# One D&D Permanently Removes The Term 'Race'



## Minigiant

Ick.
Too Sci-Fi
I prefer Heritage

(It's up BTW)


----------



## billd91

Species. It's about time.


----------



## Sacrosanct

About time.  Even OSR folks like me have started removing it.  This from Chromatic Dungeons:


----------



## Weiley31

Well, I'm still using the term race. I'm too ingrained to it through my years of playing video game rpgs as a kid, 3.0/3.5 and what not.

I would've preferred the term Heritage to be quite honest though.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

As long-time fan of alliteration, I, for one, look forward to the advent of the specious speciesist arguments!


----------



## Marandahir

Excellent. Most excellent. 

Though I'd prefer Lineage as that's already in the game (Custom Lineage in_ Tasha's_, Dark Lineage in _Van Richten's_).


----------



## payn

Snarf Zagyg said:


> As long-time fan of alliteration, I, for one, look forward to the advent of the specious speciesist arguments!


----------



## Grantypants

It's good to see "race" gone, but the linguist in me wishes they'd chosen a replacement word with an adjective form. For example, the traits your PC gets from their ancestry would be their _ancestral _traits,  and so on. There's not a corresponding word for species, unfortunately.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Marandahir said:


> Excellent. Most excellent.
> 
> Though I'd prefer Lineage as that's already in the game (Custom Lineage in_ Tasha's_, Dark Lineage in _Van Richten's_).




My understanding is that _lineage_ is different than _race/species._

In other words, you can have a lineage (like a dhampir) that was of different races/species. It's kind of confusing in its implementation, but it's supposed to be a slightly different concept. IIRC.


----------



## DEFCON 1

I'm good with moving on from the term 'Race'.  Doesn't bother me.

Funny part though is that I think the game could actually have two different new terms for this... based upon the two different types of "race" there are in the game.  The completely different "species" (like Humans to Dwarves to Elves to Orcs)... and "lineages" (which are species that have bloodlines from other peoples in their ancestry that have made its way down through the generations-- like Tieflings, Genasi, Shifters, Aasimar, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs and the like.)

Of course the reason they _wouldn't_ do this would be the confusion of using two different terms for the same character generation thing-- like how would you identify the chapter header for instance... and you would always have to try and remember the correct term of the two every time one got mentioned in any of the books.  More trouble than its worth... even if it's more "correct" per se.


----------



## sevenbastard

Makes sense. When I immigrated here from Alpha Centauri the forms I filled out at MIB used that term to have me identify my origin. 

Now if they will just remove the offensive centaur stereotypes from the MM all will be good.


----------



## Lieslo

I dislike the term species as this could imply the biological species concept as members of a population that can potentially interbreed. Where does this leave half-orcs, half elves etc? Its too loaded a term to be of use for the game as is race. My preference is ancestry


----------



## Scribe

Would have rathered something less...sterilized?

Lineage, Ancestry, Heritage...Species?!


----------



## Incenjucar

Glad to see it.

There are species that are fully compatible but separated by geography, so this is fine linguistically, even if it's a bit of an awkward word.


----------



## delericho

I'm happy to see 'race' gone.

I have rather more mixed feelings about 'species' - it doesn't feel right for a fantasy game (too sci-fi), but then I wasn't really happy with _any_ of the alternatives. That may be part of why 'race' lasted so long. Anyway, it's not a big deal.


----------



## payn

Lieslo said:


> I dislike the term species as this could imply the biological species concept as members of a population that can potentially interbreed. Where does this leave half-orcs, half elves etc? Its too loaded a term to be of use for the game as is race. My preference is ancestry



Ancestry was taken.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

sounds good to me


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Will take some getting used to, but not a bad decision by any means.

Would still like a better way of handling mixed characters, and especially Half-Elves and Half-Orcs, than the "pick a parent" reflavoring method.


----------



## SteveC

I think the removal of the race term is something that's been expected for a long time. I think the term species is a poor choice for a fantasy game, and the scientist in me says "okay, so that means there are no half elves any more?" 

I think there are a lot better alternatives (Ancestry or Kin come immediately to mind, I'm sure there are many others) but from the things I have a mind to argue on, it doesn't make the list. I do think think the specific choice will be jarring as there are better options for a fantasy based rpg.


----------



## Scribe

SteveC said:


> "okay, so that means there are no half elves any more?"



This was proposed wasn't it? Half Elf/Orc, going away.


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Scribe said:


> This was proposed wasn't it? Half Elf/Orc, going away.



Which is a problem for established settings like Eberron that make extensive use of them.


----------



## aco175

Meh, is speciest added to words we should not use on the forums?  

I can see why they did it.  Not sure how long it will take to stop using the word race though.


----------



## Tonguez

Minigiant said:


> Ick.
> Too Sci-Fi
> I prefer Heritage
> 
> (It's up BTW)



Species is Late latin for the ‘appearance’ of a thing and has been used in the biological sense since the 16th century.

But I too prefer Heritage (although thats Cultural) or Lineage (more biological)


----------



## billd91

Snarf Zagyg said:


> As long-time fan of alliteration, I, for one, look forward to the advent of the specious speciesist arguments!



Can each one have their own coinage system? Then we can have specific species' species.


----------



## Minigiant

Tonguez said:


> Species is Late latin for the ‘appearance’ of a thing and has been used in the biological sense since the 16th century.
> 
> But I too prefer Heritage (although thats Cultural) or Lineage (more biological)



But you can swap appearance of another "species" now.

That's why I like Heritage. D&D races were heavily linked to your parents. So I prefer it more that you inherited your features from your parents.


----------



## Raduin711

Lieslo said:


> I dislike the term species as this could imply the biological species concept as members of a population that can potentially interbreed. Where does this leave half-orcs, half elves etc?



When it comes to science, it's always more complicated.

From Wikipedia:


> In biology, a *species* is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. Other ways of defining species include their karyotype, DNA sequence, morphology, behaviour or ecological niche. In addition, paleontologists use the concept of the chronospecies since fossil reproduction cannot be examined.
> ...
> While the definitions given above may seem adequate at first glance, when looked at more closely they represent problematic species concepts. For example, the boundaries between closely related species become unclear with hybridisation, in a species complex of hundreds of similar microspecies, and in a ring species. Also, among organisms that reproduce only asexually, the concept of a reproductive species breaks down, and each clone is potentially a microspecies. Although none of these are entirely satisfactory definitions, and while the concept of species may not be a perfect model of life, it is still an incredibly useful tool to scientists and conservationists for studying life on Earth, regardless of the theoretical difficulties. If species were fixed and clearly distinct from one another, there would be no problem, but evolutionary processes cause species to change. This obliges taxonomists to decide, for example, when enough change has occurred to declare that a lineage should be divided into multiple chronospecies, or when populations have diverged to have enough distinct character states to be described as cladistic species.



It is possible for two species to have viable offspring. In the case of Mules, this results in sterility, but this isn't necessarily the case for all hybrids. In any event, scientists bend the rules for asexual species, and so on because the label "species" is useful.


----------



## Amrûnril

Scribe said:


> This was proposed wasn't it? Half Elf/Orc, going away.




The reasoning being that species are generally defined biologically based on the ability to interbreed (and produce offspring that are themselves able to reproduce). Of course, in nature, there are plenty of cases where reproductive compatibility isn't binary, or isn't known to the researchers classifying the organisms. And this definition is only applicable in the first place to organisms that reproduce sexually.


----------



## Micah Sweet

payn said:


> Ancestry was taken.



So was heritage, but I would have been fine sharing it.


----------



## Scribe

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> Which is a problem for established settings like Eberron that make extensive use of them.




For sure. My biology is like..grade 10 level but I was thinking on this.

Human - Elf -> Half Elf - Sure, easy.
Half Elf - Half Elf -> Human, Elf, or Half Elf?

How does that work? (its a rhetorical I dont want the answer).

This is why I just drop the races species anyway. Its a lot of hassle.

Just making a 'choose your parentage' option makes more sense to me personally, but I know there are other views on it.


----------



## payn

Micah Sweet said:


> So was heritage, but I would have been fine sharing it.



WotC isnt tho.


----------



## Micah Sweet

payn said:


> WotC isnt tho.



Ok?  I'm not trying to make any judgement beyond liking Level Up's term.  WotC can do what they want.


----------



## Lidgar

I know I’ll get used to it, but as a biologist, now I’m going to want the Latin names for all the species, subspecies, and genetic variants…


----------



## overgeeked

Cool. Not sure about species as the replacement, and it will take me awhile to not reflexively say race, but it was well-past time for a change.


----------



## Knightfall

billd91 said:


> Species. It's about time.



Agreed.


----------



## Lieslo

Raduin711 said:


> When it comes to science, it's always more complicated.
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> 
> It is possible for two species to have viable offspring. In the case of Mules, this results in sterility, but this isn't necessarily the case for all hybrids. In any event, scientists bend the rules for asexual species, and so on because the label "species" is useful.



Yes this was my point about the term being too loaded and not suitable for the game


----------



## Hex08

I'm fine with gaming companies abandoning the word race but after playing RPG's for 40 years getting me to stop using the word will be difficult. Don't really care for species though.


----------



## John R Davis

Not a fan.
Must be a better term??


----------



## Rabulias

Grantypants said:


> It's good to see "race" gone, but the linguist in me wishes they'd chosen a replacement word with an adjective form. For example, the traits your PC gets from their ancestry would be their _ancestral _traits,  and so on. There's not a corresponding word for species, unfortunately.



Race -> racial
Ancestry -> ancestral
Species -> special?


----------



## Micah Sweet

overgeeked said:


> Cool. Not sure about species as the replacement, and it will take me awhile to not reflexively say race, but it was well-past time for a change.



I've been heritage all the time since LU introduced it.  Species for WotC works well enough though.


----------



## Incenjucar

Species may be the most portable term between languages. All the synonyms in English my translate awkwardly.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Minigiant said:


> Ick.
> Too Sci-Fi
> I prefer Heritage
> 
> (It's up BTW)



Never understood the logic of it being too sci-fi. By the same logic, rapiers are too sci-fi for DnD.

