" is gaining frequency in demographic discourse, as a political category, for ethnicities that are neither European nor African.

The historical forces that separated US citizens from each other − namely slavery and segregation − are vanishing. Americans increasingly mix freely. Increasingly an American ethnicity emerges that comprises a tapestry of different kinds of heritages, forming an inclusive national identity.

In other words, the US legalese is arguably the only "neutral" use of the term "race" left, and even it seems an unfixable mess.



For D&D, the term "race" seems the most unhelpful and the least self-explanatory jargon possible.


----------



## Scribe

Yaarel said:


> For D&D, the term "race" seems the most unhelpful and the least self-explanatory jargon possible.




It really isnt, because literally every single D&D player knows what it means, within the context of D&D.

I'm not saying it is a bad idea for WotC to move away from the term for the game, but for D&D, its 100% the most self explanatory jargon possible, with decades upon decades of reinforcement and use.

Anyway, onward to the survey, so we can say "Use Ancestry please, Species is boring."


----------



## Bedrockgames

Frozen_Heart said:


> I think that it's largely because they heavily lean into the 'steampunk' type of theme, just like artificers.
> 
> And so just like artificers, many people struggle to fit them into their settings, even though logically they can be themed in ways other than that.




I don't particularly like Steam punk, but I see tinkerers more in the mold of Heron of Alexandria 


Yaarel said:


> In the US census, the usage of the archaic legalese "race" means one of five American melting-pot ethnicities. For example, where Italian and Polish are separate ethnicities in Europe, in the US these and others historically tended to mix together to form a distinctive White American ethnicity.




The census doesn’t match the reality on the ground though. It is a simplification. Not really relevant to the discussion but in the US these are regarded as different ethnicities by most people. That is why you will still have Italian festivals and polish festivals. Also the history of Italians in the US is complicated. I have a copy of my grandfathers old boxing license and it includes a section for “Complexion” and he was entered as “medium”. When he was a kid, they were generally sho’d away from the ‘white’ section of the city. That was back in the 20s and 30s though so things have changed a lot. But even in the 50s my mother grew up in what could be labeled an Italian enclave. Assimilation and intermarriage have also changed things a great deal but I think most Italian Americans consider themselves a separate ethnicity from Polish for sure. A lot of this varied by region in the country though. It seems much less important when I’ve been out west. I’m  Italian, Irish and Jewish and here in Boston each of those are considered a distinct group. And each of those identities are still pretty strong even generations later


----------



## Yaarel

@Scribe, I agree jargon is jargon. Its meaning is its technical usage. The nice problem to have, is D&D is becoming culturally mainstream. Now the primary meanings of the term "race" − and problematically charged meanings − interfere with its very narrow gaming nomenclature. It is easy for many people to misunderstand D&D when seeing the term "race".



Bedrockgames said:


> The census doesn’t match the reality on the ground though. It is a simplification.



Yeah, and that makes the term "race" even less useful and less self-explanatory.



Bedrockgames said:


> I’m Italian, Irish and Jewish and here in Boston each of those are considered a distinct group. And each of those identities are still pretty strong even generations later



Some fun anecdotes.

I have a good friend who is American. His dad is Irish, and his mom is Polish. My friend is a priest. He has two brothers, one is gay and one is straight but infertile. His parents expected no grandchildren despite having three sons. My priest friend eloped with a nun and got married. Heh, his very Catholic parents have mixed feelings about this.

Boston surprised my brother and I. It is probably the most segregated city I have ever visited, but it seems to have nothing to do with race. Italians have their neighborhood, Irish theirs, "Wasps" theirs, Black Americans theirs, Jamaican Americans theirs, and so on. We went with our friends (Canadians from India and Sri Lanka) to a pub. It was all White college students there, but we didnt think much of it. We heard music upstairs, so decided to go dance. Upstairs was completely Black American, over a hundred easily. We had never seen this kind of self-segregation before. Two rooms of the same place, completely different. But it was about ethnic self-identity. It didnt feel like "race". Anyway, we had a great time. Of all of the groups in Boston, the Blacks felt the most like "normal Americans".


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> Yeah, and that makes the term "race" even less useful and less self-explanatory.




The US census has a very unusual way of grouping race, and ethnicity is even more unusual. If I remember it is Asian, White, Black, Alaskan, Native American, and Pacific Islander. And I think ethnicity is divided into hispanic and non-hispanic. The reason this grouping is strange is it pretty much doesn't match at all how people in the US talk about racial and ethnic identity. Obviously people might distinguish being hispanic or latino, but non-hispanic isn't exactly a category people think of. And hispanic, I believe doesn't include people from countries that speak Portuguese (it is possible I am wrong on that). Where I live, most of my neighbors are from places like Guatemala, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, etc. So it is a mixture of Spanish and Portuguese, but also a wide cultural and geographic range. When people say ethnicity in the US, it would refer to things like Italian, Polish, Mexican, etc. I think race has a much looser use and can mean either ethnicity or a division between white, black and asian (and I would say I saw more of the latter use on the west coast than the east coast, where ethnicity is more significant than race). Again it isn't really relevant to the topic at hand, but my point is just people in the US know the census is divided into odd categories that don't necessarily reflect how people in daily life think and talk about ethnicity and race.


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> Heh, this is a pertinent question. Because, as you seem to remember, some of my settings do have mythologically accurate Faerie Knights and Alfar.
> 
> It is a challenge to translate them accurately within the context of D&D rules and gaming balance.
> 
> To describe them, I start with the reallife folkbeliefs (from an academic, often archeological perspective).
> 
> Mostly, the Alfar come from Icelandic texts as well as Norwegian and Swedish contexts, such as place names, and earlier strata within later folkbeliefs.
> 
> Mostly, the Fairie come from the records of the reallife Scottish witch trials, where witches describe their encounters with various Elves. Anything that is clearly foreign, such as Christian theology can be safely ignored. Meanwhile, Shakespeare plays happen to describe the English folkbeliefs in Fairy in considerable detail when piecing together all of the comments made in passing. Works like the Merry Wives of Windsor, The Tempest, Midsummer Nights Dream, are especially useful, but also stray comments in other plays that arent really about Fairies. For example, children disguise themselves as Fairies, thereby terrifying the onlookers. We can see from this, the Fairies actually look like humansize youth, are luminous, and Humans value their fateful blessings but are terrified of their fateful curses. Moreover, the more powerful they are, the younger they appear (and likewise the more innocent but less ethically mature). So where the Fairy Queen Titania is described as a toddler, we can see she typically appears as if a human two-year-old. And so on. Generally, the English culture argued that their Nonchristian nature beings arent evil demons, just immature children. There is lots of information about Fairies when one looks for it.
> 
> The origins of the folkbeliefs are animistic nature beings. Understanding animism helps. These beings are literal features of nature.
> 
> In the Norse traditions, the Alfar are various patterns of sunlight. These military formations of sunlight comprise numerous persons. The light is a person. The light behaves the way it does because it "likes" to and "chooses" to behave that way.
> 
> In the British traditions, the Fairy are fertile soil. To see notable areas of lush vegetation, such as a cluster of trees, is itself evidence that Fairies live there. The Scottish and English traditions tend to blend Celtic folkbeliefs about Sidhe (Scot. Sith) with other folkbeliefs of Anglians and Saxons. There is some Nordic influences too. But Britain evolves its own unique folkbeliefs. There are regional distinctions. In the south, in England, the Fairies normally manifest out of the soil to appear as if small human children. But in the north, in Scotland, the Elves (aka the Sith) appear as if human adults. In all cases, the British apparitions are immaterial spirits manifesting from the soil. Some of the Scottish witches compare the Elves to a "shadow" that has a form but without any substance.
> 
> And so.
> 
> 
> 
> To translate these reallife ethnic heritages into D&D gaming rules is a sensitive ethical challenge. On the one hand, it is cool to preserve these traditions in interesting ways that the world today can enjoy. At the same time, caution is necessary to avoid misrepresentation or insult.
> 
> 
> 
> The Norse folkbeliefs translate well into D&D. Unlike other cultures that have all-powerful "gods", the different kinds of Norse nature beings are all moreorless equally powerful as each other. In the Eddas and over a hundred Sagas, there are examples of individuals, a powerful Human individual, a powerful Dvergar individual, a powerful Æsir individual, and so on, each able to defeat the other in that story. Heh, in one story, a Human punches out Óðinn and throws him overboard. For D&D, this seems identical to the concept of Character Level. The Norsesque species have features that moreorless balance with each other. A Human is just as powerful as an Æsir. But. Óðinn isnt a more powerful species − he is simply a higher level character. So the next challenge is to compare which D&D classes compare well to which Norse folkbeliefs. Generally speaking, the 5e Bard is awesome for almost every example of Norse spell effect. Of course, there are no musical instruments, the Nordic lands lacked them. The Norse mages do magic by means of thoughts (Hugar), often using speech and sometimes using novel runic inscriptions as a technique to focus thoughts. I am comfortable with translating Norse Hugar into D&D "Psionics", as the method of spellcasting. Despite the Psionic "Spellcasting Focus", the features of the Bard class work uncannily well. It turns out, basing the Bard on mythologically Celtic folkbeliefs ended up helping out Nordic folkbeliefs as well. Much of it is variations of shamanic animism. Heh, Norse mages are typically psionic Bards.
> 
> In addition to Bard, an other surprisingly useful D&D class is Paladin: the abjuration magic coheres well with Norse warrior magic. The Norse males can and did do magic, but it was a social taboo for a male to be cowardly, so it was dishonorable to use magic to harm enemies from a distance. But to use magic to heal and empower oneself and ones allies, in order to face an enemy courageously in battle, face-to-face. Hence the Paladin is awesome. Because I personally like mages, I would also use the Cleric class as a fullcaster, but flavor it exactly like the Paladin class, to represent warrior magic.
> 
> Note, the Norse nature beings are literally features of nature. The sunlight is alive, conscious, and sapient. One can communicate (telepathically) with sunlight, and viceversa. On rare occasions, the sunlight projects outofbody sotospeak to manifest in a Human form. Sometimes this form more like a ghostly apparition. But occasionally it is a full-on form of flesh-and-blood. (There is a detailed story about a mountain who becomes a human.) Note, not every sunlight mind is able to materialize in this way. If a mind does this, it is because the mind knows how to do the magic to be able to do this. Almost by definition, an Alfar who can manifest out from the sunlight must be a mage. The Alfar can also teach a Human how to do this, translating back and forth between sunlight and flesh. Viceversa, a Human can teach an Alfar some of the magic that the Human knows how to do. Even the Æsir are learning and teaching the same kinds of magic that Human mages are doing. There is no difference. Indeed, the first Human mages were taught by Jǫtnar how to magic. It is typical for Norse mages to go into a magical trance, to travel outofbody to visit with outofbody nature beings, for these beings to train them to do magic.
> 
> In D&D, the Druid class can be useful − not really for the Norse Humans − but the druidic elemental magic helps to actualize the weather magic, and similar, that the sky beings can do. Meanwhile, the Sámi mages do weather magic, and animal shapeshifting is also prominent, so the Druid with some tweaks can help toward these Nordic folkbeliefs.
> 
> From a D&D perspective, all of this is caster classes and class levels. High level casters learn how to cast higher level spells. This is true for Humans, Dvergar, Alfar, Jǫtnar, Æsir, Vanir, and Corpses. It is all levels in caster classes.
> 
> In the Scottish folkbeliefs, the Elves are immaterial spirits. The D&D 5e concept of the Fey plane works out well. The Scottish Elves are fertile soil, literally. When they project outofbody, they do so as immaterial spirits. D&D represents this well enough. The Fey Plane is an immaterial spiritworld. But the spirits moving thru the Fey Plane appear as virtual bodies whose form behaves as if a material body, or close enough to one anyway. So the Scottish Elves are moreorless like Humans when projecting out-of-soil, except they are Fey, not Material. The Elves rarely materialize into the flesh-and-blood of the Material Plane, and Humans rarely spiritualize into the immateriality of the Fey Plane, but there are stories about this kind of translation happening. For the Scottish witches and Fairie Knights, I am leaning toward the Warlock class, and Fey subclass themes, except healing magic is central. So spells like Cure Wounds and such are necessary for this kind of Warlock to have. Also notably, the Warlocks comprise a community who visit each other across the Fey-Material veil.
> 
> Anyway, in the case of Norse, Sámi, Scottish, and English folkbeliefs, it is easy to talk about Nonhuman species who are Humanoid and comparable to the Human species, and who have a strictly Human culture. For example, the Nordic nature beings speak Nordic languages and participate in local Nordic cultures and customs. Scottish nature beings speak Scots and Gaelic, and participate in Scottish cultures and customs. These are Human cultures.



Thank you for the detail.

So the elves or Alfar can be trained to become physically like humans and the humans can be trained to become physically like elves or Alfar?
And, the elves or Alfar have the same culture as the humans?

If so, why are they actually the same thing where the elf or Alfar was raised in the spirit/nature world and the other was raised in the material world in human shape?


----------



## Micah Sweet

MarkB said:


> And when used in that context it strays far too close to sexual identity, which is at least as fraught a real-world subject as racial identity.



That's my understanding as well.  The word "identity", if not coupled with the word "theft", is currently shorthand for "sexual identity".


----------



## Micah Sweet

CreamCloud0 said:


> this is why i think biological species and learned culture should be separated into different build categories, you can be an elf biologically but of been raised by and socially identify as a member of halfling society or as one of the dragonborns or any other culture, you have trance and charm resist, you can speak halfling but not a word of elvish and picked up some of their natural hospitality.



Another vote for Level Up.  Sadly, WotC will never do it, because it works against their "simplicity" narrative.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Kinematics said:


> There was a thread on the Monstrosity category a while back that showed a lot of people had issues with it, and it seems to always be a bit of a grab-bag of stuff that didn't fit elsewhere. The main definition that seemed to be of use was "a creature that only came into existence due to the magical manipulation (or perhaps magical warping) of other 'natural' creatures". This would include a lot of chimeric mixes (eg: owlbear, yuan-ti, minotaur, hippogryph, etc), as well as unnaturally sized creatures (eg: crag cat, ankheg, giant slug, etc).
> 
> They're not 'evil' so much as 'unnatural'.  Of course 'unnatural' is a bit of a vague term, and it's sometimes hard to properly define what is 'natural' in a world of magic and gods and multiple planes of existence.



To me, it seems one of the definitions of "monstrosity" they're using is, "humanoid we don't want to be playable, for whatever reason".


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hriston said:


> I was talking about the claim made by @MarkB that "Race as used in D&D is about biological identity" which I took to mean _only about biological identity._ (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that, @MarkB.) That claim is revisionist (as in _revsisionist history) _because the use of _race_ as a game element in D&D has included things other than biology in every edition of the game of which I can think. Another way of saying this is that it's a false claim.