Both originated at around the same time (1500s).


----------



## Vael

Fan of dropping race, not a fan of species. Any of: Origin, Ancestry, or Lineage would have been a superior choice, IMO. Species makes a few options feel weird, like any transformation origin, like Reborn or Hexblood. Constructs like Autognome or Warforged. This isn't a dealbreaker, but I will probably use one of my preferences.


----------



## zhivik

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> Which is a problem for established settings like Eberron that make extensive use of them.



I suppose they can always use the term “subspecies“ or “variants”. Shadowrun does this, according to its lore, all metavariants (humans, elves, orcs, dwarves, trolls) are subspecies of Homo Sapiens.


----------



## Minigiant

Frozen_Heart said:


> Never understood the logic of it being too sci-fi. By the same logic, rapiers are too sci-fi for DnD.
> 
> Both originated at around the same time (1500s).



Not all settings are based around the 1500s or 1600s.

That's why I like heritage. Linking it to Heir. Your mom or dad passed down the horns and tail.


----------



## John R Davis

Vael said:


> Fan of dropping race, not a fan of species. Any of: Origin, Ancestry, or Lineage would have been a superior choice, IMO. Species makes a few options feel weird, like any transformation origin, like Reborn or Hexblood. Constructs like Autognome or Warforged. This isn't a dealbreaker, but I will probably use one of my preferences.



Actually I like Origin.


----------



## Incenjucar

Heritage can be cultural, and "Sub-heritage" sounds super weird.


----------



## Clint_L

Species is fine. We can get pedantic about it, but at the end of the day everyone will understand what you mean and it comes without a lot of baggage, which is mostly what they are going for. Honestly, I could care less.


----------



## Marandahir

Lieslo said:


> I dislike the term species as this could imply the biological species concept as members of a population that can potentially interbreed. Where does this leave half-orcs, half elves etc? Its too loaded a term to be of use for the game as is race. My preference is ancestry






SteveC said:


> I think the removal of the race term is something that's been expected for a long time. I think the term species is a poor choice for a fantasy game, and the scientist in me says "okay, so that means there are no half elves any more?"
> 
> I think there are a lot better alternatives (Ancestry or Kin come immediately to mind, I'm sure there are many others) but from the things I have a mind to argue on, it doesn't make the list. I do think think the specific choice will be jarring as there are better options for a fantasy based rpg.



Hybridized cross-species that breed true exist in real world biology all the time. 
Our little box of species is not well-defined, and in that regards, it's a feature of this usage, not a bug. We act like they're supposed to not reproduce, but that's because we want to divide everything into tiny little boxes to make sense of them. Biology doesn't work like that. Even Physics doesn't work like that (you keep cutting up matter into smaller and smaller parts until now you're in the quantum foam and there's weirdness like particles popping in and out of existence).

I still agree that it sounds too sci-fi but I may just need to get use to it.


----------



## Mercador

From a French perspective, "species" aren't any better than "races", it's even worse.


----------



## Hex08

Mercador said:


> From a French perspective, "species" aren't any better than "races", it's even worse.



Can you elaborate on that?


----------



## Marandahir

Hex08 said:


> Can you elaborate on that?



Not going to speak for them, but there is an issue of where racists have considered some people of different appearances or origins to be entirely different species, or subspecies, from them, in order to put those people down. Speciesist is also a proxy for racism in Star Wars and other sci-fi genres, and I can see it becoming as such in D&D if we go this direction.

I don't think there's many good options here, but species could be an issue due to extant historical usages.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Getting rid of 'race' = good.

'Species' feels like the option you take because the cool kids took the better ones.

It should take a lot of the steam out of the "_xyz_ 'species' is just human with _abc_ differences" arguments though. 

"Bro, they aren't even the same species"


----------



## wingsandsword

aco175 said:


> Not sure how long it will take to stop using the word race though.



Probably never will go away, not in our lifetimes at least.

They stopped calling it spell memorization 22 years ago in 3e and replaced it with "preparation", I still hear plenty of people call it "spell memorization".

People tend to use the terms and language from when they learned the hobby, especially for core concepts like character race.


----------



## Yaarel

Scribe said:


> For sure. My biology is like..grade 10 level but I was thinking on this.
> 
> Human - Elf -> Half Elf - Sure, easy.
> Half Elf - Half Elf -> Human, Elf, or Half Elf?
> 
> How does that work? (its a rhetorical I dont want the answer).
> 
> This is why I just drop the races species anyway. Its a lot of hassle.
> 
> Just making a 'choose your parentage' option makes more sense to me personally, but I know there are other views on it.



I dont mind if instead of "Race",

the new technical jargon is "Parentage".


----------



## Kobold Avenger

I remember having to give an awkward explanation that "race" in D&D was not anything like Asian (which I am) or White or Black, but things like Elves, Dwarves, Humans and so on. So I'm glad that's going away.

As for whether it would be Species, or Ancestry or whatever, I actually don't really care too much which one they pick.


----------



## Raduin711

Lieslo said:


> Yes this was my point about the term being too loaded and not suitable for the game



I don't recall seeing this. Care to elaborate?


----------



## darjr

Species is fine.

I guess


----------



## Raduin711

Vael said:


> Fan of dropping race, not a fan of species. Any of: Origin, Ancestry, or Lineage would have been a superior choice, IMO. Species makes a few options feel weird, like any transformation origin, like Reborn or Hexblood. Constructs like Autognome or Warforged. This isn't a dealbreaker, but I will probably use one of my preferences.



I never gave it a second thought to call a Warforged a "race."  I expect "species" will fade into the background similarly.


----------



## Osgood

I'm all for dropping the term "race" but I don't love the term "species." It sounds too modern. It'll suffice, but hopefully they can come up with something better over the course of the play test. What about "Kind?" As in humankind, elfkind? Clunky, but it feels more in keeping medievalish fantasy lingo.


----------



## CleverNickName

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


----------



## ctorus

I understand why they want to drop the term 'race', even though the reality is that races are an inherently fantastical idea, and the races in fantasy games are effectively a gamification of it, albeit (these days usually) shorn of their prejudicial and unpleasant social consequences.

Thus I'm a bit uncomfortable with 'biologicalising' the concept by mapping it onto the term species. After all, in the real world, calling what used to be 'races' species, or incipient species, is exactly what many of of the racists want to do. For that reason I'd prefer an alternative term such as ancestry or lineage.


----------



## Scribe

CleverNickName said:


> We started using Ancestry last year, and we have no complaints.
> 
> "Let me tell you about my race" - too personal, impolite, 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 a 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




Yeah, please Wizards, please.


----------



## TheBanjoNerd

Osgood said:


> I'm all for dropping the term "race" but I don't love the term "species." It sounds too modern. It'll suffice, but hopefully they can come up with something better over the course of the play test. What about "Kind?" As in humankind, elfkind? Clunky, but it feels more in keeping medievalish fantasy lingo.



They could use "Kin" to replace "race" and still refer to "humankind" or "elfkind". Matter of fact, I think I just stumbled on to how I'll be referring to characters from now on.


----------



## Minigiant

CleverNickName said:


> We started using Ancestry last year, and we have no complaints.
> 
> "Let me tell you about my race" - too personal, impolite, 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 a 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



The elf fighter is an elf because his or her parents, not ancestors, were elves.


----------



## Scribe

Minigiant said:


> The elf fighter is an elf because his or her parents, not ancestors, were elves.




If the elf's parents are elves, their parents, are elves, the elves ancestors are in fact, also elves?


----------



## Minigiant

Scribe said:


> If the elf's parents are elves, their parents, are elves, the elves ancestors are in fact, also elves?



Nope.

Reincarnate


----------



## Scribe

Minigiant said:


> Nope.
> 
> Reincarnate




Nah. I'm fine.


----------



## Dire Bare

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> Which is a problem for established settings like Eberron that make extensive use of them.



Not really.

The "half-orc" race species character option is going away. But there are already custom species options in the existing rules, and it's likely there will be in One D&D. If you want to play a character with both human and orc ancestry, you will still be able to do so.

No change to Eberron lore at all, really.


----------



## CleverNickName

Minigiant said:


> Nope.
> 
> Reincarnate



I mean, sure?  I've only ever seen this spell used at character creation. Once, and it was on _Critical Role._  Not really an issue for my table.


----------



## Dire Bare

To pick a nit . . . the statement WotC released does state that they are getting rid of the term "race", but that "species" is a playtest term they want feedback on. It is not (yet) the official replacement for "race".


----------



## Kannik

Also would prefer Lineage (though we use species extensively as a term in our non D&D games) and totally happy that it's being changed.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen

The way D&D uses the word "race" is the correct usage, and using it to describe ethnicity in real life is incorrect. There is only one human race. I wish the behavior of others wasn't making us so sensitive to the word that we avoid using it. But, if is to be changed, "species" is the correct word.

All other suggestions (ancestry, heritage, origin, kin, etc) are real things that are used to describe diversity among humans.  They don't specifically refer to the substantial physical and supernatural differences among humans, elves, fairies, and giants, and it's these differences that have the most relevance to the game rules.

Given time, I can get used to the word "species". Yes, it sounds out of place for the genre, as we see it as a scientific term and most fantasy settings lack the scientific method. But, the people of a fantasy world have come up with some word to describe different sentient species.

That said, I suspect some people are uncomfortable with D&D having species at all and are looking for a term that downplays the concept. I don't agree with that opinion, but I do empathize with it and recognize that my arguments won't convince them.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Morrus said:


> In a blog post, WotC announced that "We have made the decision to move on from using the term "race" everywhere in One D&D, and we do not intend to return to that term."


----------



## Dragonsbane

Species does sound sci-fi, but is most accurate, I like it. Will use it in my next book I put out.

Question is, does anyone not reading forums care about this stuff? No one at my table even knew about many of the latest "controversies" over race, orcs, drow, etc...... when I presented PF2, one player was like "where are the races".... when I mentioned the various online views, they all had trouble believing it was real and none had ever thought of any of it, even 30 year vets. And none said it would affect their purchasing habits.