Race in D&D is a simplification for the purposes of making a character just like class. Race used to be a class in the game. And it still was in basic for many years. A lot of people liked that approach. And if you think of it as race as class, we all understood these weren't representative of all elves. They were just the iconic elves, the iconic dwarves (what leapt to mind when you thought of them). And it was also a game simplification. They weren't trying to do anthropology. The monster manuals often had entries for demihumans in them and it was similarly simple, but that works in a game, where the GM just needs a stat block to use for general elves. You can expand on that much more in individual settings, but by starting simple you create a much easier dial for a GM to start with. 

Again, I think a lot of this comes down to how much people see this as a game, and a willingness to engage conceits that are part of it being such. With Evil Orcs its the same, if you are playing a very involved, dramatic and story driven campaign, you probably are not going to be comfortable with evil, kill on sight orcs. Because they've been brought to life more. If you are just going to friends house to roll some dice, kill some orcs and drink soda, it is a different thing entirely.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> Notice "Strength" and "Dexterity" are now cultural (like Ability Score Improvements while leveling) − no longer biological.
> 
> Precisely to avoid reallife historical racism.
> 
> Color-coding gaming options is unethical when it perpetuates reallife racism.



I think the main reason ASIs were de-coupled from race was to allow people to have the stats they want with any race.  Avoiding racism at the time was at most a secondary concern.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think it is healthy for the hobby, or beneficial to peoples creativity, to be this afraid of setting flavors. Again our bar is probably different, I tend to take an approach of we should trust the audience to read things charitably enough and have enough of a nuanced material that they aren't taking offense at something that merely has the optics of potentially being offensive, versus something that is genuinely offensive. That bar is going to be subjective of course, but I would say it needs to be set at a reasonable place, so designers, writers, etc can still be creative and it doesn't feel like they have trope police looking over their shoulder all the time (I think that is a pretty impossible situation to be truly creative).
> 
> Also I don't think shifting those choices away from the core book, if they are still objectionable to people, really does much. If people are going to object to something, they will object to it. In your spelljammer example, which I haven't really followed closely so I am not especially suited for weighing in on the specifics, seems to have gained tremendous traction on forums and on twitter, yet it has nothing to do with he core book.



Yeah, this approach seems unnecessarily fear-based, where the absolute highest priority is avoiding the slightest hint of potential offense.  Not the way I want to play.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bedrockgames said:


> Sure but you can just include a nice selection of classic and new races, with the statement that particular options may not be available depending on the setting being used.



Which is, of course, what the 2014 PH already says.


----------



## codo

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think it is healthy for the hobby, or beneficial to peoples creativity, to be this afraid of setting flavors. Again our bar is probably different, I tend to take an approach of we should trust the audience to read things charitably enough and have enough of a nuanced material that they aren't taking offense at something that merely has the optics of potentially being offensive, versus something that is genuinely offensive. That bar is going to be subjective of course, but I would say it needs to be set at a reasonable place, so designers, writers, etc can still be creative and it doesn't feel like they have trope police looking over their shoulder all the time (I think that is a pretty impossible situation to be truly creative).
> 
> Also I don't think shifting those choices away from the core book, if they are still objectionable to people, really does much. If people are going to object to something, they will object to it. In your spelljammer example, which I haven't really followed closely so I am not especially suited for weighing in on the specifics, seems to have gained tremendous traction on forums and on twitter, yet it has nothing to do with he core book.



I am sorry but people should not have to give a _Game_ the benefit of the doubt, about whether it is being racist or not.  It's a game people are playing for fun.  They last thing you want when introducing new players to the game, is for them to see langue that _could_ be racist dog whistles and have to explain to them that, yes, it might look a bit racist, but trust me, it isn't.

People are dealing with enough crap in their real lives right now.  You can't expect new players to take the time, effort and research necessary to decide is something that looks like a racist dog whistle, is actually intended to be racist or not.  If at first glance something looks like it might raise a read flag, you can't blame an audience for not looking into it further and just dropping a product completely.  No one owes you an audience or the benefit of the doubt.  First impressions matter.  There are lots of different entertainment options out there right now.


----------



## Micah Sweet

codo said:


> I am sorry but people should not have to give a _Game_ the benefit of the doubt, about whether it is being racist or not.  It's a game people are playing for fun.  They last thing you want when introducing new players to the game, is for them to see langue that _could_ be racist dog whistles and have to explain to them that, yes, it might look a bit racist, but trust me, it isn't.
> 
> People are dealing with enough crap in their real lives right now.  You can't expect new players to take the time, effort and research necessary to decide is something that looks like a racist dog whistle, is actually intended to be racist or not.  If at first glance something looks like it might raise a read flag, you can't blame an audience for not looking into it further and just dropping a product completely.  No one owes you an audience or the benefit of the doubt.  First impressions matter.  There are lots of different entertainment options out there right now.



Do you believe that avoiding any possibility of potential offense should be WotC's highest priority then?

And in any case, I will again cite 5e's current unprecedented popularity.  Are people reading 5e and abandoning it in significant numbers?  I don't think so.


----------



## Bedrockgames

codo said:


> I am sorry but people should not have to give a _Game_ the benefit of the doubt, about whether it is being racist or not.  It's a game people are playing for fun.  They last thing you want when introducing new players to the game, is for them to see langue that _could_ be racist dog whistles and have to explain to them that, yes, it might look a bit racist, but trust me, it isn't.




The problem is you start closing off any interesting or flavorful language when you perceive a dog whistle in everything. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and I think that is how most people engage media. I mean, obviously if someone is writing something that is blatantly offensive, that is one thing. But I do think we lose out on interesting material, even in RPGs, when we are overly vigilant for hidden meanings. I just don't agree with the idea that if something could possibly mean bad thing X, we should leap to the conclusion that that is what it means in every instant. You have to apply some amount of discernment, putting the work in its context and what the writer appears to be attempting to convey. Otherwise you aren't really communicating with the text in my opinion. 




codo said:


> People are dealing with enough crap in their real lives right now.  You can't expect new players to take the time, effort and research necessary to decide is something that looks like a racist dog whistle, is actually intended to be racist or not.




I'm not talking about taking time to research. I am talking about reading something with an open mind, with a certain amount of charitableness, and prepared to deal in nuance rather than black and white absolutes. It is about not looking at something at first glance and reaching the worst possible conclusion about it. I think communication is a two way street. On the one hand the author needs to work to convey what they mean, but the reader also needs to be prepared to discern intent. 



> If at first glance something looks like it might raise a read flag, you can't blame an audience for not looking into it further and just dropping a product completely.  No one owes you an audience or the benefit of the doubt.  First impressions matter.  There are lots of different entertainment options out there right now.




Ultimately this is up to the audience. I think if we are at a point where one can't even include flavor in the PHB because it is too dangerous (which is the point I was responding to), that isn't healthy for any of us. It certainly isn't going to produce the kinds of games I would like to see.


----------



## Vaalingrade

codo said:


> I am sorry but people should not have to give a _Game_ the benefit of the doubt, about whether it is being racist or not.  It's a game people are playing for fun.  They last thing you want when introducing new players to the game, is for them to see langue that _could_ be racist dog whistles and have to explain to them that, yes, it might look a bit racist, but trust me, it isn't.



And that's why I didn't vote for Ancestry or Heritage, and especially not Kin.


----------



## codo

Micah Sweet said:


> Do you believe that avoiding any possibility of potential offense should be WotC's highest priority then?
> 
> And in any case, I will again cite 5e's current unprecedented popularity. Are people reading 5e and abandoning it in significant numbers? I don't think so.



You keep trying to make everything an absolute.  Everything must be exactly this or that, no in-between.   Real life is complicated.  I think it is important that WotC makes a good faith effort to avoid being racist, and that they should listen to their audience when they say they find thing offensive.   




Bedrockgames said:


> The problem is you start closing off any interesting or flavorful language when you perceive a dog whistle in everything. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and I think that is how most people engage media. I mean, obviously if someone is writing something that is blatantly offensive, that is one thing. But I do think we lose out on interesting material, even in RPGs, when we are overly vigilant for hidden meanings. I just don't agree with the idea that if something could possibly mean bad thing X, we should leap to the conclusion that that is what it means in every instant. You have to apply some amount of discernment, putting the work in its context and what the writer appears to be attempting to convey. Otherwise you aren't really communicating with the text in my opinion.



Again, no one owes you an audience.  If you want to include things in your work that could be interpreted as racist dog whistles, go right ahead, no one will stop you, and it doesn't mean you are a racist.  You can't be upset though, when people don't bother looking into it further, and just decide not to play you game.

Imagine a group of friends that are interested in starting to play tabletop RPGS.  They are looking at 2 games.  One uses the term "race" to refer to different types of people.  It also has the big strong "noble savage" "race" that gets a bonus to strength and a penalty to intelligence.  The other game goes out of its way to show that it isn't racist and won't use any racist troupes.  You can't blame the group for being concerned that the first game might be racist, and rather spending their valuable playtime determining if it is or not, they just decide to play the second one instead.


----------



## Micah Sweet

codo said:


> You keep trying to make everything an absolute.  Everything must be exactly this or that, no in-between.   Real life is complicated.  I think it is important that WotC makes a good faith effort to avoid being racist, and that they should listen to their audience when they say they find thing offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no one owes you an audience.  If you want to include things in your work that could be interpreted as racist dog whistles, go right ahead, no one will stop you, and it doesn't mean you are a racist.  You can't be upset though, when people don't bother looking into it further, and just decide not to play you game.
> 
> Imagine a group of friends that are interested in starting to play tabletop RPGS.  They are looking at 2 games.  One uses the term "race" to refer to different types of people.  It also has the big strong "noble savage" "race" that gets a bonus to strength and a penalty to intelligence.  The other game goes out of its way to show that it isn't racist and won't use any racist troupes.  You can't blame the group for being concerned that the first game might be racist, and rather spending their valuable playtime determining if it is or not, they just decide to play the second one instead.



How big a deal is this second game making of their stance?  I ask because if I see a product that is explicitly plastering how not racist they are all over it, I might begin to suspect that they prioritize that over making a good game.

I would rather choose the games I play based on their merits as fun games, and secondly over how importantly they value being inoffensive.  Still important, but merit comes first for me.


----------



## Scott Christian

Hriston said:


> I was only responding to the quotes you provided which I've copied below, and I think we're in agreement that there's a mixture of biological and cultural attributes in D&D races and it's often not clear which is which. I didn't say that implications couldn't be made about whether a given trait is biological or not, only that it isn't outright stated to be so except in that one case. Something can be natural, inherent, or even inborn for your character without having to do with your biology, especially in a world of magic. Traits derived from your ancestors may have been passed down culturally, etc.
> 
> "As a forest gnome, you have a _natural_ knack for illusion and _inherent_ quickness and stealth."
> "As a rock gnome, you have a _natural_ inventiveness and hardiness..."
> "Your half-orc character has certain traits _deriving from your orc ancestry_."
> "As a stout halfling, you're hardier than average and have some resistance to poison. Some say that stouts have _dwarven blood_."
> "Your elf character has a variety of _natural_ abilities, the results of _thousands of years of elven refinement_."
> "Your dwarf character has an assortment of _inborn_ abilities, the part and parcel of dwarven _nature_."



Yeah, we both definitely agree it is a mixture of the two, and it doesn't help authors do not clarify. (As a side note, maybe it's better they don't?)

I think where we differ is the meaning of those words. Natural is written three times in three differnt races. Here is the very first definition of natural in Google:
1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Here is inherent's first definition:
1. existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
Its major synonyms are inborn, intrinsic, and innate. 
Here is the first definition of inborn:
1. existing from birth.

I think the evidence here weighs too much for this to be a passed down cultural influence. But I am happy to agree to disagree too. Thanks for the discussion, it is appreciated.


----------



## Hriston

Yaarel said:


> The dictionary that I like best for American English is the _American Heritage Dictionary_. When I was in college I compared a bunch of dictionaries because I needed one that supplied excellent etymologies. Since then, this dictionary has be continued to prove itself both precise and accurate while remaining succinct. I love this online website TheFreeDictionary.com because it cites the _American Heritage Dictionary_ for American dialects and the _Collins English Dictionary_ for British dialects, and sometimes adds other dictionaries if necessary to help catch a specific nuance or technical jargon.
> 
> Here in brief:
> 1. a plural of _person_
> 2a. a body of persons in the same country under one government
> 2b. citizens
> 3. (pl. peoples) a body of persons sharing a culture
> 4. persons with regard to their group: city people, farming people [= city persons, farming persons]
> 
> Honestly the _Collins English Dictionary_ does better here laying out this particular entry. But both dictionaries are clear.
> 
> Anyway none of these definitions means "a race". Either it means anyone anywhere indefinitely, or it means a specific culture or state. Elves are many cultures and many governments. Elves are many peoples and many citizenries.



Look a little further down the page you linked to the section from Collins COBUILD English Usage. There you'll find this:
*2. 'peoples'*​When you are referring to several countries, tribes, or races, you can use the plural form *peoples*.​​_They all belong to the ancient group of Indo-European peoples._​
So there it is. In English usage, as listed on the website you love, _peoples _is considered an equivalent to _races._



Yaarel said:


> Which dictionary are you citing? It is a less good dictionary. It fails to make clear the first, main, and most frequent meaning which is: a nonstandard plural for the noun "person". Altho the plural "persons" happens in official and formal writing, it is uncommon in spoken usage. Instead, English speakers mostly use the term "people" when referring to more than one "person": one person, two people. Moreover, the dictionary entry fails to make clear that definition 2. is a singular countable noun: one people, two peoples.
> 
> Definition 1 first says:
> "the earthquake killed 30,000 people"
> This means exactly the same thing as:
> "the earthquake killed 30,000 persons"
> 
> But then the subdefinitions switch to a different meaning, which is "citizens", leaving the main meaning "persons" unclear.
> 
> I wouldnt use the dicitionary that you cite, whichever one it is.



It's Google's English dictionary which is provided by Oxford Languages, publisher of the Oxford English Dictionary. It works fine for me. I find it doesn't waste words and is intelligently organized. The fact that _people_ is most commonly used as a plural noun is covered at the beginning of the entry where it says "plural noun: *people*". That it can be used as a singular noun is covered by what immediately follows: "noun: *people*; plural noun: *peoples*; noun: *one's people*; plural noun: *one's peoples*"; as well as by the example for definition 2: "the native peoples of Canada". I.e. the plural of _people _is _peoples. _Information about the word _person _is in the entry for that word, including that the plural of _person _is _people._

The sub-definitions under definition 1 are special usage cases having to do with use of the definite article _the _in conjunction with the word _people _which retains its normal definition 1 meaning of "human beings in general or considered collectively." Use of the definite article in "the people" means that a particular collection of humans is being referred to, the citizens (as opposed to those who govern) or "the masses". In courtrooms in the USA, _the People _is also used to refer to the state's prosecution because the state's sovereign power is considered to flow from the people. These are all plural usages of the word _people _meaning the same thing as _persons. _It's just that it isn't normal usage to say "the persons" with any of the above meanings.