----------



## payn

Dragonsbane said:


> Species does sound sci-fi, but is most accurate, I like it. Will use it in my next book I put out.
> 
> Question is, does anyone not reading forums care about this stuff? No one at my table even knew about many of the latest "controversies" over race, orcs, drow, etc...... when I presented PF2, one player was like "where are the races".... when I mentioned the various online views, they all had trouble believing it was real and none had ever thought of any of it, even 30 year vets. And none said it would affect their purchasing habits.



That would be what they call anecdotal.


----------



## Incenjucar

People do care, yes. The term was uncomfortable even back in the 90s.


----------



## Bolares

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> Which is a problem for established settings like Eberron that make extensive use of them.



I don’t know how big of a problem it is if an Eberron book could bring them there, withtou usong half-elf/orc and using their setting names.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Minigiant said:


> The elf fighter is an elf because his or her parents, not ancestors, were elves.



Hmm, "parentage." I like it from a Gygaxian perspective, but I'm not sure that's a word that the broad audience necessarily knows.


----------



## Vaalingrade

As someone who also bounced around a lot of ideas before coming to species in the end, here the thing:

Heritage, Lineage, Bloodline and Ancestry aren't going to stand the test of time in terms of solving the problem removing 'Race' is solving. They've got a little 'eugenics' on them and the thin layer of it has been getting thicker in the past decade. 

What's more, not all fantasy creatures can have their phenotype traced by genetic inheritance. A Warforged is built, not born. Certain half-species don't have an X parent, they are touched and transformed by certain energies.

So until the world wisens up and accepts my inspired 'That Fhing Hwhat You Is', Species is ultimately the better choice.


----------



## Lanefan

Scribe said:


> For sure. My biology is like..grade 10 level but I was thinking on this.
> 
> Human - Elf -> Half Elf - Sure, easy.
> Half Elf - Half Elf -> Human, Elf, or Half Elf?



Half-Elf.

Half-Elf - Human -> Quarter-Elf.
Half-Elf -> Elf -> 3/4-Elf.

This is why we went to calling them "Part Elves" and "Part Orcs" ages ago, with gradated mechanics for each 1/8 step.

=============

As for the bigger point: 'species' is fine with me, and IMO considerably better than most of the other suggested terms e.g. Ancestry, Heritage, etc.  A Part-Elf is simply a mix of two species in the fiction, that has its own mechanics in the rules as if it was a separate species of its own.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Fractional Elf


----------



## Matchstick

Snarf Zagyg said:


> As long-time fan of alliteration, I, for one, look forward to the advent of the specious speciesist arguments!



So you're "an alliteration advocate anticipating the advent of the alternate ancestry arguments"


----------



## Faolyn

Minigiant said:


> Ick.
> Too Sci-Fi
> I prefer Heritage
> 
> (It's up BTW)



If it makes you feel better, the word originates in the 14th century.


----------



## MNblockhead

Grantypants said:


> It's good to see "race" gone, but the linguist in me wishes they'd chosen a replacement word with an adjective form. For example, the traits your PC gets from their ancestry would be their _ancestral _traits,  and so on. There's not a corresponding word for species, unfortunately.



Biologists use "specific".  Using "generic" (related to genus) and "specific" (related to species) traits is, however, a bit awkard in that that is not how people will read these terms in common usage. Then again, talking about "traits specific to elves" or "dwarf-specific traits" reads well enough to me.


----------



## Marandahir

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Hmm, "parentage." I like it from a Gygaxian perspective, but I'm not sure that's a word that the broad audience necessarily knows.



What if your parents aren't the same species as you?

What if you are a species without parents, like an Autognome or a Shardmind or a Plasmoid?


----------



## Davies

Rabulias said:


> Race -> racial
> Ancestry -> ancestral
> Species -> special?



Yes, that _is_ the adjective form -- though I'm now informed that biologists use a different one -- and possibly a good argument against using that noun in this instance, as is the existence of characters who are non-biological in origin, like warforged.


----------



## Scribe

Marandahir said:


> What if you are a species without parents, like an Autognome?




A robot isnt a species, beyond 'Construct' anyway?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Marandahir said:


> What if your parents aren't the same species as you?
> 
> What if you are a species without parents, like an Autognome?



Good points. 

I vote we go with "Thingy."


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Scribe said:


> A robot isnt a species, beyond 'Construct' anyway?



What is the blank on the character sheet called for an autognome character, then?


----------



## Marandahir

Scribe said:


> A robot isnt a species, beyond 'Construct' anyway?



I think the Droid Gotra would like to have a word with you.


----------



## MNblockhead

Lieslo said:


> I dislike the term species as this could imply the biological species concept as members of a population that can potentially interbreed. Where does this leave half-orcs, half elves etc? Its too loaded a term to be of use for the game as is race. My preference is ancestry



I don't have an issue with it. Even if you read the term in a strict biological sense, fertile hybrids are possible in the real world. 

If chimpanzees and bonobos can interbreed, I don't see an issue with orcs and humans.


----------



## Yaarel

Technically the adjective for "species" is "special".

I find myself needing to mispronounce the adjective as: "speecial".

Or even: "SPEE-shee-al".



A neologism may be in order. The term species derives from a Latin noun. So:

"Specid" : Species :: Rabid : Rabies

Then again:

Special : Species :: Serial : Series


----------



## Charlaquin

I like that they’re discontinuing the use of the term race, but species is a poor alternative. Can duergar no longer have children with dwarves? Svirfneblin with gnomes? What about all the varieties of elf, are we really saying they’re all different species now? No, this doesn’t work. Call them ancestries, or heritages, or lineages, or peoples. Species is just fraught in a different way than race.


----------



## Charlaquin

Scribe said:


> This was proposed wasn't it? Half Elf/Orc, going away.



Only as distinct races species with mechanical features. You can still play a character that was half-orc and half-human, or half-and-half of any two… umm… _species_ you want (which makes the term woefully inaccurate). You just have to pick one parent to get the mechanical features from, and mix-and-match visual traits from each as you like.


----------



## Scribe

Charlaquin said:


> Only as distinct races species with mechanical features. You can still play a character that was half-orc and half-human, or half-and-half of any two… umm… _species_ you want (which makes the term woefully inaccurate). You just have to pick one parent to get the mechanical features from, and mix-and-match visual traits from each as you like.



Yeah, which...I mean I get, but yeah.


----------



## Teemu

They should just use ancestry. Yeah, Pathfinder has it. So what? Ancestry fits fantasy a little better than species. We can give them feedback, the term isn’t set in stone yet.


----------



## Bolares

This elfgame, the term doesn’t need to be scientificaly acurate. I like species because it tells imediately to the player what choice they are making in character creation.


----------



## Marandahir

Charlaquin said:


> I like that they’re discontinuing the use of the term race, but species is a poor alternative. Can duergar no longer have children with dwarves? Svirfneblin with gnomes? What about all the varieties of elf, are we really saying they’re all different species now? No, this doesn’t work. Call them ancestries, or heritages, or lineages, or peoples. Species is just fraught in a different way than race.



You may have missed my post earlier in the thread (though I agree with you that that ancestry is FAR better):

Species ≠ Mutually Exclusive Reproduction.

Especially in Fantasy settings, but also in real life. 

There are NUMEROUS examples of hybridized cross-species, and not just ones that are sterile, but plenty that "breed true". 
Let alone the idea that an individual "MUST" be able to have children to be considered their own thing. >_> 

I hate the cutting out of Half-elf and Half-orc, but I'd be sort of okay with it if they just plop the Custom Lineage option from _Tasha's_ into the 2024 PHB and suggest that your Half-elf character may be statted as an Elf, a Human, or mix and match using Custom Lineage.


----------



## Marandahir

Teemu said:


> They should just use ancestry. Yeah, Pathfinder has it. So what? Ancestry fits fantasy a little better than species. We can give them feedback, the term isn’t set in stone yet.



Does Paizo have a trademark on the usage of the term in this context? If not, then WotC should use it too. They might be wanting to avoid a lawsuit, of course, much like everyone else uses GM instead of DM.


----------



## Charlaquin

Rabulias said:


> Race -> racial
> Ancestry -> ancestral
> Species -> special?



That is in fact the correct adjective form.


----------



## Charlaquin

zhivik said:


> I suppose they can always use the term “subspecies“ or “variants”. Shadowrun does this, according to its lore, all metavariants (humans, elves, orcs, dwarves, trolls) are subspecies of Homo Sapiens.



Subspecies is super fraught, as the “sub” prefix is demeaning.


----------



## MNblockhead

Charlaquin said:


> I like that they’re discontinuing the use of the term race, but species is a poor alternative. Can duergar no longer have children with dwarves? Svirfneblin with gnomes? What about all the varieties of elf, are we really saying they’re all different species now? No, this doesn’t work. Call them ancestries, or heritages, or lineages, or peoples. Species is just fraught in a different way than race.



Your game, your choice. Hybrids are a thing even in real-world biology. In D&D, half-elf and half-orc are traditional and currently exist in 5e RAW.  Rumors are half-orcs may go away, but if they do, I won't be because of the word "species."


----------



## Charlaquin

Incenjucar said:


> Heritage can be cultural, and "Sub-heritage" sounds super weird.



They haven’t been doing subraces for a while now, and the MMotM and 1D&D versions of peoples that used to be subraces are presented as full races (species) therein


----------



## Charlaquin

Clint_L said:


> Species is fine. We can get pedantic about it, but at the end of the day everyone will understand what you mean and it comes without a lot of baggage, which is mostly what they are going for. Honestly, I could care less.



I don’t think it does come without a lot of baggage is the thing. It’s just different baggage.


----------



## MNblockhead

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think it does come without a lot of baggage is the thing. It’s just different baggage.



Any term they choose will have baggage.  Species is just not a politically charged and doesn't have the same historical baggage. Ancestry, heritage, and lineage, arguably do. They are only marginally better than race from a political perspective.  

Origins and species are the best neutral terms. At least in English.