----------



## Hriston

Cadence said:


> It feels odd to me to pick the term that will be used for  PC "races" in the future without considering how those PC races will be handled. But ok.



Considering how they could be handled is different from making a prediction about how you think they will be handled. Your personal feelings on the matter don't constitute the context for the entire poll!


----------



## Yaarel

Cadence said:


> Thank you for the detail.
> 
> So the elves or Alfar can be trained to become physically like humans and the humans can be trained to become physically like elves or Alfar?
> And, the elves or Alfar have the same culture as the humans?
> 
> If so, why are they actually the same thing where the elf or Alfar was raised in the spirit/nature world and the other was raised in the material world in human shape?



It can be that simple.

Your character is a particular waterfall of a particular mountain. He likes being the resounding plunging currents. He is a prominent waterfall that humans notice and find significant. This waterfall has a strong mind and forms a strong mental impression among humans. This strong mind can manifest magic. The waterfall is curious about humans and decides to become a human, figures out how to do it, and does. The waterfall is a conscious sapient person − a nature being. Its mind projects outofbody during a magical trance. The mind visualizes the self-identity of a human, and manifests a human form, and becomes a human creature of flesh and blood. He immigrates from one kind of nature being to an other kind of nature being. In the same way a human shaman who projects outofbody still feels a link to her body, he still feels a link to his waterfall and can return to it. Meanwhile, he is truly human. If he isnt careful he might die as a human, tho normally he would revert to the waterfall before the human death happened.

To represent this nature being in D&D, it is possible to use the Human species stats. Then it helps for there to be a Nature Being (Vættir) Background. The Background feat grants a special relationship to a specific feature of nature, in this case a waterfall: the character can revert to this nature feature while the human body vanishes, then back into the human form. The character remains Conscious while being the natural feature. The Skills would be ones pertinent to the concept. In Norway, the waterfall connotes beauty and charm, as well as extreme strength and deadliness to drown, and within its rushing waters one can hear the most beautiful music possible. Skills like Persuasion, Athletics, Intimidation, Survival, Nature, Insight. A musical instrument proficiency would be inappropriate for the Viking Period but appropriate for the Renaissance Period. A Bard is an appropriate Class to choose. But if the waterfall is curious about being Human, any choice of class is possible.

Note, the waterfall has a choice. The waterfall can choose to manifest as an adult human without a childhood, or as a vulnerable infant then growing up as a human.

The waterfall is a concrete example of what a nature being is. The Norse Alfar is specifically a manifestation of sunlight. The Scottish Sith is specifically a manifestation of fertile soil.

Nature Being can be simple: Human with a special Background.



That said, there are specific concepts relating to the Norse Alfar. More than just doing magic, they are magic itself, and personify magic. Because they are "fates", there is direct equivalence of meaning, between a seer prophesying someones fate, speaking words to change someones fate, and using speech to alter reality itself.  One can see a similar shift in the British folkbelief with "fatum" (fate), whence "faie" (fey), whence "fairie" (magic).

The Alfar and the Dvergar are antitheses of each other. The Alfar speak the good fate of success. The Dvergar speak the ill fate of unsuccess. The unsuccess is mostly about futility − the life is decent but without much impact on others. But unsuccess can be about destruction, which is why Dvergar make the best magic weapons.



I am mostly on board with the One D&D Elf. Its features describe innate magic. The only difference between one Elf culture and an other Elf culture is the choice of which spells to cast. I feel this can represent how the Norse Alfar is "innately" magic. The hint of magic is telltale enough to convey this "human" comes from a nonhuman origin. For the rest of the magical skills the Alfar needs to study and practice, the same way the Humans do. In D&D take levels in a caster class. For the Alfar, Bard and Paladin are solid thematic choices, but any caster class is suitable. The Alfar are known for being "many-knowing", able to master any kind of magic.

Here are the traits of the One D&D playtest UA:

*ELF
Creature Type:* Humanoid
*Size:* Medium
*Speed:* 30 feet
*Lifespan:* 750 years on average
*Darkvision.
Fey Ancestry.* Charm Resistance
*Keen Senses.* Perception
*Trance.* Sleep Immunity, 4-Hour Long Rest while Conscious.
*Elven Lineage.* [Magical Talent], Cantrip, Slot-1 Spell at Level 3, Slot-2 Spell at Level 5.

Here, what I call the Lineage Magical Talent refers to certain listed traits: Drow improves Darkvision, High can swap the Cantrip, and Wood improves Speed. I perceive these to be a choice of magical alteration, similar to a Warlock Invocation. Something like magical Half-Feat.



For the Norse Alfar, and for every D&D Elf, I would make the following tweaks to the One D&D Elf.

Note, I am over the over one hundred different kinds of D&D Elf traditions. I want one simple Elf with one set of traits that is versatile enough to represent any of these Elves of D&D. By means of letting the player choose the spells that one can cast innately, this one Elf can represent a High culture, a Drow culture, a Sea culture, or any other kind of Elf. Likewise, I can use this same versatile D&D Elf to also represent a mythologically accurate Alfar or Sith.

Here is what the D&D Elf can look like:

*ELF
Creature Type:* Humanoid and a Planar Origin of your choice.
_[Note, an Elf can be an Eladrin Fey or Celestial, a Shadar-kai Shadow, a High Elf Material, an Astral Elf. Any Planar Origin is possible. Because the Norse Alfar is sunlight, this is something like an Elemental relating to the luminous Fire of sunlight thru the Air of the sky.]_
*Size:* Medium
*Speed:* 30 feet
*Lifespan:* Immortal, you reach physical adulthood around age 20, then remain eternally youthful.
_*Elf*_* Ancestry.* Charm Resistance.
_At Higher Levels._ When your character reaches Level 14, your Charm Resistance improves to Magic Resistance.
_[Note, Eladrin monster statblocks have Magic Resistance, as do many Fey.]_
*Trance.* Sleep Immunity, 4-Hour Long Rest while Conscious.
_[Note, Trance is a D&D-ism. But it is not so terrible to represent the bond with ones natural feature. The Alfar would be mentally with the shining sunlight during the trance.]
*Innate Spellcasting.*_ You are the magic of fate and wield it innately. You gain two Cantrips, a Slot 1 Spell and a Slot 2 Spell. See the Elven Cultures table. When you create your character, you can gain the spells that are typical for your Elven Culture, or choose other spells of the same slots. Decide your casting ability: Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma. You can cast each of these spells once after a Long Rest. Additionally you can use any Spell Slots (or Spell Points) to cast them. These spells are innate, thus you cast them without a Spell Focus or Spell Components.
_[Note, the innate spells of Slot 1 and Slot 2 are available at Level 1. But there is no automatic Darkvision, Perception skill, nor Lineage Magical Talent. The Elf design is simple, versatile, and straightforwardly about innate spellcasting. There will be a Darkvision Cantrip and a Waterbreathing Cantrip, that a player might choose for their innate Cantrip. There is too much Darkvision in 5e, and it is wrong for a sunlight Alfar. But it is available as a choice for a Cantrip if a player wants it. A DM can easily create a new Elf culture by deciding the prominent spells that are typical for it.]_

*ELVEN CULTURES
Astral:* Light, Sacred Flame; Bless, Misty Step
*Drow:* Darkvision, Dancing Lights; Faerie Fire, Darkness
*Eladrin:* Frostbite, Sacred Flame; Charm Person, Misty Step
*High:* Prestidigitation, Mage Hand; Detect Magic, Misty Step
*Sea:* Darkvision, Waterbreathing; Speak with Animals, Enhance Ability
*Shadar-Kai:* Darkvision, Resistance; False Life, Misty Step
*Wood:* Darkvision, Druidcraft; Longstrider, Pass Without Trace



For mythological accuracy, several D&D spells might make sense for the Norse Alfar and the Scottish Sith. _Misty Step_ can kinda-sorta make sense for both: there is an account where an Alfar moves invisibly thru a keyhole, traveling via thought, and the Sith vanish and appear from the Fey realm and the theme is insubstantiality. Other spells can relate to some accounts. A folkbelief can inspire a new D&D spell. I would like to see a Sith spell (or ritual) to visit in a quasireal way someone dreaming nearby but in an other plane. Also, the Scottish Elf is known for shooting magical arrows, a suitable _Elfshot_ Cantrip (visualizing like the D&D cartoon Ranger energy bow) with invisible arrows that deal painful psychic damage and at zero hit points inflicts the Paralyzed condition instead of Dying. For the Alfar, the _Light_ cantrip is a must-have, especially the body glows the aura of sunlight. I am torn between _Prestidigitation_ for spontaneous magic versus _Resistance_ for a helpful fate. _Bless_ is for fate. Here _Suggestion_ associates with charm, beauty, illusion, and compulsion. Abjuration healing magic can be appropriate too. Maybe a new Wildshape-like spell can grant an alternate form, like a swan, wolf, or snake, chosen ahead of time when prepping the spell.

It is good when the player can choose these innate spells for ones own Elf character. Whatever makes sense to the player is accurate enough to convey being good at any kind of magic. Examples of possible choices.

*Alfar (Norse):* Light, Resistance; Bless, Suggestion
*Sith (Scottish):* Druidcraft, Elfshot; Cure Wounds, Misty Step



In sum, a player can use either a normal Human or better yet the Elf above. In either case, a Nature Being Background helps to establish a special link with a specific feature of nature. For the Alfar it is sunlight. For the Sith it is an area of soil of lush vegetation, typically nourishing a cluster of trees. The specific Sith feature might be a nearby location that is simultaneously above ground and below ground, like an earth mound above a flat area or a cave in a cliff.


----------



## Hriston

Bedrockgames said:


> Race in D&D is a simplification for the purposes of making a character just like class. Race used to be a class in the game. And it still was in basic for many years. A lot of people liked that approach. And if you think of it as race as class, we all understood these weren't representative of all elves. They were just the iconic elves, the iconic dwarves (what leapt to mind when you thought of them). And it was also a game simplification. They weren't trying to do anthropology. The monster manuals often had entries for demihumans in them and it was similarly simple, but that works in a game, where the GM just needs a stat block to use for general elves. You can expand on that much more in individual settings, but by starting simple you create a much easier dial for a GM to start with.
> 
> Again, I think a lot of this comes down to how much people see this as a game, and a willingness to engage conceits that are part of it being such. With Evil Orcs its the same, if you are playing a very involved, dramatic and story driven campaign, you probably are not going to be comfortable with evil, kill on sight orcs. Because they've been brought to life more. If you are just going to friends house to roll some dice, kill some orcs and drink soda, it is a different thing entirely.



I generally agree with how you characterize "race" as a game element. You can still see this in how PC races are designed in 5E. Dwarven Weapon Training isn't a world building dictum that says all dwarves are trained in these four weapons because of some monoculture or whatever. It's a flavorful menu of four weapons a player can choose from to have their dwarf character use with proficiency, or not. If none of those weapons are used in-game by the dwarf, the feature has no bearing on the fiction whatsoever.

I have a small nitpick though, which is that "race" was only ever "class" in Basic. In OD&D (1974), they were independent. You could have an elf, for example, that only ever operated as a fighter or one that only ever operated as a magic-user, or you could have one that switched back and forth because elves were allowed to do that. The thing is, as far as I've been able to determine, the term _race _doesn't appear in OD&D. You would pick a "character type" (either human or non-human) and a class. I guess this was confusing to some, so I think it was Moldvay that made the innovation of making everything a class as a way of simplifying the game. _Race _first appears in the Monster Manual (1977), and then in the PHB (1978), Gygax makes extensive use of the phrase "racial stock". I think, with AD&D, Gygax was looking for a term more flavorful than _character type _and hit upon _race. _I think the choice now after 45 years of _race _is between going back to something bland (_species_), finding a new flavorful alternative, or maybe doing away with the mechanic entirely by folding it into class (the Moldvay solution).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hriston said:


> I have a small nitpick though, which is that "race" was only ever "class" in Basic. In OD&D (1974), they were independent. You could have an elf, for example, that only ever operated as a fighter or one that only ever operated as a magic-user, or you could have one that switched back and forth because elves were allowed to do that. The thing is, as far as I've been able to determine, the term _race _doesn't appear in OD&D. You would pick a "character type" (either human or non-human) and a class. I guess this was confusing to some, so I think it was Moldvay that made the innovation of making everything a class as a way of simplifying the game. _Race _first appears in the Monster Manual (1977), and then in the PHB (1978), Gygax makes extensive use of the phrase "racial stock". I think, with AD&D, Gygax was looking for a term more flavorful than _character type _and hit upon _race. _




That is a fair point. I do believe it was type in OD&D but it has been a while since I've read that version. I also can't recall exactly how those details keyed to Chainmail. But I was thinking more Basic set onward into Rules Cyclopedia 




Hriston said:


> I think the choice now after 45 years of _race _is between going back to something bland (_species_), finding a new flavorful alternative, or maybe doing away with the mechanic entirely by folding it into class (the Moldvay solution).




And they could go the Moldvay direction, and I wouldn't necessarily object as I like basic and think it actually much easier for people new to the hobby as well. But I would add that big mechanical changes like that, as well as changes that make race meaningless or make it more complicated and customizable, have impact on playability, how wide of a player base they retain, how the game feels, etc. I think the two best options, no matter what it is called, is to keep its mechanical function that its had (which admittedly has changed somewhat) or go the Basic direction (which I like but also think could be a tough sell, as that was always one of the bigger hurdles of getting people to play Basic campaigns).   Ultimately they will do what they think works based on feedback I am assuming. I just think if they chase what other games are already doing, and move away from that core Race+Class (including the simple packages of abilities those have), it has weakened what makes the game tick. For example there were an explosion of option books in the 90s that chased more skill based games (and admittedly they went in a skill based direction in 3E onward). But I find the game works much better if you go back to periods when it didn't have skills (there are games that are built around skills and do them much better as a result). 

I should say though, I don't play 5E, I am probably much more old school in my sensibilities, so I don't expect my thoughts to translate into anything as I well could be quite out of touch with what the present player base wants. 

In defense of a Moldvay or Basic approach, when I was in highschool the most popular campaign in my area was with a GM who strictly ran the game with Rules Cyclopedia. Part of the popularity was due to the GMs charisma (he was just very good with people and generating interest in things), but I also think a large part was how easy it is for non-gamers to make characters with basic. Whereas AD&D at the time took conservable explanation, people had to make a few characters before they really got it, and there was quite a bit more to read in the book for the players to get started. I don't know if they could go back to that as the default, but I do think there is a case to be made for that simpler structure having more broad appeal if they want to reach a wider audience.


----------



## Hriston

Scott Christian said:


> Yeah, we both definitely agree it is a mixture of the two, and it doesn't help authors do not clarify. (As a side note, maybe it's better they don't?)



My personal preference is for it to be left to the group to imagine the reasons for traits. When everything has an answer, it starts to feel a bit stale and uninteresting to me, like everything has a scientific explanation. It's actually just unnecessary baked-in lore. I understand if that's not everyone's preference though.



Scott Christian said:


> I think where we differ is the meaning of those words. Natural is written three times in three differnt races. Here is the very first definition of natural in Google:
> 1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.



_"As a forest gnome, you have a natural knack for illusion"_
I don't think that definition captures the way _natural _is being used here. That would mean that gnomes have a knack for illusion that exists in nature or is caused by natural processes. I don't think that's what it's saying. Here's definition 2 (also from Google):
2. of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.​This would mean that gnomes have a knack for illusion that agrees with their character, or is part of their makeup or circumstances that surround them. I.e. for gnomes, illusion comes naturally.



Scott Christian said:


> Here is inherent's first definition:
> 1. existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
> Its major synonyms are inborn, intrinsic, and innate.



_"As a forest gnome, you have ... inherent quickness and stealth."_
Right, so quickness and stealth are attributes that exist in gnomes permanently and are essential to and characteristic of what a gnome is. This doesn't tell us what makes a gnome quick and stealthy. Maybe it's their small size and a genetic predisposition for fine motor control. Or maybe there's something magical about gnomes that explains their speed and ability to disappear. They are, after all, naturally gifted when it comes to illusion.



Scott Christian said:


> Here is the first definition of inborn:
> 1. existing from birth.



_"Your dwarf character has an assortment of inborn abilities"_
This could mean a dwarf has these abilities as soon as it's born, but see the usage note below the definition:

natural to a person or animal.
When _inborn _is used this way, the quoted passage could mean a dwarf has these abilities that are part of its dwarven makeup or are in agreement with its dwarven character. This really doesn't tell us much.



Scott Christian said:


> I think the evidence here weighs too much for this to be a passed down cultural influence. But I am happy to agree to disagree too. Thanks for the discussion, it is appreciated.



I'm not sure what you mean by "this". I think some things are obviously passed down, like weapon training or language, and some other things, like Keen Senses, are questionable as to whether they are attributable to "nature" or to "nurture". _Nature, _however, doesn't necessarily mean _biology._


----------



## Yaarel

Hriston said:


> Look a little further down the page you linked to the section from Collins COBUILD English Usage. There you'll find this:
> *2. 'peoples'*​When you are referring to several countries, tribes, or races, you can use the plural form *peoples*.​​_They all belong to the ancient group of Indo-European peoples._​
> So there it is. In English usage, as listed on the website you love, _peoples _is considered an equivalent to _races._



I know, but in this context, race means "ethnicity" (not "species"). The website makes some effort to find a dictionary to make it clear that the Black American "race" is a people.

In the context of D&D, this meaning of race means that the Elf species includes many races: Uda, Aeven, Loren, Grey, Faerie, High, Wood, Grugach, etcetera.


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> To me, it seems one of the definitions of "monstrosity" they're using is, "humanoid we don't want to be playable, for whatever reason".



Yeah. The recent "Monstrosity" to serve as a lampshade for an "always Evil race" is the new-old problem.

Heh, I get the impression, that you are smirking in delight.  But this recent development is a concern.

There is no meaningful difference between:
• A 3e player who wants to play an "Evil Orc race"
• A 5e player who wants to play an "Evil Gnoll race"
• A OneD&D player who wants to play an "Evil Yuan-ti monstrosity"
• Likewise, a OneD&D player who wants to play an "Evil Red Hat fey"

This eye of the needle needs threading.

OneD&D needs to think clearly about exactly WHY and HOW certain archetypes of evil are unworkable as player characters.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> Yeah. The recent "Monstrosity" to serve as a lampshade for an "always Evil race" is the new-old problem.
> 
> Heh, I get the impression, that you are smirking in delight.  But this recent development is a concern.
> 
> There is no meaningful difference between:
> • A 3e player who wants to play an "Evil Orc race"
> • A 5e player who wants to play an "Evil Gnoll race"
> • A OneD&D player who wants to play an "Evil Yuan-ti monstrosity"
> • Likewise, a OneD&D player who wants to play an "Evil Red Hat fey"
> 
> This eye of the needle needs threading.
> 
> OneD&D needs to think clearly about exactly WHY and HOW certain archetypes of evil are unworkable as player characters.



Do you think they're likely to?


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> Do you think they're likely to?



Yeah. For the same reason WotC is willing to go thru the trouble of obsoleting the term Race and restructuring the Player Species, they are probably also willing to implement a more careful definition of what is and isnt a Player Species ... if simple enough and practicable. WotC wants the game to have "killable villains", and there is a desideratum for how to go about this in the least objectionable way possible.



Towards threading the needle. The term "Humanoid" describes a character concept that is mentally comparable to a human, a Consciousness, including the capacity to feel pain, and language, learning, teaching, culture, and ethics resulting from the capacity of compassion.

Humanoid is a "Structure", where independent origins can converge toward similar form and function.

A Humanoid is always a playable character concept.



The *Human* Species can classify as "*Material Humanoid Beast*":
• Material *Planar Origin*
• Humanoid *Structure*
• Beast *Creature Type*.

Here "Beast" signifies that the Human is a member of the Creature Type "Beast", relating to the animal kingdom.

By contrast, the Warforged is a "Humanoid *Construct*", and Plasmoid is a "Humanoid *Ooze*".



An effect that targets a Beast can affect the Human Species. The Beast descriptor can come with default features, including the need to Breath, Eat, and Sleep, along with susceptibility to all Damage Types. A specific Species might override the general rule for Beast.

The important part here is, what makes the Human a "Humanoid" Structure is unrelated to being a Beast Creature Type.

Note, Plant and Ooze are not Beast. So the term "Creature Type" itself means something like the taxonomic "kingdom" of life.



The term "Monstrosity" might come with a technical meaning, such as a creature that derives from splicing together different Creature Types. For example, the Yuan-ti might be splicing together the Beast and Fiend Creature Types, thus a Monstrosity. Moreover, the more Fiend its transformations become, the less Humanoid and playable it might become.

By contrast, some rumors speculate the Owlbear splices together an owl and a bear. But since both of them are Beasts, the Owlbear too is a Beast.



In this way, consider the hypothetical distinctions.

• Fairy (Humanoid Fey)
• Red Hat (Fey)

• Yuan-ti (Humanoid Monstrosity)
• Sea Sworn (Monstrosity)

In these contexts, the lack of humanity, including the lack of the ability to feel, learn and grow, is precisely what makes certain creatures unplayable. In other words, these Non-Humanoids are Animate but Unconscious.


----------



## Clint_L

I still don't understand why people care so much. No one seems to really explain that. How are people so invested in this tiny change that a thread can reach 48 pages?

Like, I get why race was problematic, and agree that D&D should avoid mandating terms with serious real-world connotations that we don't need to be debating at our tables. I just don't understand why folks are so invested in the replacement word. Can folks explain why this matters to them?


----------



## codo

Clint_L said:


> I still don't understand why people care so much. No one seems to really explain that. How are people so invested in this tiny change that a thread can reach 48 pages?
> 
> Like, I get why race was problematic, and agree that D&D should avoid mandating terms with serious real-world connotations that we don't need to be debating at our tables. I just don't understand why folks are so invested in the replacement word. Can folks explain why this matters to them?



You understand why race is a problem, but don't understand why people don't want the new term to have the same problem? 

Replacing a term that people see as a racial slur, with a synonym with with same connotations is not fixing the problem.  In fact I would say it is worse than doing nothing in the first place.  It makes it look like you don't actually care about the issue, you are just making a token effort to make the problem go away.  It comes across as, "Fine we changed it, now shut up."


----------



## Micah Sweet

codo said:


> You understand why race is a problem, but don't understand why people don't want the new term to have the same problem?
> 
> Replacing a term that people see as a racial slur, with a synonym with with same connotations is not fixing the problem.  In fact I would say it is worse than doing nothing in the first place.  It makes it look like you don't actually care about the issue, you are just making a token effort to make the problem go away.  It comes across as, "Fine we changed it, now shut up."



There's unfortunately no way to know that that hasn't been their motivation all along.  Damage control to cool off on the bad press.


----------



## Hex08

Clint_L said:


> I still don't understand why people care so much.



Because people care about all kinds of things, some silly and some not. Just look at how people react when a sports team changes its name. People who are attached to the old name freak out and those who think it should change will defend their point of view without considering the other guy's emotional attachment. Everyone will come up with all kinds of reasons about why it matters but, in the end, they are just getting arguing about a business changing its name. 

Here it's a business, rightly or wrongly, adapting to changing cultural morays and some people don't like change, some don't like the way the change is implemented, and some are fine with it so people express their opinions.


----------



## Scribe

Micah Sweet said:


> I think the main reason ASIs were de-coupled from race was to allow people to have the stats they want with any race.  Avoiding racism at the time was at most a secondary concern.



Which is all nonsense anyway.

Is it wrong to say a Tiger is stronger than a House Cat?


----------



## codo

Scribe said:


> Which is all nonsense anyway.
> 
> Is it wrong to say a Tiger is stronger than a House Cat?



If there was a real world history of the in-group referring to themselves as tigers, and using house cat as a slur to demean other groups, then yes it would be wrong.  That's not the case though.  Context matters.  There isn't a simple black and white rule that you can mindlessly apply, to ensure your not being insensitive and offensive.  

These are complicated issues with hundreds of years of history and baggage.  If their where easy answers we wouldn't need to keep having these conversations.


----------



## Micah Sweet

codo said:


> If there was a real world history of the in-group referring to themselves as tigers, and using house cat as a slur to demean other groups, then yes it would be wrong.  That's not the case though.  Context matters.  There isn't a simple black and white rule that you can mindlessly apply, to ensure your not being insensitive and offensive.
> 
> These are complicated issues with hundreds of years of history and baggage.  If their where easy answers we wouldn't need to keep having these conversations.



If though tigers actually _ are_ stronger than house cats?


----------



## Scribe

codo said:


> If there was a real world history of the in-group referring to themselves as tigers, and using house cat as a slur to demean other groups, then yes it would be wrong.  That's not the case though.  Context matters.  There isn't a simple black and white rule that you can mindlessly apply, to ensure your not being insensitive and offensive.
> 
> These are complicated issues with hundreds of years of history and baggage.  If their where easy answers we wouldn't need to keep having these conversations.



If you consider that a Tiger, is not a House Cat, just as a Goliath, is not a Halfling....then no, I dont need to see it as a 'complicated issue' with hundreds of years of history and baggage.

A Goliath, is not a Halfling, and a Tiger, is not a House Cat. These are not just words, these are (in a fictional land) actual entities with actual differences.

This is not me, calling myself a Tiger, and you, a House Cat, because oddly enough we are neither, we are simply Humans.

It is that easy, and you are correct, we dont need to keep having these conversations.


----------



## Vaalingrade

codo said:


> You understand why race is a problem, but don't understand why people don't want the new term to have the same problem?
> 
> Replacing a term that people see as a racial slur, with a synonym with with same connotations is not fixing the problem.  In fact I would say it is worse than doing nothing in the first place.  It makes it look like you don't actually care about the issue, you are just making a token effort to make the problem go away.  It comes across as, "Fine we changed it, now shut up."



Because people aren't considering the reason for the change, just the change itself. They want something the 'feels' like 'race' even though that's literally the issue.


----------



## codo

Scribe said:


> If you consider that a Tiger, is not a House Cat, just as a Goliath, is not a Halfling....then no, I dont need to see it as a 'complicated issue' with hundreds of years of history and baggage.
> 
> A Goliath, is not a Halfling, and a Tiger, is not a House Cat. These are not just words, these are (in a fictional land) actual entities with actual differences.
> 
> This is not me, calling myself a Tiger, and you, a House Cat, because oddly enough we are neither, we are simply Humans.
> 
> It is that easy, and you are correct, we dont need to keep having these conversations.



You just solved racism is 4 sentences? Who knew it was so easy.  Simplistic examples using terms with no history or baggage makes for easy answers.

An orc is not a racial stand-in for racial minorities, except when it is.  I don't think I want to again have to go into the details of the long history of deliberately racist products, or statements by the designers of both DnD and fantasy in general.

Once something has an established history, you can't just keep using the same terminology and expect just claiming "no racism intended", will actually address the issue.


----------



## codo

Vaalingrade said:


> Because people aren't considering the reason for the change, just the change itself. They want something the 'feels' like 'race' even though that's literally the issue.



Exactly. I know a lot of people are uncomfortable discussing race and our cultural history of racism, but it is impossible to have a discussion about the game term "race" with out actually discussing or understanding why people are actually upset in the first place.

Seriously, I understand wanting to use an "old-timey" word, but Gary Gygax created the game in the early 70.  The decision to use race to refer to different fantasy species is staggering in its tone-deafness.  It's not like race wasn't a controversial and loaded term in 1974!


----------



## Scribe

codo said:


> You just solved racism is 4 sentences? Who knew it was so easy. Simplistic examples using terms with no history or baggage makes for easy answers.




No, because nobody in this thread, or at WoTC is solving racism.

No Orc, has ever, does, or will ever, walk this planet.


----------



## codo

Scribe said:


> No, because nobody in this thread, or at WoTC is solving racism.
> 
> No Orc, has ever, does, or will ever, walk this planet.



Yes orcs are not real people.  They are however often a metaphor for or stand in for for real world racial groups.  

Orcs are literally the "other", "them", the boogeyman, a generic stand in for evil people.  They are violent, savage, stupid, lazy, hypersexual, and often more than a little rapey.  The problem is that these are the exact same terms that were frequently applies to Blacks, Indians, Hispanics, or whatever other racial minority it is currently in fashion to hate.


----------



## Scribe

codo said:


> Yes orcs are not real people.  They are however often a metaphor for or stand in for for real world racial groups.
> 
> Orcs are literally the "other", "them", the boogeyman, a generic stand in for evil people.  They are violent, savage, stupid, lazy, hypersexual, and often more than a little rapey.  The problem is that these are the exact same terms that were frequently applies to Blacks, Indians, Hispanics, or whatever other racial minority it is currently in fashion to hate.




And these descriptions were wrong, and corrected, as they should be. Can they get their +2 Str back now?


----------



## codo

Scribe said:


> And these descriptions were wrong, and corrected, as they should be. Can they get their +2 Str back now?
> 
> View attachment 270385



Seriously you can just claim, problem solved, D&D is not racist anymore, we don't need to talk about it any more.  Forget 50 years of history.


----------



## Mecheon

Scribe said:


> And these descriptions were wrong, and corrected, as they should be. Can they get their +2 Str back now?