----------



## Charlaquin

Jeff Carlsen said:


> The way D&D uses the word "race" is the correct usage, and using it to describe ethnicity in real life is incorrect. There is only one human race. I wish the behavior of others wasn't making us so sensitive to the word that we avoid using it. But, if is to be changed, "species" is the correct word.
> 
> All other suggestions (ancestry, heritage, origin, kin, etc) are real things that are used to describe diversity among humans.  They don't specifically refer to the substantial physical and supernatural differences among humans, elves, fairies, and giants, and it's these differences that have the most relevance to the game rules.



The thing is, the terms that accurately describe the relationships between D&D races have been historically (and currently) used to dehumanize people of different ethnicities. They’re techno accurate in D&D because the groups there are actually not human, but as they are characters players are meant to identify with, asking people who have been historically (and currently) dehumanized to identify with characters who are talked about in the same way they have been, makes the game feel unwelcoming to them.


----------



## payn

Marandahir said:


> Does Paizo have a trademark on the usage of the term in this context? If not, then WotC should use it too. They might be wanting to avoid a lawsuit, of course, much like everyone else uses GM instead of DM.



I dont think its fear of a lawsuit, but fear of impression. If WotC goes ancestry then it looks like they are following Paizo's lead. If WotC makes their own change they can say this is how _we_ are doing it.


----------



## Marandahir

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



I love this SOOOO much. 

And the best part is, ancestors doesn't have to be genetic, either!

It can be your spiritual ancestors, your teachers, the crops you've relied on, your maker and their own ancestors (if you're a Construct), the people who took you in when you were thrown out in the cold by your birth parents.

Ancestry is a GREAT term. It is etymologically close to a taboo/criminal term/concept, and it does evoke Ancestry.com and its very genetic-oriented form of ancestry... but for example the indigenous Munsee Lenape people of the Hudson and Delware valleys (where I live) consider the "Three Sisters" - Corns, Beans, and Squash - among their ancestors, despite those plants being considered invasive non-native crop species here in NYC by land managers like myself, or at least how I used to speak about these things. 

There's a reason we are trying to get away from terms like invasive or native species, because it discounts generations of occupation of land by immigrant species and immigrant groups, and the adoption of those species and groups into the culture of their new homes. _Artemisia vulgare _aka Mugwort is considered a noxious weed by us land managers - and it often is - but it's also critically important in Traditional Chinese medicine and a lot of traditional Chinese foods like Mooncakes. We have to be especially careful with how we manage such land so that we're not spraying toxic chemicals into fields that are being used as scavenging grounds by local residents for their food. Even if we say that it's illegal to wild harvest in NYC (for various reasons - soil could be very toxic, for example), and even if we put up warning signs before and during and after herbicide sprays, if we're not working carefully with local residents, we could be causing harm. 

All this is to say: if revered crops that originate from thousands of miles away can be considered ancestors, then my Half-elf can consider their adopted Dwarf parents ancestors too. And yet, at the same time, I can recognise that my Half-elf also has human and elf ancestors. 

It's just that some of my Ancestors have passed down to me my innate Ancestry abilities and others have passed to me elements of my Background or introduced me to my Class.


----------



## Charlaquin

Teemu said:


> They should just use ancestry. Yeah, Pathfinder has it. So what? Ancestry fits fantasy a little better than species. We can give them feedback, the term isn’t set in stone yet.



Nobody cared that D&D and Pathfinder used the same word when it was race. Why does it suddenly matter now that it’s a different word?


----------



## Charlaquin

Marandahir said:


> You may have missed my post earlier in the thread (though I agree with you that that ancestry is FAR better):
> 
> Species ≠ Mutually Exclusive Reproduction.
> 
> Especially in Fantasy settings, but also in real life.
> 
> There are NUMEROUS examples of hybridized cross-species, and not just ones that are sterile, but plenty that "breed true".
> Let alone the idea that an individual "MUST" be able to have children to be considered their own thing. >_>
> 
> I hate the cutting out of Half-elf and Half-orc, but I'd be sort of okay with it if they just plop the Custom Lineage option from _Tasha's_ into the 2024 PHB and suggest that your Half-elf character may be statted as an Elf, a Human, or mix and match using Custom Lineage.



Sure, plenty of closely-related species can interbreed, but in 1D&D, all humanoid “species” can do so, which is pretty extreme. Moreover I think it’s absurd to say that all the variety of elves are different species, but they’re also all elves. Is elf a genus now? Then it’s even weirder that every species within that genus can interbreed with every other humanoid species, which I guess must also be their own genera? Cause like dwarf and duergar are both species of dwarf. Unless we want to start using the term subspecies for the different varieties of elf, dwarf, gnome, etc. And that doesn’t really feel any less scientifically racist than using the term race if you ask me.


----------



## Faolyn

Vael said:


> Fan of dropping race, not a fan of species. Any of: Origin, Ancestry, or Lineage would have been a superior choice, IMO. Species makes a few options feel weird, like any transformation origin, like Reborn or Hexblood. Constructs like Autognome or Warforged. This isn't a dealbreaker, but I will probably use one of my preferences.



Origin is a bit tricky because it could also be culture of origin or country of origin. But the other options you presented are fine.


----------



## Faolyn

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Good points.
> 
> I vote we go with "Thingy."



That sounds like a word gnomes would use.


----------



## Dire Bare

payn said:


> That would be what they call anecdotal.



It's a question springing from an anecdote. Maybe instead of snark, answer the question?

At my table, none of my players are aware of these raging internet controversies either. When I brought it up, opinions varied, much in the way they do here on the forums. Some of my players thought changing the terminology "stupid" . . . others agreed it was long past due.

That's my anecdote!


----------



## Marandahir

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, plenty of closely-related species can interbreed, but in 1D&D, all humanoid “species” can do so, which is pretty extreme. Moreover I think it’s absurd to say that all the variety of elves are different species, but they’re also all elves. Is elf a genus now? Then it’s even weirder that every species within that genus can interbreed with every other humanoid species, which I guess must also be their own genera? Cause like dwarf and duergar are both species of dwarf. Unless we want to start using the term subspecies for the different varieties of elf, dwarf, gnome, etc. And that doesn’t really feel any less scientifically racist than using the term race if you ask me.



This is a great point. 

I'd call them subspecies of Elf or Dwarf, but at the same time, we're now treating them as their own entirely separate statblock, rather than saying to refer back to the PHB for the central spine of the "species" and what we have listed below for the "subspecies" rules, like we did in earlier 5e.

Ancestry or Lineage or Heritage are all much better terms.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Dragonsbane said:


> Species does sound sci-fi, but is most accurate, I like it. Will use it in my next book I put out.
> 
> Question is, does anyone not reading forums care about this stuff? No one at my table even knew about many of the latest "controversies" over race, orcs, drow, etc...... when I presented PF2, one player was like "where are the races".... when I mentioned the various online views, they all had trouble believing it was real and none had ever thought of any of it, even 30 year vets. And none said it would affect their purchasing habits.



This is why its so hard to judge what people write large actually want. A huge number don't seem to actually care.


----------



## payn

Dire Bare said:


> It's a question springing from an anecdote. Maybe instead of snark, answer the question?
> 
> At my table, none of my players are aware of these raging internet controversies either. When I brought it up, opinions varied, much in the way they do here on the forums. Some of my players thought changing the terminology "stupid" . . . others agreed it was long past due.
> 
> That's my anecdote!



Putting controversies in quotes seemed like they already have their answer.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> Only as distinct races species with mechanical features. You can still play a character that was half-orc and half-human, or half-and-half of any two… umm… _species_ you want (which makes the term woefully inaccurate). You just have to pick one parent to get the mechanical features from, and mix-and-match visual traits from each as you like.



That implies the mechanics don't really matter.  I think there are quite a few folks who would disagree with that.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> Subspecies is super fraught, as the “sub” prefix is demeaning.



We have subclasses, which could just as easily been called archetypes or specializations.


----------



## Micah Sweet

MNblockhead said:


> Any term they choose will have baggage.  Species is just not a politically charged and doesn't have the same historical baggage. Ancestry, heritage, and lineage, arguably do. They are only marginally better than race from a political perspective.
> 
> Origins and species are the best neutral terms. At least in English.



Does every choice have to be made from a political perspective?


----------



## Micah Sweet

payn said:


> I dont think its fear of a lawsuit, but fear of impression. If WotC goes ancestry then it looks like they are following Paizo's lead. If WotC makes their own change they can say this is how _we_ are doing it.



I suspect its too late for people not to think they're following Paizo's (and EN Publishing's) lead on this issue.


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> We have subclasses, which could just as easily been called archetypes or specializations.



Subclass is less problematic because it doesn’t refer to a people. But I wouldn’t be opposed to using archetype or specialization instead.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Dire Bare said:


> It's a question springing from an anecdote. Maybe instead of snark, answer the question?
> 
> At my table, none of my players are aware of these raging internet controversies either. When I brought it up, opinions varied, much in the way they do here on the forums. Some of my players thought changing the terminology "stupid" . . . others agreed it was long past due.
> 
> That's my anecdote!



My players know about it, but their opinions tend to range from, "that's stupid" to "whatever".


----------



## CleverNickName

I wouldn't mind getting rid of "sub-" as a prefix for class _and _race.  They could throw "half-" onto the heap with it as well AFAIAC.


----------



## MarkB

Heritage, Ancestry and Lineage are too specific. They're used to describe specific bloodlines, not entire populations. And they have connotations with members of nobility being concerned with tracking bloodlines and maintaining purity of lineage, which isn't really any better a look than "race".

Species, at least in common English usage, is relatively uncharged and politically neutral, and the average layperson has a decent idea of what it is likely to mean in context. It works.


----------



## bedir than

Charlaquin said:


> 1D&D versions of peoples that used to be subraces are presented as full races (species) therein



While One D&D didn't list them as subspecies, there are in fact sub species and not full writeups for the various elves, various dwarves, various dragonborn, various gnomes


----------



## CreamCloud0

I’m fine with species, it’s accurate to what it’s identifying so it’s good enough for me.

lineage and ancestry sound too specific IMO like you’re tracing back your family tree rather than your general biology,
heritage sounds like it’s describing your culture as much as your biology and I thought those two things were something that people wanted to detangle from each other (EG:if i want to be a dwarf raised by elves why would I have dwarven weapon proficiency, is it genetic or something?)