Nah, let folks pick what they want so I can play Torg Toughbody, Orc endurance wrestler who needs tha +2 con instead to do his day job of famous wrestler the Horcinator, who can take every move his opponents launch at him and keep on going

if you're saying that doesn't fit an orc, I got questions


----------



## Micah Sweet

Scribe said:


> And these descriptions were wrong, and corrected, as they should be. Can they get their +2 Str back now?
> 
> View attachment 270385



We got the uber-bland description everyone apparently wanted.  Yay.


----------



## Scribe

codo said:


> Seriously you can just claim, problem solved, D&D is not racist anymore, we don't need to talk about it any more.  Forget 50 years of history.




Yeah, I'm not going to say D&D is racist.

What do I care about 50 years of history that has already been either openly actively disavowed, or undone/rewritten as with the image I just showed you directly out of MotM?

What more do you want? Every past work (some of it which was quite racist!) to be burned? Like honestly, we all understand why 'race' is being replaced here, what more do you realistically want out of D&D that will satisfy what you feel in regards to '50 years of history'?


----------



## Scribe

Mecheon said:


> Nah, let folks pick what they want so I can play Torg Toughbody, Orc endurance wrestler who needs tha +2 con instead to do his day job of famous wrestler the Horcinator, who can take every move his opponents launch at him and keep on going
> 
> if you're saying that doesn't fit an orc, I got questions




+2 Str/+1 Con, put your highest in Con, and bobs your uncle.


----------



## codo

Scribe said:


> Yeah, I'm not going to say D&D is racist.
> 
> What do I care about 50 years of history that has already been either openly actively disavowed, or undone/rewritten as with the image I just showed you directly out of MotM?
> 
> What more do you want? Every past work (some of it which was quite racist!) to be burned? Like honestly, we all understand why 'race' is being replaced here, what more do you realistically want out of D&D that will satisfy what you feel in regards to '50 years of history'?



I am not saying D&D is racist, not all of it anyways.  There are parts of it in the past the were deliberately intended to be racist.  There were, and still are, parts that are inadvertently or subconsciously racist.

D&D plays with mixing lots of different fantasy, historical, and literary tropes.  It is suppressing easy for a game designer with the best of intentions, to accidentally revert to racist tropes.  Look at the whole Hadozee mess.  I don't think it was intentionaly intended to be racist, but it really shows you always using professional sensitivity readers is such a good idea.  When you are working with a setting that includes flying monkey people, looting and pillaging pirates from the age of sail, Eldritch Monsters that enslave entire races, and bards that dance around the dungeon with a lute, you don't need to intend to be racist to stumble into a horrible idea.

I will give WotC credit, they are trying, and the developers do seem like they care.  This isn't something you can just declare solved and not have to talk about anymore.  That is how you end up with problems like the Hodozee, in the first place.  This isn't blaming anyone or making them feel bad about the past, it is making sure this issue don't keep happening.


----------



## Mecheon

Scribe said:


> +2 Str/+1 Con, put your highest in Con, and bobs your uncle.



But he's gotta be +2 Con, +1 Charisma (for how well he handles the crowds, y'see) and then the +1 for strength. True wrestling stats

I do still remain thinking it helps in making races/species/schmorps more distinct with how they're designed outside of "Okay this is the one with the +2 to that and the +1 to that" that sort of resulted in superfulous options with no real mechanical heft behind them outside of "Okay, here's your two stat choices". Heck knows its going to reduce the number of Random Elf Number 251 we used to have as well


----------



## Hriston

Bedrockgames said:


> That is a fair point. I do believe it was type in OD&D but it has been a while since I've read that version. I also can't recall exactly how those details keyed to Chainmail. But I was thinking more Basic set onward into Rules Cyclopedia



_Chainmail _uses the term _Type_ as a heading on the Fantasy Reference Table as well as on the table showing the different figure scales to use with different kinds of fantasy creatures. The Holmes Basic Set (1977) doesn't seem to use the term _race _either and just refers to dwarves, elves, etc. _Race _seems to have come in with AD&D Monster Manual (also 1977). I haven't checked the supplements. Holmes also treats class as separate from the type of character (race) you choose. It isn't until the Moldvay Basic Set (1981) that race as class becomes a thing. I don't know if Moldvay uses the term _race. _I suppose not considering _dwarf, elf, etc. _are classes.



Bedrockgames said:


> And they could go the Moldvay direction, and I wouldn't necessarily object as I like basic and think it actually much easier for people new to the hobby as well. But I would add that big mechanical changes like that, as well as changes that make race meaningless or make it more complicated and customizable, have impact on playability, how wide of a player base they retain, how the game feels, etc. I think the two best options, no matter what it is called, is to keep its mechanical function that its had (which admittedly has changed somewhat) or go the Basic direction (which I like but also think could be a tough sell, as that was always one of the bigger hurdles of getting people to play Basic campaigns).   Ultimately they will do what they think works based on feedback I am assuming. I just think if they chase what other games are already doing, and move away from that core Race+Class (including the simple packages of abilities those have), it has weakened what makes the game tick. For example there were an explosion of option books in the 90s that chased more skill based games (and admittedly they went in a skill based direction in 3E onward). But I find the game works much better if you go back to periods when it didn't have skills (there are games that are built around skills and do them much better as a result).
> 
> I should say though, I don't play 5E, I am probably much more old school in my sensibilities, so I don't expect my thoughts to translate into anything as I well could be quite out of touch with what the present player base wants.
> 
> In defense of a Moldvay or Basic approach, when I was in highschool the most popular campaign in my area was with a GM who strictly ran the game with Rules Cyclopedia. Part of the popularity was due to the GMs charisma (he was just very good with people and generating interest in things), but I also think a large part was how easy it is for non-gamers to make characters with basic. Whereas AD&D at the time took conservable explanation, people had to make a few characters before they really got it, and there was quite a bit more to read in the book for the players to get started. I don't know if they could go back to that as the default, but I do think there is a case to be made for that simpler structure having more broad appeal if they want to reach a wider audience.



I don't think it would work in 5th Ed. to have races as their own classes, but maybe an approach where race is something that can be expressed differently in each class might work in place of races having their own mechanics separate from class.


----------



## Yaarel

Make size depend on the chosen Ability Scores. Something like.



*SIZE PREREQUISITE

If both STR and CON are at least: your Size is
1: *Tiny
*5: *Small
*9: *Medium (Lightwieght)
*13:* Medium (Heavyweight) − Powerful Build
*17:* Large
*21:* Huge
*25:* Gargantuan
*29:* Gargantuan (Vast)

For example, some Dwarf are shorter but more massively bulky, whence the Size.

A player who wants a Small Halfling character can place a score of 8 in either Str or Con.

Alternatively, Small might represent frailness or feebleness for a taller character.


----------



## Yaarel

Does anyone know for sure? Most of the actors in the Lord of the Rings movies who play Hobbits are above 4 feet tall and would count as Medium size in D&D?


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> Does anyone know for sure? Most of the actors in the Lord of the Rings movies who play Hobbits are above 4 feet tall and would count as Medium size in D&D?



The actors were filmed to look shorter.


----------



## Yaarel

Judging by fans, the Tolkien Hobbit actors seem to be between 4'5 and 4'11. But Tolkien describes the Hobbit as between 2' and 4'.

For D&D purposes, a Halfling can easily be both "Small" and "Medium (Lightweight)", conceptually.

So, the player can choose whether they want a Small or Medium Size Halfling, depending on the abilities that they want to assign. If the hardier Halflings tend to be the ones who who venture, that is probably fine. And if a character is truly massive, then there might be an atavistic expression from certain obscure ancestors who were Dwarf or Human or so.

Meanwhile, use the Size catagories as vague ballparks, and let the player decide what the Size means exactly for ones own character.



Here is an other version of the SIZE PREREQUISITE table. Same idea, but more ballpark and less granularity. It is more straightforward. It gives more wiggle room for players who want a Small character.



*If both STR and CON are at least: your Size is
1:* Tiny
*6:* Small
*11:* Medium
*16:* Large
*21:* Huge
*26:* Gargantuan

Note, a Tiny Pixie is not a normal player character option, and would unusually have either Str or Con be a score of 5 or lower − probably 5 Strength since players are loath to give up Constitution. Typically, these Pixie characters would be poor at classes that require Strength (but who knows, perhaps some Dex build works well), but would be fully competent at caster classes, generally speaking, that can dump Strength.

Besides the extreme outlier of a Tiny character, the player generally decides the Size of the character by choosing the stats.



Generally, Size (Str-Con) ≈ muscle mass (ignoring obesity).

But I hate guess-timating weight during gameplay, and would never do it. However, I would keep muscle mass in mind when deciding the flavor for a particular character.



The OneD&D Players Handbook can, when referring to the Abilities, show pictures as examples of what Sizes can look like, with variations, some shorter and burlier and some taller and lankier.


----------



## Hex08

codo said:


> There are parts of it in the past the were deliberately intended to be racist.



That's a stretch. You are passing judgements on people involved in older versions of the game with no real evidence for your claim. There may well be parts that, with the modern eye, now appear to be racist but that doesn't mean they were intended to be such. Times were different and while casual racism may well have existed in the past accusing people of being deliberately racist is a step too far and wrong, both because you don't know what was going on in their heads and because such accusations are ethically dubious.


----------



## Yaarel

*Gygax*, in his AD&D *Monster Manual* in 1974, uses both terms, "Species" and "Race". He uses these two terms interchangeably.

Species = Race

For example.

(29) "The ten *species* of _dragons_ have three general size categories (small, average, and huge). ... This size determination indicates the number of hit dice a dragon has."

(33) "The *race* of _green dragons_ prefer to locate their underground lairs in or near woods or forests of the bleaker wilder sort if possible."

(34) "The _red dragon_ is usually found dwelling in great hills or mountainous regions. As with most others of this *species*, they make their lairs in subterranean coves and similar places."



Reallife scientific taxonomy is a normal part of the D&D tradition.

(22) Note, Gygax refers to the scientific taxonomy of his day, albeit today the nomenclature is shown to be imprecise and no longer in use: "Dinosaurs are reptiles, ... descended from a variety of the *species* called _thecodonts_. The two *orders *of dinosaurs are saurischians and ornisthischians." Notice, a later different species can descend from an earlier species.

(82) "_Woolly Rhinoceros_: A large, very aggressive *species* of rhinoceros which roams the cold temperate and subarctic regions of the Pleistocene epoch, the woolly rhino conforms to the characteristics of its modern relatives."

(61) "_Mountain lion_: This creature is not actually a true lion, but a *species* of great cat."

(87) "Giant Shark (_Megalodon_): Giant white sharks and prehistoric *species* of sharks range in size from 20' to 50', the largest being the prehistoric sharks."



Examples of humanlike species.

Note, in AD&D jargon, the terms "Species" and "Race" are the same meaning. Gygax sometimes refers to the human Species and sometimes the human Race. (Gygax can get into trouble when describing some humanlike Species to be as if a culture. But he does mean Species whenever he says Race.)

(39) "All half-_elves_ are of _human_ stock. They are handsome folk, with the good features of each of their *races*. They mingle freely with either *race*."

(96) "Treants are strangely related to _humans_ and _trees_, combining features of both *species*." In AD&D, the human is a "species", and the treant apparently relates to a specific species of tree.

(53) "_Koolinth:_ A marine *species* of _hobgoblin_ with gills. They are similar to their land-dwelling cousins in most respect."

(60) "Rumor has it _leprechauns_ are a *species* of halfling with a strong strain of pixie."



Maybe certain Settings prefer the antiquated flavor of the term "Race", but the D&D game itself often employs the jargon "Species".


----------



## codo

Hex08 said:


> That's a stretch. You are passing judgements on people involved in older versions of the game with no real evidence for your claim. There may well be parts that, with the modern eye, now appear to be racist but that doesn't mean they were intended to be such. Times were different and while casual racism may well have existed in the past accusing people of being deliberately racist is a step too far and wrong, both because you don't know what was going on in their heads and because such accusations are ethically dubious.



Take a look at Orcs of Thar and Chief Sitting Drool before telling me that D&D never deliberately intended to be racist.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Yaarel said:


> Does anyone know for sure? Most of the actors in the Lord of the Rings movies who play Hobbits are above 4 feet tall and would count as Medium size in D&D?




They used to have a height and weight chart in 2E. Might be useful. Weight would likely be another factor into creature size (looks like the upper limit for Halfling in that edition was something like 72 pounds):


----------



## Vaalingrade

Hex08 said:


> That's a stretch. You are passing judgements on people involved in older versions of the game with no real evidence for your claim. There may well be parts that, with the modern eye, now appear to be racist but that doesn't mean they were intended to be such. Times were different and *while casual racism may well have existed in the past* accusing people of being deliberately racist is a step too far and wrong, both because you don't know what was going on in their heads and because such accusations are ethically dubious.



It did and still does in the present.

And being casually racist is being deliberately racist. We don't have to be 'in their heads' to understand how this works.

There is no excuse for trying to justify racism past, present or future.


----------



## Hriston

Yaarel said:


> I know, but in this context, race means "ethnicity" (not "species"). The website makes some effort to find a dictionary to make it clear that the Black American "race" is a people.
> 
> In the context of D&D, this meaning of race means that the Elf species includes many races: Uda, Aeven, Loren, Grey, Faerie, High, Wood, Grugach, etcetera.



Sure, those could all be called races or peoples or ethnicities. _Species _is a little more difficult, but you could say each one of those is a species of elf. The point is that these terms can operate on multiple levels. Black Americans are a people, but they are also members of the American people and the people of the pan-African diaspora and the people of Earth. Those are all peoples.


----------



## Yaarel

Hriston said:


> Sure, those could all be called races or peoples or ethnicities. _Species _is a little more difficult, but you could say each one of those is a species of elf. The point is that these terms can operate on multiple levels. Black Americans are a people, but they are also members of the American people and the people of the pan-African diaspora and the people of Earth. Those are all peoples.



Again your usage confuses definitions.

There is a difference between "cat people"/"Earth people" versus "a people".

"Pan-African diaspora" is a problematic phrase, because not all of the African diasporas are Pan-African.

It comes across as if an effort to make the word "people" mean the exact same thing as "race", including all of the definitions of "race". The word "race" is a problem. But it is what the word means and the ways it gets used that is the problem. So a new word with the same meanings is the same problem.


----------



## Yaarel

@Bedrockgames

The 5e (2014) Players Handbook has a similar Random Height and Weight table on page 121. The Handbook says "you can decide" what the height and weight of your character are. But "if you want", you can roll them randomly.

The player decides. The table is optional.

The more recent book, Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse, continues the Players Handbook approach. It says on page 6 for the playable races:

"Player characters, regardless of race, typically fall into the same ranges of height and weight that humans have in our [reallife] world. If you'd like to determine your character's height and weight randomly, consult the Random Height and Weight table in the Players Handbook and choose the row in the table that best represents the build you imagine for your character."

For example, the player can decide what the measurements of an Eladrin should be, and if preferring a random result, can do so accordingly.

The player decides what is appropriate for the character concept.



I am fully on board with this approach. For a number of reasons.

The main reason for this game-rules approach is to avoid reallife body shaming, and to embrace the diversity of human physiques. By extension, the Elf is not necessarily a small anorexic supermodel "elf babe".

Heh, well yeah, the Elf is definitely a supermodel, but might be a plus-size supermodel, maybe tall, maybe muscular, or so on. Whatever makes sense for the players concept.

In Norse and Scottish cultures, the Elf is a personification of beauty. It is part of the archetype that makes an Elf an Elf. And. There are many ways to be beautiful. Any visualization of beauty is appropriate for this archetype. I appreciate how 5e gives the player the final say with regard to what the player is comfortable with.



On a separate note relating to Height and Weight, the Human can be Small or Medium, but should also mention the possibility of Large.

A (very) rough rule of thumb for humanlike bipeds is:

Small ≈ 2 to 4 feet
Medium ≈ 4 to 8 feet
Large ≈ 8 to 16 feet
Huge ≈ 16 to 32 feet

The Size category doubles each time. However, these approximations dont account for being thinner or broader. So the boundary between each category is vague and overlapping. Moreover, in the gaming rules, Size actually means how much space a creature "occupies" − not the body itself. It includes the bodyspace around someone. There is room to fit any bodytype diversity.



In the OneD&D playtest, each Species continues to refer to a specific range of heights. For example, the Human Species is Size "Medium (about 4-7 feet tall) or Small (about 2 to 4 feet tall)".

The thing is, there are reallife humans who are over 9 feet, almost 10 feet tall. Tall people are humans too! I feel strongly, the Human Species also needs to mention the possibility of "Large (about 8-9 feet tall)". So the full range of Human heights is about 2-9, whence averaging roughly about 5½, but allowing for Small and Large outliers.

The fact reallife humans can be Small, Medium, and Large, gives examples for a vast diversity of bodytypes, heights and weights, to visualize what the D&D Nonhuman characters can look like as well.



What matters most is, the player decides whatever measurements feel comfortable and sensible to the player.


----------



## Hriston

Yaarel said:


> Again your usage confuses definitions.



No, I'm only talking about definition 2 from Google's English dictionary:
the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.​


Yaarel said:


> There is a difference between "cat people"/"Earth people" versus "a people".



Why? What's the difference?



Yaarel said:


> "Pan-African diaspora" is a problematic phrase, because not all of the African diasporas are Pan-African.



Apologies, I should have just said "African diaspora", although what I really meant to say was the global community of people of African descent, which includes people who live in Africa as well as other parts of the world.



Yaarel said:


> But do what you want.



Okay, thanks.


----------



## Yaarel

The current "Cleric and Revised Species" survey asks to rank three terms:

• Species
• Kind
• Subtype

It looks like OneD&D wants a term that cannot also mean a subgroup of humans.


----------



## codo

Vaalingrade said:


> It did and still does in the present.
> 
> And being casually racist is being deliberately racist. We don't have to be 'in their heads' to understand how this works.
> 
> There is no excuse for trying to justify racism past, present or future.



Exactly.  Casual racisms is just racism so ingrained you do it instinctively without thinking about it.  The only way you can claim that the orcs of Thar was not deliberately indented to be racist, is that that author like lots of Americans of his generation didn't actually consider Indians to be  real human being.  For generations American society turned Indians into a cartoon caricature.  They where turning into vicious savages for movie stars to fight, and the enemy children pretended to kill with their friends while playing "cowboys and Indians".


----------



## Micah Sweet

codo said:


> Exactly.  Casual racisms is just racism so ingrained you do it instinctively without thinking about it.  The only way you can claim that the orcs of Thar was not deliberately indented to be racist, is that that author like lots of Americans of his generation didn't actually consider Indians to be  real human being.  For generations American society turned Indians into a cartoon caricature.  They where turning into vicious savages for movie stars to fight, and the enemy children pretended to kill with their friends while playing "cowboys and Indians".



Orcs of Thar was made in the '80s.  What I think you're saying is it's author(s) didn't see Native Americans as real human beings, which is essentially the same as saying they were terrible people.  Is that what you're saying here?  Because that's a very strong accusation against people I'm guessing you've never met.


----------



## codo

Micah Sweet said:


> Orcs of Thar was made in the '80s.  What I think you're saying is it's author(s) didn't see Native Americans as real human beings, which is essentially the same as saying they were terrible people.  Is that what you're saying here?  Because that's a very strong accusation against people I'm guessing you've never met.



I don't think it is controversial saying that vast swathes of American culture and society has historically demeaned, belittled, mocked and oppressed Indians.  For literally decades the most popular film and television genre in the country was based on celebrating murdering Indians, while you are stealing their land.  The definitive children's game of this era is literally "cowboys and Indians".  Children literally grew up pretending to kill Indians.  Most Americans _didn't _consider Indians human beings.  They put them in the same fictional category as Horn Helmeted Vikings, Swashbuckling Pirates, and Knights and Dragons.  The majority of the country never thought of them as a real living people, who are still dealing with hundreds of years of oppression by our country.

Is Bruce Heard (the Author of Orcs of Thar) a terrible person?  I don't know I have never met him or know anything about him.  What I do know is that he wrote a terrible book, expressing terrible and horrifyingly racist views.   I am not going to stop criticize a book for its racist content, just  because I might hurt the feelings of the author.   

Everyone has good and bad parts to their personality.  Just because I think someone did something terrible, I don't necessarily think they are a irredeemably terrible person.  On the other hand, just because someone might not be a horrible person, that is not going to stop me from criticizing them when when I think they are doing something hurtful and terrible.
​


----------



## Vaalingrade

Ah, the classic 'pointing out racism in a project is the exact same as calling individuals racist' gambit. Almost as as premier these days as 'orcs aren't real' and 'you're looking to be offended' in the Apologia Collection.


----------



## Irlo

codo said:


> Most Americans _didn't _consider Indians human beings.  They put them in the same fictional category as Horn Helmeted Vikings, Swashbuckling Pirates, and Knights and Dragons.  The majority of the country never thought of them as a real living people, who are still dealing with hundreds of years of oppression by our country.



Well said. Thank you.


----------



## Hriston

Yaarel said:


> It comes across as if an effort to make the word "people" mean the exact same thing as "race", including all of the definitions of "race". The word "race" is a problem. But it is what the word means and the ways it gets used that is the problem. So a new word with the same meanings is the same problem.



I missed this earlier due to cross-editing/posting. I disagree. If it was about the meaning of _race, _it wouldn't be a problem. _Race _has a meaning that fits quite well with how it's used in D&D. I.e. the nontechnical biological definition:
each of the major divisions of living creatures.​"a member of the human race"​I'm sure you've heard it used this way.

The reason _race _is a problem is the baggage it has accumulated and its associations with racism. The change in terminology is intended to distance D&D from racist discourse. _People, _in my mind, doesn't have this problem, although an argument could be (and has been) made that, as the best English translation of the German word _Volk, _it has a similar issue.


----------



## Hex08

Vaalingrade said:


> It did and still does in the present.
> 
> And being casually racist is being deliberately racist. We don't have to be 'in their heads' to understand how this works.
> 
> There is no excuse for trying to justify racism past, present or future.



First, I wasn't justifying racism and if you think I was then you are wrong (if you weren't accusing me then that's fine). Second, maybe casually was the wrong word, perhaps unintentionally or oblivious to the possible racism would have been more appropriate, but they certainly weren't being deliberately racist and there is a difference whether or not you believe that to be the case. You *do* need to be in someone's head before you can justifiably start casting stones. Was and is racism wrong? Yes. However, accusing someone of intentional racism because they were a product of their times is historically naive, everyone is a product of their time (and other factors) and will generally act accordingly. There is no reason to believe that specific people (in this case D&D writers and designers) of prior generations had any hatred for a particular group or thought them less than human, they were simply acting in accordance with their time but intended no harm. There is a world of difference between that kind of behavior and holding hatred in your heart and intentionally trying to hurt someone. Odds are future generations will find fault with something you believe. That's what happens; time moves on and cultural morays change. As time moves on hopefully we all become better but painting whole groups of people with a single brush isn't going to get us there.

Regardless, this is a conversation that is going to go in circles so I will bow out.


----------



## Hriston

Yaarel said:


> The current "Cleric and Revised Species" survey asks to rank three terms:
> 
> • Species
> • Kind
> • Subtype
> 
> It looks like OneD&D wants a term that cannot also mean a subgroup of humans.



Species of humans:
_Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens_


----------



## Vaalingrade

"A product of their time" - Another  treasure from The Collection.


----------



## Mecheon

Just on the species thing, my biggest push against it is that, species is a biological thing but, we have options that are most certainly not biological species and it doesn't really apply to.

Revenants aren't a species, you're just back from the dead and are whatever you were previously. Warforged are creations, not a species. Same with Autognomes. These aren't even weird outliers, Warforged are a well recognised race.


----------



## Desdichado

I don't want anything to replace race.


----------



## codo

Mecheon said:


> Just on the species thing, my biggest push against it is that, species is a biological thing but, we have options that are most certainly not biological species and it doesn't really apply to.
> 
> Revenants aren't a species, you're just back from the dead and are whatever you were previously. Warforged are creations, not a species. Same with Autognomes. These aren't even weird outliers, Warforged are a well recognised race.



Revenants aren't exactly a race either.  It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a separate category of templates someone can add to a character that aren't inherent to their species.  Things like Revenants, werewolves and the like, that you add on top of your species.  

With the free background feat at first level, a feat could actually work to represent that sort of thing well.  It would all work well with my preferred method of handling the half-races   Just make a "heritage" feat for each race that players can use to represent mixed backgrounds.  Races are basically just 3 feats worth of stuff anyways.  Just off 1 feats worth of iconic abilities.  For abilities you can use prof mod/day you can make them once per day ,so players still get iconic abilities like a dragonborn's breath weapon, yet still have room for other abilities as well.

I have played around with the idea a bit, and at first glance it seems to world really well.


----------



## Clint_L

codo said:


> You understand why race is a problem, but don't understand why people don't want the new term to have the same problem?
> 
> Replacing a term that people see as a racial slur, with a synonym with with same connotations is not fixing the problem.  In fact I would say it is worse than doing nothing in the first place.  It makes it look like you don't actually care about the issue, you are just making a token effort to make the problem go away.  It comes across as, "Fine we changed it, now shut up."



I don't think you read my words, or you would have noted that I specifically wrote: "D&D should avoid mandating terms with serious real-world connotations that we don't need to be debating at our tables." So as it turns out, I am not an idiot.

But that's not what most people are endlessly debating. Pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that we should avoid loaded terms. Instead, we are getting endless discussion about whether "species" can include non-biological creatures, or whatever. It just reads as hopelessly pedantic, like medieval scholars arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. 

Like, let's say you don't think species is a perfect fit that exactly sums up all the different vagaries of playable creature options in this outlandish fantasy game. So what? It should be obvious by now that there is no perfect term from the real world that will fit exactly. That's why I suggested, way back, and somewhat facetiously, that WotC should just make up the word. But setting that option aside, the only other choice is to choose a real world word that doesn't have unfortunate connotations and then just declare that "in the context of D&D, this world means playable creatures." It doesn't really matter what the word is, again as long as it doesn't offend.


----------



## CreamCloud0

Mecheon said:


> Just on the species thing, my biggest push against it is that, species is a biological thing but, we have options that are most certainly not biological species and it doesn't really apply to.
> 
> Revenants aren't a species, you're just back from the dead and are whatever you were previously. Warforged are creations, not a species. Same with Autognomes. These aren't even weird outliers, Warforged are a well recognised race.



while an understandable reason to have that opinion i think this is a situation to bring up the old addage: don't let perfect be the enemy of good, species is still the most accurate terminoligy IMO for what it is meant to be describing even if there are a few outliers due to the nature of thier creation, but similarly due to their created nature a warforged or a revenant doesn't have ancestry, heritage or lineage as much or arguably more than as they aren't part of a 'species'

i mean who's to say you can't have an artificially created species.


----------



## Yaarel

The Taxonomy of D&D Creature Types looks something like the following.






Notes

Speculatively, what makes a Monstrosity monstrous is its simultaneous blending of biology and undeath construction. It is neither Undead nor Living, but both. Typically, it results from individuals who do necromantic engineering to intentionally rupture the natural processes of the Material plane. A frankenstein.

Two sapient Types evolve from the Beast Type. The many Humanoid Species ultimately radiate from an apelike Species, the many Dragon from snakelike. The sapience transcends their beastly origins, via adaptation to the unknown, often self-modifying via magic, thus classifying new Types.

Strictly speaking, the Material plane is the emptiness of spacetime. Positive Energy enters it via forms of the Elemental plane, thus becoming matter and activity. From this matter, biological Life springs.


----------



## codo

Clint_L said:


> I don't think you read my words, or you would have noted that I specifically wrote: "D&D should avoid mandating terms with serious real-world connotations that we don't need to be debating at our tables." So as it turns out, I am not an idiot.
> 
> But that's not what most people are endlessly debating. Pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that we should avoid loaded terms. Instead, we are getting endless discussion about whether "species" can include non-biological creatures, or whatever. It just reads as hopelessly pedantic, like medieval scholars arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
> 
> Like, let's say you don't think species is a perfect fit that exactly sums up all the different vagaries of playable creature options in this outlandish fantasy game. So what? It should be obvious by now that there is no perfect term from the real world that will fit exactly. That's why I suggested, way back, and somewhat facetiously, that WotC should just make up the word. But setting that option aside, the only other choice is to choose a real world word that doesn't have unfortunate connotations and then just declare that "in the context of D&D, this world means playable creatures." It doesn't really matter what the word is, again as long as it doesn't offend.



I'm sorry in i misunderstood your post.  What I was responding to was


Clint_L said:


> I still don't understand why people care so much. No one seems to really explain that. How are people so invested in this tiny change that a thread can reach 48 pages?
> 
> Like, I get why race was problematic, and agree that D&D should avoid mandating terms with serious real-world connotations that we don't need to be debating at our tables. I just don't understand why folks are so invested in the replacement word. Can folks explain why this matters to them?



On first read I took it as you were saying both that race was problematic and should be changed _and_ that it is not something that people should care about.  They are mutually exclusive things, which is why I asked you a question to clarify.  If you were just criticizing people for denying that the term race had any problems and shouldn't change, then I read your words wrong and I apologize. 

If you were including people like me and others, who only keep posting in this thread because other people keep denying that there was any problems with "race" and WotC only made the change to pander to the woke, than no I won't apologize for still talking about the change.  I think the word race, especially combined with D&D's history of racism, is harmful to the game and need to be changed.