----------



## Li Shenron

Finally something I like from OD&D! I would have preferred Creature but I am ok with Species.


----------



## Charlaquin

bedir than said:


> While One D&D didn't list them as subspecies, there are in fact sub species and not full writeups for the various elves, various dwarves, various dragonborn, various gnomes



Point being, they do seem to be discontinuing use of the “sub” prefix.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Micah Sweet said:


> My players know about it, but their opinions tend to range from, "that's stupid" to "whatever".



Same. One of my players actually welcomed the change since it was linguistically correct, but when he googled to see WotC's reason for the change, thought it was terrible.


----------



## Tonguez

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, plenty of closely-related species can interbreed, but in 1D&D, all humanoid “species” can do so, which is pretty extreme. Moreover I think it’s absurd to say that all the variety of elves are different species, but they’re also all elves. Is elf a genus now? Then it’s even weirder that every species within that genus can interbreed with every other humanoid species, which I guess must also be their own genera? Cause like dwarf and duergar are both species of dwarf. Unless we want to start using the term subspecies for the different varieties of elf, dwarf, gnome, etc. And that doesn’t really feel any less scientifically racist than using the term race if you ask me.




well in the real world we already break down things into Order-Family-Subfamily-Tribe-Genus -Species-Subspecies
Primate-Hominidae (great apes)-Homininae-Hominini-Homo-H.Sapiens-H.Sapiens sapiens (Modern Humans)

The fact is species isnt clearly defined and the borders between species and genus are permeable, especially when you also get the issue of morphs (same species different phenotype) which probably applies to Elfs in particular. So yeah assuming they're all mammals Orcs-Elfs and Humans are certainly the same Family, maybe evensame Genus with species proliferating from there


----------



## Marandahir

Micah Sweet said:


> We have subclasses, which could just as easily been called archetypes or specializations.





Charlaquin said:


> Subclass is less problematic because it doesn’t refer to a people. But I wouldn’t be opposed to using archetype or specialization instead.



Heck, I've heard official D&D talking heads use the shorthand of Archetype instead of the subclass Jargon. There was even a push in the past to get rid of Ranger Archetype and replace it with Ranger Conclave because every other class had their own unique subclass group name, save Fighter and Rogue with the otherwise generic Martial Archetype and Roguish Archetype (and whom of all the classes could truly get away with that because of how generic Fighter and Rogue are). And even THEN, you have D&D designers bemoaning that Fighter was too catch-bin a class, where Champion and Battle Master were generic and could be all sorts of concepts, while Eldritch Knight, Samurai, Cavalier, etc were more thematic and made more sense as unique iterative subclasses - they wished that Champion and Battle Master were separate dials from subclass, and then you could have each subclass be reflective of its own unique concept. And if that becomes the case with One D&D, they can retire Martial Archetype even and say something like "School of Battle" or something else cool (honestly, I'd have used Fighting Style as the Fighter subclass, but they wanted that to be a feat family accessible by all Warriors and semi-Warriors, so…).

And if all the above are taken as evidence, I would NOT be surprised if by late next year we're seeing Take 3 on these 48 Class Options feature the term subclass replaced entirely by Archetype, with each class having their own generic epithet for their archetypes (not specific epithet, for that would be the actual archetypes themselves alongside their genera - i.e., Primal Path of the Berserker would be the specific epithet, while Primal Path is the genera reflective of the Barbarian Class… ugh, this Linnean taxonomic structuring of character options is a dark hole of cladistic madness…)


----------



## raist2099

Morrus said:


> In line with many other tabletop roleplaying games, such as _Pathfinder _or _Level Up_, One D&D is removing the term 'race'. Where _Pathfinder_ uses 'Ancestry' and_ Level Up_ uses 'Heritage', One D&D will be using 'Species'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moving On From 'Race' in One D&D
> 
> 
> We understand "race" is a problematic term that has had prejudiced links between real world people and the fantasy peoples of D&D worlds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dndbeyond.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a blog post, WotC announced that "We have made the decision to move on from using the term "race" everywhere in One D&D, and we do not intend to return to that term."



this woke stuff kills me.  are we so sensitive that a word like race is really that bad.  so call it species, heritage, ethnicity...i could argue woke crap about all of those as well.  this generation of wokeness is ridiculous.


----------



## Jackdaw McGraw

Micah Sweet said:


> Does every choice have to be made from a political perspective?



Many people tend to say 'political' when 'cultural' is more accurate. We're not litigating or voting on what's appropriate, but we are trying to come to an inclusive consensus via cultural channels - like community forums.  So yes, every choice has to be made from a cultural perspective when you're in the business of selling the printed word.

That said, 'species' changes the tone of the genre, especially if the term is used in-game. The term 'race' can be denigrating but if a NPC tossed out the line "...the elven _species"_ it would sound, well, racist and distancing imo.


----------



## Tonguez

CreamCloud0 said:


> I’m fine with species, it’s accurate to what it’s identifying so it’s good enough for me.
> 
> lineage and ancestry sound too specific IMO like you’re tracing back your family tree rather than your general biology,
> heritage sounds like it’s describing your culture as much as your biology and I thought those two things were something that people wanted to detangle from each other (EG:if i want to be a dwarf raised by elves why would I have dwarven weapon proficiency, is it genetic or something?)



Lineage is perhaps a more appropriate term given the new pushs for build your own species and the notion that instead of half-races players can now mix and match based on their parental biology ...


----------



## Charlaquin

Tonguez said:


> well in the real world we already break down things into Order-Family-Subfamily-Tribe-Genus -Species-Subspecies
> Primate-Hominidae (great apes)-Homininae-Hominini-Homo-H.Sapiens-H.Sapiens sapiens (Modern Humans)
> 
> The fact is species isnt clearly defined and the borders between species and genus are permeable, especially when you also get the issue of morphs (same species different phenotype) which probably applies to Elfs in particular. So yeah assuming they're all mammals Orcs-Elfs and Humans are certainly the same Family, maybe evensame Genus with species proliferating from there



Except all of this is silly because the peoples of D&D didn’t arise through evolution by natural selection and don’t have a common ancestor. Real-life taxonomy makes no sense when applied to them.


----------



## Charlaquin

Marandahir said:


> Heck, I've heard official D&D talking heads use the shorthand of Archetype instead of the subclass Jargon. There was even a push in the past to get rid of Ranger Archetype and replace it with Ranger Conclave because every other class had their own unique subclass group name, save Fighter and Rogue with the otherwise generic Martial Archetype and Roguish Archetype (and whom of all the classes could truly get away with that because of how generic Fighter and Rogue are).



Rogues had Schemes instead of Archetypes in the Next playtest.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Except all of this is silly because the peoples of D&D didn’t arise through evolution by natural selection and don’t have a common ancestor. Real-life taxonomy makes no sense when applied to them.



I mean, is there any reason they couldn't have?  (How did they show up in worlds without gods, for example?)


----------



## Von Ether

I agree the change was needed. Not a fan of "species" in a fantasy game, but that's all highly subjective. 

e.g. I believe psionics can be in fantasy and that too "sci-fi" for others. Neither of us is wrong


----------



## Dire Bare

Charlaquin said:


> I like that they’re discontinuing the use of the term race, but species is a poor alternative. Can duergar no longer have children with dwarves? Svirfneblin with gnomes? What about all the varieties of elf, are we really saying they’re all different species now? No, this doesn’t work. Call them ancestries, or heritages, or lineages, or peoples. Species is just fraught in a different way than race.





Charlaquin said:


> Sure, plenty of closely-related species can interbreed, but in 1D&D, all humanoid “species” can do so, which is pretty extreme. Moreover I think it’s absurd to say that all the variety of elves are different species, but they’re also all elves. Is elf a genus now? Then it’s even weirder that every species within that genus can interbreed with every other humanoid species, which I guess must also be their own genera? Cause like dwarf and duergar are both species of dwarf. Unless we want to start using the term subspecies for the different varieties of elf, dwarf, gnome, etc. And that doesn’t really feel any less scientifically racist than using the term race if you ask me.



I think you are overthinking here.

The game term "species" like "race" before it, will be imperfect. But while duergar and dwarves are both dwarves . . . are they simply different cultures or have they biologically evolved a bit apart over the eons? In the real world, where we draw the line between two closely related species is up for debate scientifically, so why not in the fantasy world also? And as others have noted, closely related species in the real world can interbreed, it's not a stretch that the various humanoid species in the fantasy world are closely related enough to produce viable offspring.

Are elves, dwarves, humans, halflings, and even orcs really all that different, physically? Certainly more so than the ethnic differences in the real world, but it's not much of a stretch to view them as biologically distinct species, that are closely related enough to have offspring. 

Warforged and dwarves? Thri-kreen and elves? Greater differences for sure . . . but then when you throw crazy wizards into the mix, anything is possible.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Dire Bare said:


> I think you are overthinking here.
> 
> The game term "species" like "race" before it, will be imperfect. But while duergar and dwarves are both dwarves . . . are they simply different cultures or have they biologically evolved a bit apart over the eons? In the real world, where we draw the line between two closely related species is up for debate scientifically, so why not in the fantasy world also? And as others have noted, closely related species in the real world can interbreed, it's not a stretch that the various humanoid species in the fantasy world are closely related enough to produce viable offspring.
> 
> Are elves, dwarves, humans, halflings, and even orcs really all that different, physically? Certainly more so than the ethnic differences in the real world, but it's not much of a stretch to view them as biologically distinct species, that are closely related enough to have offspring.
> 
> Warforged and dwarves? Thri-kreen and elves? Greater differences for sure . . . but then when you throw crazy wizards into the mix, anything is possible.



In Level Up, culture is where you see the difference between different varieties of elves and dwarves.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> I mean, is there any reason they couldn't have?  (How did they show up in worlds without gods, for example?)