Again I apologize if if didn't read your words more generously and give you the benefit of the doubt.  You can see however, that starting a post, in a hot button topic where tempers are already raised, coming in starting your post with "I still don't understand why people care so much" could put someone on the defensive.


----------



## Scott Christian

codo said:


> I don't think it is controversial saying that vast swathes of American culture and society has historically demeaned, belittled, mocked and oppressed Indians. For literally decades the most popular film and television genre in the country was based on celebrating murdering Indians, while you are stealing their land. The definitive children's game of this era is literally "cowboys and Indians". Children literally grew up pretending to kill Indians. Most Americans _didn't _consider Indians human beings.



I am curious, did you grow up in America? 

Half the films depict Indians as oppressed. Many of the films, even series, like Gunsmoke, depict many of the Indians as wiser than the settlers, stronger and braver, and more in touch with nature. The movies later often made them the heroes. In real life, by the 80s, over 1/2 of American households claimed to have Native American lineage. Think about that? More than 1/2! People generally don't want to claim lineage if they hate that particular group of people. 

And referring to the game of cowboys and Indians, where most people I knew wanted to be the Indian, isn't a telltale sign of racism. No more than re-enactors that get together to re-enact Norman vs. Saxon. 

I fear you are both generalizing an enormous amount and pigeonholing a group of people as racists.


----------



## codo

Scott Christian said:


> I am curious, did you grow up in America?
> 
> Half the films depict Indians as oppressed. Many of the films, even series, like Gunsmoke, depict many of the Indians as wiser than the settlers, stronger and braver, and more in touch with nature. The movies later often made them the heroes. In real life, by the 80s, over 1/2 of American households claimed to have Native American lineage. Think about that? More than 1/2! People generally don't want to claim lineage if they hate that particular group of people.
> 
> And referring to the game of cowboys and Indians, where most people I knew wanted to be the Indian, isn't a telltale sign of racism. No more than re-enactors that get together to re-enact Norman vs. Saxon.
> 
> I fear you are both generalizing an enormous amount and pigeonholing a group of people as racists.



Ok you got me, Indians were also stereotyped as "Nobel Savages".  That isn't any better.  Positive stereotypes are not better than negative ones.  Indians were not some magical nature spirits, they were just normal people with their own vast array of cultures and societies, just like everyone else.

The fact that 1/2 of Americans "claim" Indian ancestry is just another example of same fetishization and disregard of Indians as actual human beings.  The stories of "Indian" ancestors is almost never, "My great-grandfather was Tashunka of the Lakota."  It's almost inveritably more along the lines of "A distant ancestor married an beautiful Indian princess."  Now that the few Indians who are still living are neatly tucked away on reservations were most Americans don't have to think about them, pretending to have "Indian" ancestors is an fun and "exotic" identity to play with.   It is basically a Halloween costume.

We Americans love to name our sports teams after Indians as well. Do you want to explain how the following are just a respectful tribute next?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Yeah, First Nations Peoples were basically gaudy jewelry and decoration to people! That's not racist!

Wait, no. The other thing.

Edit: it says a lot that even people speaking positively and even defending them from racist depictions still use the term for 'Dumb Italian Guy Doesn't Know Directions and Makes Millions of People Pay For That' when referring to them.


----------



## Scott Christian

Vaalingrade said:


> Yeah, First Nations Peoples were basically gaudy jewelry and decoration to people! That's not racist!
> 
> Wait, no. The other thing.
> 
> Edit: it says a lot that even people speaking positively and even defending them from racist depictions still use the term for 'Dumb Italian Guy Doesn't Know Directions and Makes Millions of People Pay For That' when referring to them.



I don't know how many times it needs to be said for everyone here to understand: NO ONE on this forum is saying there wasn't or isn't prejudice against Native American people. NO ONE on this forum is saying the atrocities committed against these people were small. They are huge and it was, and still is, terrible. 

But I find it hard to believe you clump everyone into the "Halloween" costume and don't see the irony in that. 150 million American claiming they have Native American ancestry - and they are all just doing it for "decoration"? 


codo said:


> Ok you got me, Indians were also stereotyped as "Nobel Savages". That isn't any better. Positive stereotypes are not better than negative ones. Indians were not some magical nature spirits, they were just normal people with their own vast array of cultures and societies, just like everyone else.
> 
> The fact that 1/2 of Americans "claim" Indian ancestry is just another example of same fetishization and disregard of Indians as actual human beings. The stories of "Indian" ancestors is almost never, "My great-grandfather was Tashunka of the Lakota." It's almost inveritably more along the lines of "A distant ancestor married an beautiful Indian princess." Now that the few Indians who are still living are neatly tucked away on reservations were most Americans don't have to think about them, pretending to have "Indian" ancestors is an fun and "exotic" identity to play with. It is basically a Halloween costume.



I am going to say it twice in one post so it is clear: NO ONE is defending prejudice against Native Americans. It is a made-up argument. My response and claim to you is clear: Many movies did not depict them as villains. And the game of cowboys and Indians doesn't allow you to use it as evidence that an entire generation of people grew up believing Indians were not human beings. I pointed out to you the contrary - many people idolized Indians. They wanted to be them. Not as some romantic fetish, but because they saw their cultural customs to be something they wanted to follow. Heck, half of the environmental movement couldn't have happened without the idolization of Native Americans. So this overgeneralization you have is just that: an overgeneralization that is just as damaging as the idiots who actually did believe Indians were not human beings. 


codo said:


> We Americans love to name our sports teams after Indians as well. Do you want to explain how the following are just a respectful tribute next?



And the Celtics, Trojans, Fighting Irish, The Maroons, Pistol Pete, The Mountaineers, Aztecs, etc... There are many mascots that can offend. No doubt about it. But none of it has to do with my claim.


----------



## codo

Scott Christian said:


> I don't know how many times it needs to be said for everyone here to understand: NO ONE on this forum is saying there wasn't or isn't prejudice against Native American people. NO ONE on this forum is saying the atrocities committed against these people were small. They are huge and it was, and still is, terrible.



You do see people making those sorts of claims, but Morrus and the mod team do a good job smacking that crap down, and banning people who post it.  However what you do see is lot of people saying there is nothing wrong with using "race", that D&D has not history of racism, and dismissing the issue as unimportant and the WotC is only making changes to pander to the woke mob.

I have only brought up the the horrible examples I have, in direct response to people, to show that, yes, D&D, and America for that matter, does have a long history of racist content.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Scott Christian said:


> But I find it hard to believe you clump everyone into the "Halloween" costume and don't see the irony in that. 150 million American claiming they have Native American ancestry - and they are all just doing it for "decoration"?



Because that's what the whole 'I'm 1/1,000,000,000 Cherokee fad was? Just wearing the concept of native peoples as a bit of cultural fashion.


----------



## Irlo

IMO idolization of First Nations people is also a sign of thinking of them as fictional constructs and not as actual human beings.


----------



## Scott Christian

codo said:


> You do see people making those sorts of claims, but Morrus and the mod team do a good job smacking that crap down, and banning people who post it.  However what you do see is lot of people saying there is nothing wrong with using "race", that D&D has not history of racism, and dismissing the issue as unimportant and the WotC is only making changes to pander to the woke mob.
> 
> I have only brought up the the horrible examples I have, in direct response to people, to show that, yes, D&D, and America for that matter, does have a long history of racist content.



I applaud your motive. I think it is the right mindset to have. But from reading these forums, I do not see anyone claiming that D&D has no history of racism. And, I guess, if I am being honest, is what I find frustrating. I see people arguing author's intent, which is quite different than dismissing the issue or saying there was never any racism. I also see people arguing context, which again, is quite different from saying D&D has no history of racism. 

From the writing on these forums, the people here are anything but racist. Maybe they are too open minded for you. Maybe they give the benefit of the doubt too often for you. Or maybe they don't use the correct terminology to explain their opinion for you. But they are anything but racist.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Or maybe they use the same old excuses and defenses that has kept these issues from actually getting better and _that's_ frustrating.


----------



## Yaarel

The *Giant* Type is ... complex.

The "True Giants" are simple enough: the famous D&D Giants, like Fire Giant and Frost Giant.

But the Giant Type extends further to comprise Troll, Ogre, Oni, Ettin, Fomorian, etcetera. Certain D&D Humanoids explicitly relate to the Giant Type, including Goliath and Firbolg. I tend to view the Hag as relating to the Troll thus something like a Giant of the Feywild.

This wider sense of a variegated giantkind reminds one of the Norse Jǫtnar traditions. Significantly, most Jǫtnar are normal humansize. Compare Loki and Skaði. Even so, some members of a same household can reach large and even vast sizes. One sibling might be humansize and an other the size of a mountain. It depends on which natural feature the nature being is. A mountain being can manifest in a form the size of a mountain.

For D&D, the Giant Type might also include Species or individuals that are Medium Size. Hypothetically, the Goliath and Firbolg are Medium Humanoid Giants, while the Hag is a Medium Fey Giant.

(Note, the Titan Subtype seems surprisingly unrelated to the Giant. DMG 11. A Titan is something like an Astral Construct, such as one that divinities create to serve as an agent of destruction, like Tarrasque, Kraken, Astral Dreadnaught, and others. Here the giantlike 5e Empyrean as a Titan Subtype is odd. Interestingly, the description of the Roc has it be formerly a Titan. The original Rocs escaped the control of its creator, thus now are simply a Monstrosity rather than with a Titan Subtype. The Titan subtype inherently relates to the Celestial Plane but involves some method of construction or monstrous engineering.)

The Feywild Plane and the Shadowfell Plane are cosmological opposites, whence the Giant Type and the Undead Type seem relatedly opposites. Both can relate to an animistic worldview, whether wilderness nature being (Giant) or ancestral nature being (Undead). Both are a kind of manifestation of nature. In folkbelief the giants are often ghostly apparitions, emerging from mist and so on.

In sum, and especially with the Jǫtnar in mind, the Giant Type is something like an Elemental that is native to the Material plane. When one thinks of an Elemental, consider an animate Earth Elemental. In the case of a Giant, it isnt earth generally, but a landscape, such as a mountain or certain notable rock formation. Giants are more like: a landscape feature (≈ earth), a waterbody, like waterfall, river or lake (≈ water), a windy seasonal weather pattern (≈ air), and the sun, a star, or a particular volcano (≈ fire). These features of the Material Plane are living nature beings.


----------



## Yaarel

Each Creature Type includes many Species.

To understand the D&D Creature Types helps clarify what a "Species" is and how various Species group together.

Many Creature Types are planar, such as Fiend, Fey, and so on.

The main traditions that inform the D&D 5e planes are the 1e Players Handbook with its cosmology that includes a Plane for each Alignment Tendency and the 4e Players Handbook that features the Fey and Shadow planes.



*1e Planes*

The 1e cosmology maps the Positivity and Negativity as aspects within the Ethereal Plane, and maps the Alignments as Outer Planes that frame the Astral Plane. Meanwhile the Ethereal Plane encompasses, directly borders, and interacts with the Astral Plane. The worldview is an ethical creation, where Astral thoughts create Material matter.






The Astral Plane and the Ethereal Plane are levels of being. The Astral Plane is the level where things exist as thoughts. The aster is the stuff that thoughts are made out of. The Astral Plane is a realm of thoughts, relating to the Platonic Ideals, and behaving in dreamlike ways. The Ethereal Plane is the level where thoughts begin to physicalize and influence. The ether of the Ethereal Plane is the fifth element, from which the four elements derive. The four elements are matter, having mass. Altho the ether is physical it lacks matter. From a mythic perspective, the ether is spirit especially as the substance that spirits are made out of. For example, the ki is a personal aura of spirit that extends out from the body to surround the person with an area of ethereal influence. From a scientific perspective, the ether is force, especially the fundamental forces that all things are made out of: gravitational force, electromagnetic force, and the nuclear forces. Even matter itself is ultimately made out of immaterial force. These elemental Ethereal forces permeate the Material Plane and emanate like an aura of influence. Within the ether, the four elements potentially exist.

The Astral Plane directly interfaces the Ethereal Plane. They flow into each other. Thoughts physicalize into reality. Reciprocally, reality inspires new thoughts. Telekinesis works this way: thoughts manifest force. The spiritual bodies of souls are conscious.

The Astral, Ethereal, and Material Planes overlap. The Ethereal overlaps the Material, and the Astral overlaps both. In the 1e map, the Astral Plane has the Ethereal Plane at its center. The Astral Plane also overlaps this Ethereal area too. Something can exist at all levels of being simultaneously. A Material body of matter, can have an Ethereal aura of lifeforce, and an Astral consciousness that visualizes a mental construct of ones self-image.

(In 5e, a "Wildspace" is a region of the Astral Plane that overlaps and simulates a solar system in the Material Plane. There is a virtual reality version of that solar system made out of Astral though. This Wildspace then overlays the Material Plane as an augmented reality, where objects made out of aster can coexist sidebyside with objects made out of matter.)

The Positive Plane and the Negative Plane are present within the ether. Positive influences move the four elements of Material matter to interact with each other constructively to bring forth and sustain life. Oppositely, Negative influences move these elements to interact destructively ending life.

In 1e, Astral thought, Ethereal spirit, and Material matter are an overlapping and interlinking great chain of being.



*3e Planes*

3e evolves from the 1e cosmology albeit convoluting with more details, sometimes conflictive, where related concepts disconnect from each other, and resulting in a sometimes bewildering sprawling big picture. Here is a popular map by Zen79 attempting to track of all of the 3e planar settings while striving to adhere to the official maps as much as possible except where official texts contradict the official maps. Here, what would officially be the "Prime" Material Plane appears instead as the planet Toril of the Forgotten Realms setting. Thus the assumed primacy decenters to accommodate whichever Material Plane setting a group chooses to use. A main difference between 1e and 3e is, in 1e the Elemental Planes are aspects of the ether that surrounds the Material Plane, but in 3e the Elemental Planes split away from the Material Planes, to form their own independent region. Meanwhile, the Positivity and Negativity function as if new elements. The relationship between the four elements of matter and the Material Planes of matter obfuscate. Meanwhile, the assignment of a True Neutral Alignment Plane locating at the center of the other Alignments displaces and divorces the Material Plane that was here in 1e. Where once was matter, is now the Astral City of Sigil.






*4e Planes*

4e consolidates the 1e and 3e cosmologies into a multiversal Axis. This Axis strings out the 3e continuum from the Elemental Planes to the Material Planes to the Astral Planes, with the Astral upright as the upper pole and the Elemental as the Lower pole. Now the Material Plane is not simply matter, but is in the middle as mix of Astral thought shaping Elemental matter. The Astral Plane is a celestial sea with the Alignment Planes forming its islandlike stars. Into this continuum, 4e reinterprets the earlier Positive Ethereal and Negative Ethereal as the Plane of Fey (aka Feywild) and the Plane of Shadow (aka Shadowfell). These are the ethereal "echoes" of the Material Plane.