Not for most of them, but anything with Fey ancestry can’t really have a common ancestor with anything that doesn’t. At least not without saying that the common ancestor _is_ Fey in origin, and those without the trait are further removed from it, which… weird, but I guess not completely implausible.


----------



## Charlaquin

Dire Bare said:


> I think you are overthinking here.
> 
> The game term "species" like "race" before it, will be imperfect. But while duergar and dwarves are both dwarves . . . are they simply different cultures or have they biologically evolved a bit apart over the eons? In the real world, where we draw the line between two closely related species is up for debate scientifically, so why not in the fantasy world also? And as others have noted, closely related species in the real world can interbreed, it's not a stretch that the various humanoid species in the fantasy world are closely related enough to produce viable offspring.
> 
> Are elves, dwarves, humans, halflings, and even orcs really all that different, physically? Certainly more so than the ethnic differences in the real world, but it's not much of a stretch to view them as biologically distinct species, that are closely related enough to have offspring.
> 
> Warforged and dwarves? Thri-kreen and elves? Greater differences for sure . . . but then when you throw crazy wizards into the mix, anything is possible.



But the term opens the door to all these nonsense arguments over taxonomy in a world of gods and wizards, which a more fitting word like ancestry wouldn’t do.


----------



## Dire Bare

Charlaquin said:


> Except all of this is silly because the peoples of D&D didn’t arise through evolution by natural selection and don’t have a common ancestor. Real-life taxonomy makes no sense when applied to them.



Silly? Nah. Evolution or not, species isn't a bad choice and the "sci-fi" tone to the word will fade over time. And . . . D&D has ALWAYS had a healthy dose of sci-fi tropes mixed in with the fantastic. The difference between sci-fi and fantasy is constructed, not real.

Besides, while we certainly have peoples being created by gods, mad wizards, or magical catastrophes in the D&D multiverse, who's to say that we don't also have evolved species? Or that, once created by the gods, different species are subject to natural biological evolution? Or magical evolution?

Regardless of HOW a particular species came into this multiverse, the word "species" works just fine to describe the differences between peoples. It's not perfect, but none of the other presented alternatives work any better (IMO, of course).


----------



## Dire Bare

Charlaquin said:


> But the term opens the door to all these nonsense arguments over taxonomy in a world of gods and wizards, which a more fitting word like ancestry wouldn’t do.



Huh?

Can dwarves and elves have kids together? Whether you describe their differences as race, lineage, heritage, or species makes no difference.

Should DM's work up evolutionary trees showing exactly how the various species in their fantasy worlds are related?!?! Well . . . sure, if that sounds fun! Or not, if it doesn't. It certainly isn't necessary.

Star Trek biology works just fine in D&D also . . . if they are humanoid, they can have kids together. If they stray a bit . . . robots/warforged, thri-kreen, whatever . . . then its up to the DM on how that works. No need for WotC to bother with it, or for every DM to feel like it's a necessary part of their world-building.


----------



## Lanefan

Charlaquin said:


> I like that they’re discontinuing the use of the term race, but species is a poor alternative. Can duergar no longer have children with dwarves? Svirfneblin with gnomes? What about all the varieties of elf, are we really saying they’re all different species now? No, this doesn’t work. Call them ancestries, or heritages, or lineages, or peoples. Species is just fraught in a different way than race.



Species can interbreed in the real world, no reason not to port that idea over to fantasy and greatly expand upon it.


----------



## Dire Bare

payn said:


> Putting controversies in quotes seemed like they already have their answer.



Or it's a reflection of those players' opinions. Shrug.


----------



## Charlaquin

Lanefan said:


> Species can interbreed in the real world, no reason not to port that idea over to fantasy and greatly expand upon it.



Some closely related species can interbreed. That’s a far cry from all intelligent “species” being able to interbreed, as they can in D&D.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Some closely related species can interbreed. That’s a far cry from all intelligent “species” being able to interbreed, as they can in D&D.




While it might be canonically allowed in One when it comes out, I'm feeling like I'd have trouble with a 1/2 Thri-Kreen 1/2 Aaarakocra.


----------



## Lanefan

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, plenty of closely-related species can interbreed, but in 1D&D, all humanoid “species” can do so, which is pretty extreme.



Yes, I agree that's overkill.

They're probably not going to bother taking the time (and it takes a lot of time, says he who has already done it) to sit down and work out exactly what can breed with what out of all the species and creatures and monsters in the game; and it would go far beyond just the PC-playable species as well.

Can a Centaur, for example, breed with a horse?  How biologically close are Aarakocra to various types of bird?  The existence of Yuan-Ti opens up the whole reptile kingdom.  And so on...it's crazy, believe me! 


Charlaquin said:


> Moreover I think it’s absurd to say that all the variety of elves are different species, but they’re also all elves. Is elf a genus now? Then it’s even weirder that every species within that genus can interbreed with every other humanoid species, which I guess must also be their own genera? Cause like dwarf and duergar are both species of dwarf. Unless we want to start using the term subspecies for the different varieties of elf, dwarf, gnome, etc.



That's exactly what I'd use, and am already.


Charlaquin said:


> And that doesn’t really feel any less scientifically racist than using the term race if you ask me.



How-why?


----------



## Marandahir

Tonguez said:


> well in the real world we already break down things into Order-Family-Subfamily-Tribe-Genus -Species-Subspecies
> Primate-Hominidae (great apes)-Homininae-Hominini-Homo-H.Sapiens-H.Sapiens sapiens (Modern Humans)
> 
> The fact is species isnt clearly defined and the borders between species and genus are permeable, especially when you also get the issue of morphs (same species different phenotype) which probably applies to Elfs in particular. So yeah assuming they're all mammals Orcs-Elfs and Humans are certainly the same Family, maybe evensame Genus with species proliferating from there



Taxonomy has been rejecting what they teach us in grade school about Domain-Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species for decades now. Cladistics is where it's at.

If we accurately represented Birds in the old Linnean binomial nomenclature, the ENTIRETY of the Bird Class would be a single Species of Dinosaur. So we either have to accept that the system is biologically bunk and can't represent actual proportional distances of relationship between thingys and we're just decided some thingys look different enough that we're starting over at a higher level of the system with them, like Birds, or else we need to throw it out and replace with visual diagrams of endlessly nested and cross-pollinating lineages. 

Even modern humans are believed to be chimeric descendants of _Homo erectus _that developed into _Homo sapiens_ in Africa, Neanderthals that separately split off from _Homo heidlebergensis_ in Europe (whom probably split off from_ Homo sapiens _in Africa before we'd call them separate from _Homo erectus_), and also Denisovans who are a third branch that may or may not have split off from _Homo heidlbergensis_ or else from _Homo erectus_ separately. Should we consider Denisovans and Neanderthals and H. sapiens as subspecies of H. sapiens, a la H. sapiens sapiens vs H. sapiens neanderthalensis? That sounds terribly close to 1800s racist "subrace" theories. Should we instead say it's just a mish mosh pool of confusion that spread out from _Homo erectus _at a certain point? I'd argue for this second path of action, but it doesn't help those trying to actually tell the story of who the Neanderthals and Denisova were and how important it was that these groups merged into certain populations of the core spine of _Homo sapiens_ who make up the bulk of modern Human DNA in every one of us. And more importantly to the discussion, it doesn't help the Half-Neanderthal fans who want to play a Half-Neanderthal and are told, no, make either a Human or a Neanderthal and call them a Half-Neanderthal. Where Neanderthal is a stand in for Elf or Orc, obviously, but I don't mean to suggest that Neanderthals are elvish or orcish or half-elf fans are like cave men or stupid, nor do I mean to suggest that Neanderthals were stupid as they were clearly a very intelligent and wise people who likely just diffused into Eurasian DNA like any ancestor would over countless generations.

In any case, it's a question that we don't really need to get into any deeper in D&D, since no Player really wants to draw cladograms of the PC character options and how they all come ultimately from the same original stock of Plasmoids in the Astral Sea that crash landed in the Barrier Peaks… err… I mean…

If you ARE a player and DO want to draw those cladograms, you're probably a DM-in-waiting. But that sort of nonsense belongs in your campaign bible, NOT in the Player's Handbook or even the DM's Guide (or GODS-NO, not the Monster Manual, lest we get into discussions of the cladistic ancestry of Chimeras or even the Chromatic Dragon herself - is Tiamat a Draco rufus x azul x viridi x alba x tenebrae 5-species hybrid!!?). What we NEED in the Player's Handbook is a term that can allow subterms to exist for flavour text (a la, Eladrin are a sublineage of Elf), while allowing those subterms to stand on their own two feet as the prime term (ej. Eladrin is a lineage you can pick, and Elf is a lineage you can pick), while also allowing them to exist as a mechanical subterm (ex. Elf is a lineage you can pick and Drow is a sublineage of the Elf lineage that you can pick), while also not being demeaning (aka your Drow is SUB-Elf and that makes my full-Eladrin better than you… it's the same reason there are no sublineages of Human; we don't want suggestions of subhuman). 

Species PROBABLY doesn't work here for the problems I identified above with Denisovans; claiming they're subspecies of Human suggests, even if innocuously, that these Denisovans are subhuman, and thus their descendants (largely people of Asian and Pacific descent) are subhuman by correlation. That's just REALLY icky territory we all want to avoid, even if we're not realising it when we throw around the term species and subspecies in regards to Elves and Gnomes and whatnot. It has an impact, even when you keep Humans out of it for obvious reasons (skin tone should have 0% mechanical impact on your character, full stop). Because Elves are a classic proxy for Humans. And Drow are dark-skinned, and Wood Elves can be pale North european-to-barky-brown skinned, but High Elves are almost ALWAYS portrayed as light skinned (though in my homebrew, High Elves have reddish-bronze to black skin as are closely associated with the Sun Gods, while Pallid Elves and Astral Elves are the pale ones associated with the Moon and Stars). 