The 4e design goals strive to consolidate similar gaming themes into one salient go-to place.

The Fey Plane of Feywild (originally an obscure plane called Faerie) and the Shadow Plane of Shadowfell (originally relating to Illusion) already existed in 1e but off-the-map. 4e reinvents them as central conceptual themes within the 4e Cosmology. Fey is the go-to for the themes of fairytales and folklore, and Shadow the legends about the underworld realm of the dead. Together the Fey and Shadow replace the earlier Ethereal Plane. To teleport or move incorporeally, one traverses immaterially via Fey or Shadow, rather than via the Ether.

The 4e Primal Power Source proved popular. It explores animistic shamanic themes, focusing resolutely on the life and landscape of the Material Plane, often called the Natural Plane or Nature. While Fey and Shadow also participated in these Primal themes, the status of these two Planes remaines ambiguous: whether they are Primal thus Natural, or Arcane thus Unnatural.

The some 4e consolidations fare less popular. By awkward conflation with Shadowfell, 4e Illusion magic is deathly, gloomy, and ghostly.

Highly unpopular, the 4e Alignment system consolidated the Alignments down to five: namely LG, G, U (Unaligned), E, and CE. It omits the concepts of Chaotic Good, and makes "obedient" Lawful Good the "best" kind of Good. The possibility of "rebellious" Good or a "protest" for the sake of Good become erased. Meanwhile the absence of Lawful Evil make the dysfunctional and abusive uses of the Law uncritiquable. The 4e "Chaotic" fight for individualism and freedom was declared as if always Evil, and moreover the "worst" kind of "Evil". Meanwhile, this conflated continuum stretched across the cosmic Axis, with Lawful Good at the top, Unaligned Sigil in the middle neigboring the Material Plane, and exiling the Chaotic Evil Alignment Plane to the bottom, far away from the Astral realm of thought into the Elemental matter. By implication, matter itself becomes as if inherently Evil. 4e did much objectionable with regard to the D&D Alignment traditions. But it also made Alignment strictly narrative without any mechanical implications. Thus in practice, D&D gamers easily ignored the 4e Alignment problematics.

The 4e Axis cosmology omits the Positive Plane and the Negative Plane from 4e. These instead consolidate as damage types, Radiant and Necrotic, that roil as part of the Elemental Chaos. Yet, the existence of an Axis in itself implies a transcendent Positivity orienting the Astral pole upward, and a transcendent Negativity orienting the Elemental pole downward. The entire cosmology polarizes between Positive as Goodness and Negative as Evilness.



*5e Cosmology*

The 5e cosmology appreciates and preserves much of the 4e cosmology, while abandoning some difficulties, and reorganizes the Axis under the influence of the original 1e cosmology for a more concentric framework. The Material Plane is the center of a mandala-like circular multiverse.




An understated yet profound innovation of the 5e cosmology is the location of the Energy Planes, Positive and Negative. These are transcendent principles that orient the entire multiverse.
• The Positive Astral is the Celestial Planes (aka Upper).
• The Positive Ethereal is the Fey Plane (aka Feywild).
• The Negative Ethereal is the Shadow Plane (aka Shadowfell).
• The Negative Astral is the Fiend Planes (aka Lower).

Partly the reogranization of the Energy Planes derives from thinking more carefully about cosmological theory. Partly it is practical. Under the influence of the Cleric class, which coheres with an Astral Plane and with Positive Healing, there seems some kind of connection. Meanwhile, Celestial creatures such as Angels seem inherently Positive. Hence the Positivity permeates all that exists, including the Astral Plane.

Strictly speaking, there is only Positive Energy. The Negativity is an absence of energy. It restricts (hides, dampens, unravels, or voids) the Positive Energy. The term "Negative Energy" is an improper turn of phrase for empty Void.

At the Astral level of existence, the energetic influences are "Positive thoughts" and "Negative thoughts". This can and does relate to the D&D ethical Alignment system. With important exceptions, Positive thinking creatures are likely to exhibit compassion and do Good, and Negative thinking creatures likely to exhibit judgmentalism and do Evil.

At the Ethereal level of existence, the energetic influences are active forces and influences within the spirit realms to promote life and abundance. Here the energetic influences have less to do with Alignments. Evil Fey and Good Undead are common enough. The Positive ether supports and encourages life. The Negative ether undermines and extinguishes life.

At the Material level of existence, the energetic influences are more Neutral. Positive packets of energy whirling within the Negative vacuum of empty space, making creation possible. The resulting matter can be tools for either Positive or Negative purposes.



*The Elemental Planes*

The 5e Elemental Planes locate awkwardly in the 5e cosmology in the context of the D&D traditions. 3e and 4e cosmologies had split the elements away from the Material Plane. 5e now wraps them around the Material Plane like 1e, but now the Elemental Chaos separates the Material Plane from the Astral Plane. The resulting situation appears as follows:

• There is no longer a direct interactive border between the Astral Plane and the Ethereal Plane.
• The Elemental Planes are the border between Astral and Ethereal.
• The Ether separates the elements away from the Material Plane.
• The Elemental Planes feel immaterial, far from matter, and more diaphanous and dreamlike between Ethereal and Astral.

Are Elemental creatures a "form" without "substance"? Namely spirits but not matter?



*5e Creature Types*

What is an Elemental species? It depends on the planar cosmology. Understanding what the Elemental Planes are, exactly, directly impacts what other Creature Types are as well: Celestial, Fiend, Fey, and others, because of how they do or dont relate to the Material Plane.


----------



## Mistwell

Finally dug up the race I was thinking of which is incompatible with heritage/ancestry type options: Simic Hybrid. It's an official WOTC race, and it's specifically not the race of your heritage/ancestry/lineage/whatever. You started life as an elf or halfling or dwarf or human or whatever, and are transformed into being a Simic Hybird, which is very distinct from your prior race.

That concept does not work with a lot of the options being thrown around. It makes no sense. 

Kalashtar kind of doesn't make sense either (a race joined by the spirit of someone else to form something new).


----------



## Yaarel

Mistwell said:


> Finally dug up the race I was thinking of which is incompatible with heritage/ancestry type options: Simic Hybrid. It's an official WOTC race, and it's specifically not the race of your heritage/ancestry/lineage/whatever. You started life as an elf or halfling or dwarf or human or whatever, and are transformed into being a Simic Hybird, which is very distinct from your prior race.
> 
> That concept does not work with a lot of the options being thrown around. It makes no sense.
> 
> Kalashtar kind of doesn't make sense either (a race joined by the spirit of someone else to form something new).



The problem with the terms "heritage" and "ancestry" is they can apply to a group of humans. For example, Indigenous Americans have cultural heritage, and a Black American might have an ancestry going back to Angola.

The term "heritage" means an inheritance. It can mean a genetic trait, but it normally means a cultural tradition. Sometimes a family traditions. In this sense, "heritage" can work for any D&D species. For example, a heritage can refer to the cultural tradition of building new generations of Warforged.

Regarding "ancestry", even a Warforged can say one has an ancestor, in the sense of a predecessor.

The problem is, their use in reallife usage to refer to certain humans and not others.

The term human "species" unambiguously means every human alive today.



D&D has many examples of transformational origin: Simic Hybrid magically infuses a Human, Elf, or Vedalken with sea animal traits, Tiefling descend from Humans that were infused with Fiend traits, Dragonborn are a magically altered normal Dragon to develop bipedal Humanoid traits, Vampire reproduces by means of infusing Undead planar Shadow traits via blood exchange, Elan reproduces by means of psionically alterating an adult Humanoid with Aberration traits, etcetera. I view this as equivalent to gene splicing. The "ancestors" happen to include more than one species − so not so different from any other hybrid species.

The Kalashtar seems like two species in a symbiotic relationship. Compare Star Trek, the Trill and Symbiont relationship. Each species has its own genetic lineage. The Background of the Symbiont is significant because of preserving the memories of multiple Trill persons.



Even when speaking about unusual and complex origins, I notice the term "species" helps to get the point across and keep things clear. Perhaps "Species" is especially helpful for the many different fantasy concepts.


----------



## Yaarel

*Cosmology Map*
This map visualizes various D&D cosmological traditions.





In concentric circles, the silvery Ethereal Plane overlaps the smaller Material Plane. The bigger Astral Plane overlaps both.

*Astral-Ethereal Border*
In 1e, 2e, and 3e maps, the Astral Plane directlyborders the Ethereal Plane. Astral thought and Ethereal physicality interact.

5e continues traditions where an Astral thought changes into an Ethereal spirit. For example, the Succubus or Incubus is an Astral Fiend made of thought stuff. Typically, it physicalizes into an Ethereal spirit to visit incorporeally a victim sleeping in the Material Plane. The Fiend sexually manipulates the dreams. Later it shifts from a body of ether into a Material creature of flesh and blood. Using sex as a hook, it instigates the victim to do Evil against others. The Fiend can materialize and dematerialize, back and forth between the Ethereal and Material. Likewise the spirit can return home reverting to the thought stuff of the Astral Plane.

The consciousness of a creature shifts into different forms at each planar level of existence.

The continuum between thought, spiritual force, and a body of matter is a frequent trope in D&D. The Cosmology Map depicts the borders.

*Ether and Deep Ether*
The Ethereal Plane overlaps the Material Plane. The ether that overlaps the Material Plane is inside the Material Plane. For example, the force of gravity is made of ether and is a feature of the Ethereal Plane that ordinarily pervades the matter of the Material Plane. Likewise, spirits have a virtual body made out of Ethereal force, and roam the Material Plane immaterially. Those that exhibit Incorporeal Movement can pass thru objects of matter.

However Deep Ether disassociates from the Material Plane. These are otherworldly spirit realms. To move deeper into the ether is a gradual planeshift. One can stand still while watching the features of the Material Plane distorting, more an more, until unrecognizable and vanishing. Many spirits inhabit the Deep Ether but near enough for some perception of the Material features.

Deeper ether coheres less with the objects of the Material Plane and more with the thoughts of the Astral Plane. A strong mind can manifest an entire physical reality within the Deep Ether, that other creatures can inhabit.
*
Positive Fey and Negative Shadow*
The Feywild is the part of the Ethereal Plane under the influence of Positive Energy. It radiates abundant life and vibrancy. The Shadowfell is elsewhere in the Ethereal Plane but fraying into the Negative Void in deathliness and gloom.

Fey Plane = Positive Ethereal Plane
Feywild = Positive Ether overlapping the Material Plane
Deep Fey = Positive Deep Ether

Shadow Plane = Negative Ethereal Plane
Shadowfell = Negative Ether overlapping the Material Plane
Deep Shadow = Negative Deep Ether

The Domains of Delight and the Domains of Dread are the personal manifestations of powerful minds within the Deep Fey and the Deep Shadow, respectively.

*Elemental Planes and Elemental Creature Type*
Elemental Planes are extradimensional demiplanes inside the Material Plane. 

Elemental creatures are made out of matter and have mass. They are part of the Material Plane.

Elemental Planes vary. It can be the size of a house with one passageway in and out, or vast for myriad Elementals, linking many passageways across many realms.

The Elemental states of matter are solid, liquid, gas, and plasma: namely Earth, Water, Air, and Fire, respectively. The sun and other stars are plasmic Fire, sometimes called the heavenly fire. Their heat ignites other flames as well. But plasmic Fire can also be cool and invisible, sometimes called dark fire.

Elemental creatures are persons with conscious minds. A strong mind can learn the magic to animate its own mass and wield other magical effects. The animation is by means of Ethereal force, telekinetically, mind-over-matter.

Animate Elementals mostly start as nondescript stuff, like remote dirt or a random rain puddle, with small awareness, but mature sapience as members of a protective animate Elemental community. Some are prominent formations in nature who choose to get up and walk for personal reasons.

Fire wants to blaze and burn, Water wants to flow and pool. Normally, the desire of an Elemental is to persist elementally. Humanoids encounter Elementals every day, simply doing what an element does in nature. Rarely, an Elemental grows curious about Humanoids.

*Element of Khaos*
"Khaos" is the Elemental Chaos. D&D employs the terms Chaotic and Chaos for the ethical Alignment that relates to individualism and freedom of choice. Here the spelling Khaos distinguishes the Ancient Greek concept of a primordial khaos. This kind of Khaos feels ethically Unaligned, perhaps Good. It describes an infinite dark meaningless emptiness that can potentially become any kind matter. In reallife science, it can describe empty space at the moment before the Big Bang. 

In the D&D Cosmology Map, Khaos is vacuum in the Material Plane rupturing with violent Ethereal forces that flash moments of matter. Khaos is like an element, with its own properties and behavior, and forming its own Elemental Planes. But rather it is the roiling potential of any and all elements, blasting variegated elemental energies randomly in a mercurial primordial storm. Spells like Chaos Bolt and Prismatic Spray exploit Khaos. Khaos is what transforms the body of a Wild Sorcerer.

*Positivity, Negativity, and Creativity*
The Positive Energy Plane and the Negative Void Plane are transcendental planes. It is impossible to enter them. To enter Negativity would mean to become nothingness − to cease to exist. Similarly, to enter Positivity would mean to become infinite without limit or boundary: in other words, to cease to exist. The multiverse experiences their influences.

Negativity is the absence of Positive Energy. The nothing is a something new. It makes Creativity possible. In the border between Positivity and Negativity, packets of Energy trickle in to whirl in the Void. The building blocks of all that exists form. Consciousness, thought, force, matter are all made of Positivity within Negativity. This zone of interaction is a Creative influence. Where the Positivity is not, limits and boundaries make it possible for things to exist. Many things.

In the Cosmology Map, the upper influence is Positivity and the lower influence is Negativity. Between them is the wide swath of Creativity. Its mood is existence and self-preservation. The building blocks that originate in the Creativity are neutral, and either Positivity or Negativity can utilize them toward its own ends.


----------



## Greg Benage

So…Lineage then?


----------



## Yaarel

Greg Benage said:


> So…Lineage then?



Lineage has the same ambiguity as some other terms.

Lineage can refer to a species in the sense of the descent of a species or a DNA transmission.

But it normally refers to a specific group of humans, such as a royal succession or pedigree.

Also, lineage can be used in a racist way if referring to an eponymous ancestor, such as Shem, whence Semite and Antisemitism.

D&D already uses the term Lineage, both in the context of Custom Lineage for a species, and relatedly in a Sorcerer Bloodline for a pedigree.



Personally, I like the term Species. But the more I think about it − and the reallife ambiguity and baggage that comes with the other terms − the more I strongly prefer the term Species. I am glad to see the surveys double down on the term it. I hope the rest of the D&D community can come around to see its merits and embrace it. Love Species or at least can live with it. Ultimately, it will be the community that decides.


----------



## Clint_L

Yaarel said:


> Ultimately, it will be the community that decides.



Clearly not, or "schmorp" would be a shoe-in!


----------