But in general, Drow are defined visually by their dark skin in relation to other Elves light skin. While skin tone may not be mechanically relevant to Elves, it correlates with their sublineage choice. And calling Drow a subspecies of Elf IMMEDIATELY creates the idea that they're inferior than "the default" Elf options we encounter above ground - the High Elves and Wood Elves in the free-to-start Basic Rules document, and especially the High Elf which is the only Elf option in the SRD v5.1 and is used as the Elf character in the various Starter Sets (though Wood Elf does appear as a Starter Set character in some niche Starter Set products like STRANGER THINGS Starter Set). Keeping Drow as Paid DLC in this Freemium game is okay on its own; they're a more niche character option. For today's player base, Xanathar is a much more well-known character than Drizzt - because Xanathar headlined his own 5e book and Drizzt has not, and there are more players new to the game with 5e than all previous edition players combined. So Drow doesn't HAVE to be a frontline option. But when combining that with terms like subspecies or even the until-yesterday officially-accepted jargon of "subrace," and combine it with a history of considering Dark Elves as evil by default, you get a swirl of issues that lead to Geneva, we Have a Problem. Major Tom to Ground Control, we've encountered a potentially racist concept in our Player's Handbook, how should we proceed?

We proceed by choosing the most empathetic of options. I'd argue that Ancestry is that one. And you ignore terms like subancestry and pull Wood Elf and High Elf out of the Elf block and include them as full Ancestry Options. and you include "Mixed Ancestry" as a fully moddable toolset in the DMG with a few customized takes on it in the PHB - Human/Elf Hybrid Ancestry and Human/Orc Hybrid Ancestry specifically - with a sidebar saying that all lineages can be customized for hybrid ancestries if you reference Chapter X of the DMG, and these are just the two most common custom hybrid ancestries.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> While it might be canonically allowed in One when it comes out, I'm feeling like I'd have trouble with a 1/2 Thri-Kreen 1/2 Aaarakocra.



I dunno, I feel like that’s one case where picking all the traits of one “species” and none of the other is pretty fitting. Either you have an extra set of limbs you can use for manipulating objects, or one you can use for flight. No mixing and matching.


----------



## Jackdaw McGraw

Charlaquin said:


> But the term opens the door to all these nonsense arguments over taxonomy in a world of gods and wizards, which a more fitting word like ancestry wouldn’t do.



"Hmm...yes, I do believe we have a copy of "_On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection_" in our fiction section. It was transferred from our inter-dimensional archives, so there was a titillating theory that the academics were sensible in another crystal sphere. But of course that was all soundly disproven by Elminster's definitive "_Etheric Anatomies - The Twelve Embryonic Humunculi". _I believe it's quoted in the forward. The volume is in our floating tower collection. Please follow me."


----------



## Lanefan

Cadence said:


> While it might be canonically allowed in One when it comes out, I'm feeling like I'd have trouble with a 1/2 Thri-Kreen 1/2 Aaarakocra.



The result would just be a Giant Termite, wouldn't it?


----------



## Cadence

Species in a sense that applies pretty well to this situation goes back to at least 1561  ("Species of Homo").  The more specifically general biological sense goes to at least 1608 (used with Genus in a zoological sense about crocodiles).

These dates are more modern than many D&D things, but older than I thought they would be.  The spyglass (on the D&D equipment list) looks like it goes back only to 1608.

Avoiding work and wikipediaing, it looks like Aristotle used genos and eidos that were translated as genus and species (even if they don't map exactly).   And eidos is sometimes means "form".   Does "form" seem odd, or does that work?


----------



## Cadence

I'm having this horrible thought of a James T. Kirk inspired character trying really hard to go through all the combinations to check :-/


----------



## Marandahir

Cadence said:


> While it might be canonically allowed in One when it comes out, I'm feeling like I'd have trouble with a 1/2 Thri-Kreen 1/2 Aaarakocra.



You might feel like it's trouble.
Others might find it an amazing roleplaying opportunity. 

What we need to be careful of is avoiding it being an amazing min-max opportunity. 

That's why I suggest including Half-elf and Half-orc as example Custom Lineages in the PHB. while sidebarring other custom lineage ideas to the DMG, and then providing guidance there for all the other PHB lineages. And then a splatbook (_Mordenkainen Presents Again: Monsters AND Peoples of the Multiverse_?) can include a chapter on hybridising all the other lineages included in that reference tome, while also adding in popular new lineages that have shown up in splatbooks since its predecessor went to copy-editing in 2021, like say, Gem Dragonborn or Ordening Goliath (assuming that's actually a stealth playtest option for _Fizban Presents: Glory of the Giants_ and not actually put here for the 2024 PHB, as much as I'd love it to be and would love the Firbolg to be rolled into it as a variant).


----------



## darjr

Does the word Ilk have any bad connotations?


----------



## payn

Micah Sweet said:


> I suspect its too late for people not to think they're following Paizo's (and EN Publishing's) lead on this issue.



I think you are missing the point. EN World could have just used ancestry also. Making the change, and choosing how you are changing it shows thought was put into it. Says you understand why this needs to happen and are not doing it just because it makes sense in the current cultural climate. That you are not too lazy to address it yourself.


----------



## Amrûnril

Charlaquin said:


> Except all of this is silly because the peoples of D&D didn’t arise through evolution by natural selection and don’t have a common ancestor. Real-life taxonomy makes no sense when applied to them.




This is very much a question of setting assumptions. My default, though, would be to assume that most species in fantasy settings arose through natural selection, because the real world patterns that only make sense in light of this process are also present in most D&D settings (matching bone structures in mammalian limbs, for instance). Obviously, there are some creatures that call more strongly for a supernatural explanation (due to factors like biologically implausible hybridizations), but I think it's easier to explain these supernatural processes occurring alongside biological evolution than replacing it entirely.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Would love to have seen a transcript of WotC's discussion on the word change and then compare it to Enworld's discussion, where we discuss the possibility of monstrosities (centaurs) fornicating with animals (horses) and the evolution of fantastical _species_ in crystal spheres not tampered by the divine. Goodness.


----------



## MarkB

darjr said:


> Does the word Ilk have any bad connotations?



Some, certainly. Phrases like "people of that ilk" have been commonly used to lump groups into stereotypical categories.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> I dunno, I feel like that’s one case where picking all the traits of one “species” and none of the other is pretty fitting. Either you have an extra set of limbs you can use for manipulating objects, or one you can use for flight. No mixing and matching.






Marandahir said:


> You might feel like it's trouble.
> Others might find it an amazing roleplaying opportunity.
> 
> What we need to be careful of is avoiding it being an amazing min-max opportunity.
> 
> That's why I suggest including Half-elf and Half-orc as example Custom Lineages in the PHB. while sidebarring other custom lineage ideas to the DMG, and then providing guidance there for all the other PHB lineages. And then a splatbook (_Mordenkainen Presents Again: Monsters AND Peoples of the Multiverse_?) can include a chapter on hybridising all the other lineages included in that reference tome, while also adding in popular new lineages that have shown up in splatbooks since its predecessor went to copy-editing in 2021, like say, Gem Dragonborn or Ordening Goliath (assuming that's actually a stealth playtest option for _Fizban Presents: Glory of the Giants_ and not actually put here for the 2024 PHB, as much as I'd love it to be and would love the Firbolg to be rolled into it as a variant).




I was going to blame the whole 1/2 thing in D&D on Tolkien, but then just remembered John Carter and Dejah Thoris.  (And it would get rid of a bunch of Glen Cook things).

Would restricting it to humanoids hurt too badly in exchange for avoiding wondering about Thri-Kreen/Halflings?  (So, Thri-kreen are out; as are centaur being Fey).


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> I was going to blame the whole 1/2 thing in D&D on Tolkien, but then just remembered John Carter and Dejah Thoris.  (And it would get rid of a bunch of Glen Cook things).
> 
> Would restricting it to humanoids hurt too badly in exchange for avoiding wondering about Thri-Kreen/Halflings?  (So, Thri-kreen are out; as are centaur being Fey).



I wouldn’t worry about it, personally. Just include a custom lineage option and direct players who want some exotic combination to use it to express their lineage however they like.


----------



## Marandahir

Cadence said:


> Species in a sense that applies pretty well to this situation goes back to at least 1561  ("Species of Homo").  The more specifically general biological sense goes to at least 1608 (used with Genus in a zoological sense about crocodiles).
> 
> These dates are more modern than many D&D things, but older than I thought they would be.  The spyglass (on the D&D equipment list) looks like it goes back only to 1608.
> 
> Avoiding work and wikipediaing, it looks like Aristotle used genos and eidos that were translated as genus and species (even if they don't map exactly)?   It looks like eidos also sometimes means "form".   (Does "form" seem odd, or does that work?)



Aristotle used Eidos because he was referring to what modern biologists would call phenotypical distinctions rather than genotypical ones. 

Much of Linnean Taxonomy was based on this phenotypical idea of relations, so for example, dolphins were considered Fish by Aristotle and other early taxonomists, as opposed to Mammals (though really, Dolphins are as much Fish as Sharks and Coelacanths and Koi and Kitties and Humans are - all of us Vertebrates are all just different specialised forms of Fish, or else Fish is a meaningless paraphyletic term).

Form is odd, therefore, because it's really eidologically (not specifically) referring to appearance. And by WotC's current playtest standards, my Half-elf can be Species: Human and Eidos: Human-Elf Hybrid, looking quite a bit like an Elf but not entirely. 

I've been diving too much into weeds in this discussion, but I think Form would actually make this all worse because of the Drow problem: Drow is now a Subform of Elf, and thus you're instantly thinking how Drow look different from High Elves, and thus relating appearance to mechanics on a superficial level. 

I want to be able to play silver-to-purple-skinned and silver-to-green haired Night Elves that are mechanically Drow but more similar to the heroic nature-focused but clearly Dark Elf from Warcraft, say. That makes sense. But if I'm told that the Drow Form, and thus the Drow Mechanics, are specifically tied to Dark Skin, and to Sunlight Sensitivity and Superior Darkvision, now I'm thinking, well maybe my Night Elf might as well be its own lineage and I create Pallid Elves and publish it in the _Explorer's Guild to Wildemount_ when I could have just said that in my Exandria setting, some Drow are below-ground baddies that worship Lolth, while other Drow are Nocturnal Sehanine Moonbow-worshipers. And it's not just Matt Mercer doing that; 4e had Dusk Elves as mechanically a sub-sub-lineage of Wood Elf yet narratively Drow that abandoned Lolth for Sehanine. And these Dusk Elves I believe date back to earlier edition ideas too, since they have connections with the Mists of Ravenloft. But the 4e Nerath and 5e Exandria narratives would have been perfect for recasting Drow - much the way Keith Baker recast Drow as Jungle warriors from the shadowy forests of Xen'drik from the start with Eberron way back when it debuted in 3.5e. 

What I mean to say by this is: don't use a FORM of jargon that highlights characters that deviate from racist white Euroamerican standards of beauty as being somehow different and potentially lesser than their white versions. We end up with a term that's functioning in similar problematic ways to what the 2014 PHB already has.

And finally, NO term WotC picks, nor any term picked by the player base even if at odds with WotC's jargon, will alone fix the racism issues in D&D. This is a multifaceted problem that demands a multifaceted approach to resolving. But the term choice is AN important factor. 

tldr: I don't think Form is the right choice. How about Ancestry?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

vann_d said:


> this woke stuff kills me.  are we so sensitive that a word like race is really that bad.  so call it species, heritage, ethnicity...i could argue woke crap about all of those as well.  this generation of wokeness is ridiculous.



*Mod Note:*

We COULD argue, but your choice of rhetoric betrays your ossification.  You will not be participating in this thread any longer.


----------



## Charlaquin

Marandahir said:


> Aristotle used Eidos because he was referring to what modern biologists would call phenotypical distinctions rather than genotypical ones.
> 
> Much of Linnean Taxonomy was based on this phenotypical idea of relations, so for example, dolphins were considered Fish by Aristotle and other early taxonomists, as opposed to Mammals (though really, Dolphins are as much Fish as Sharks and Coelacanths and Koi and Kitties and Humans are - all of us Vertebrates are all just different specialised forms of Fish, or else Fish is a meaningless paraphyletic term).



All categories are socially constructed, and say more about the values of the culture constructing them than about the things being categorized.


----------



## Amrûnril

Marandahir said:


> Taxonomy has been rejecting what they teach us in grade school about Domain-Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species for decades now. Cladistics is where it's at.
> 
> If we accurately represented Birds in the old Linnean binomial nomenclature, the ENTIRETY of the Bird Class would be a single Species of Dinosaur. So we either have to accept that the system is biologically bunk and can't represent actual proportional distances of relationship between thingys and we're just decided some thingys look different enough that we're starting over at a higher level of the system with them, like Birds, or else we need to throw it out and replace with visual diagrams of endlessly nested and cross-pollinating lineages.




Taxonomic classifications above species are biologically meaningful in that they denote a group of organisms where each member is more closely related to each other member than to anything outside the group. What they don't have, is any sort of consistent scale. So a family can be as small as Hominidae, which includes only one extant species a handful of ape species, or as large as Poaceae, which includes every species of grass anywhere in the world.


----------



## Cadence

Amrûnril said:


> Taxonomic classifications above species are biologically meaningful in that they denote a group of organisms where each member is more closely related to each other member than to anything outside the group. What they don't have, is any sort of consistent scale. So a family can range in size from Hominidae, which includes only one extant species, to Poaceae, which includes every species of grass anywhere in the world.




I kind of wonder how much current taxonomy would change if the slate were wiped clean and the mammalogists were assigned birds to do and the ornithologoists were assigned mammals...


----------



## Clint_L

Amrûnril said:


> Taxonomic classifications above species are biologically meaningful in that they denote a group of organisms where each member is more closely related to each other member than to anything outside the group. What they don't have, is any sort of consistent scale. So a family can range in size from Hominidae, which includes only one extant species, to Poaceae, which includes every species of grass anywhere in the world.



I take your point. Worth pointing out that Hominidae family has many extant species, though. Us, for one. But also varieties of gorillas, chimps, and orangutans. Yup, we are classified as apes (great apes, specifically, which is nice. I like being known as "great').


----------



## John R Davis

It's only playtest so species may go.
I prefer Pojj ( product of jiggy jiggy) but that may not be favoured by all 

Origin is my pick ( as it covers having an elven mummy and human daddy, etc).


----------



## Marandahir

Charlaquin said:


> I wouldn’t worry about it, personally. Just include a custom lineage option and direct players who want some exotic combination to use it to express their lineage however they like.



The only thing I'd worry about is minmaxers.

_Tasha's _"Customize Your Origin" is a stop-gap that works in the context of 2014-2020 character ancestry features having a mixture of proficiencies and innate abilities. You could swap proficiencies, but not innate abilities. "Custom Lineage" sidebar can almost be copy-pasted into the 2024 PHB and cover say, Quarter-Elf-Quarter-Halfling-Quarter-Orc-Quarter-Ardling characters, but otherwise it's just a Variant Human with a couple different options instead of the second ability score boost. And while it can ALMOST capture Half-elf (the only thing you're really missing is Fey Ancestry and the extra ability score bumps), it certainly doesn't help with defining Half-orc as somewhere between Human and Orc, outside of saying, hey, you can choose either human or orc lineage-feats. And even THAT option to help you more carefully define your character encourages minmaxing if such feats are created in a way that breaks when you put them together - something that might be avoided by design with Human-Elf combos and Human-Orc combos due to historic precedent of Half-elves accessing both lineages' feat pools etc and Half-orcs doing likewise with both their lineages, but when you get to Half-Halfling-Half-Thri-Kreen or even Mottled Ancestry characters like my Quarter character I'm not going to type a second time, you're getting into Min-max territory. 

Plus, the ONLY thing you could really hang on this lineage are the Size choice (mostly available for everyone save weirdly Dwarves and Elves, despite mythological precedent), the Walking Speed (standardized at 30 for everyone), the Bonus Feat (core Human feature) and the Darkvision/Bonus Skill Prof (choice). You'd need to flesh this Custom Lineage out further to equal the power of the other lineages, given that ability scores and language profs have been pushed into character creation / background. 

So you could flesh it out the Simic Hybrid way and give a bunch of other cool flavourful options of a hybrid character (albeit, not a lobster claw or gills or semi-wings or tentacles, probably); you could just list off some other less-OP features that various lineages get, like Damage Resistance to a type of your choice, or +5 ft of movement, or powerful build or fey ancestry, and let you choose 2 of these features instead of just 1 like in _Tasha's_.


----------



## Galandris

wingsandsword said:


> Probably never will go away, not in our lifetimes at least.
> 
> They stopped calling it spell memorization 22 years ago in 3e and replaced it with "preparation", I still hear plenty of people call it "spell memorization".
> 
> People tend to use the terms and language from when they learned the hobby, especially for core concepts like character race.




In my group, spell memorization is used by a 21 yo student who, apparently, have never been contemporary to the term.



Hex08 said:


> Can you elaborate on that?




Not going to answer for him, but it's very much used like "ilk" in English. Also, it's the generic term for "some sort of". Outside of academic use, where espèce is very much like species (which other deems to scifi) and strongly imply being animal, it's not very evocative and as pedestrian as using "thingy" in English. Of course, the onus is on the translator to find a suitable term in the destination language. Which might be "race", since it's not as loaded as it seems to be elsewhere in the world. The "race of kings" was swiftly ended by a sharp razor, but nobody ever thought Louis XVI, and Marie-Antoinette were a different species. Also, at the other end of the language formality spectrum, it's more used as a stand-in for "mother" in a general insult implying having intercourse with one's race, and as a general expletive, especially among younger people, so the associations are different but not the same as the Anglo-Saxon sphere.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> I wouldn’t worry about it, personally. Just include a custom lineage option and direct players who want some exotic combination to use it to express their lineage however they like.




But if John Carter and Dejah Thoris work, what if the Adem in Kingkiller Chronicles are right about how reproduction works for them, and Kvothe (and most readers) are wrong.   What if the chickens in the farm down the road bear live young, and the deer in that forest lay eggs?  Are the Green Martians  1/2 Centaur 1/2 Thri-Kreen?   [Why do I have to grade papers now instead of making up things to throw into campaigns*]


----------



## Cadence

I'm curious which other words were nuked due to what came up during...  'The term "species" was chosen in close coordination with multiple outside cultural consultants.'   I assume that many of them were tried out.


----------



## Amrûnril

Clint_L said:


> I take your point. Worth pointing out that Hominidae family has many extant species, though. Us, for one. But also varieties of gorillas, chimps, and orangutans. Yup, we are classified as apes (great apes, specifically, which is nice. I like being known as "great').



Good to know. I study plant ecology, so my animal examples may be a decade or so out of date.


----------



## Marandahir

Amrûnril said:


> Taxonomic classifications above species are biologically meaningful in that they denote a group of organisms where each member is more closely related to each other member than to anything outside the group. What they don't have, is any sort of consistent scale. So a family can range in size from Hominidae, which includes only one extant species, to Poaceae, which includes every species of grass anywhere in the world.



That's not always true, though. As a fellow botanist, I'd love to bring up how _Raynoutria_ and _Fallopia_ and _Persicaria_ - all genera - regularly hybridize ACROSS genera, hence why Knotweed has a taxonomic history that would baffle even Ring Species experts. We can't seem to agree whether Turtles are more closely related to Archosaurs (Crocs & Birds) or to Lepidosaurs (Lizards), and even if the molecular DNA analyses suggest that they ARE more closely related to Birds, whether they are within Archosaurapoda or just a sister group to Archosaurs (Archosauramorpha).

We run into trouble with Taxonomy REGULARLY, and things are always moving around. It's just a quagmire, and D&D does NOT need to get into it. Unfortunately, we seem to be running head on for it because now we're treating Eladrin, Sea Elves, Shadar-kai, and Astral Elves as full species sitting alongside Elves, while treating High Elves, Wood Elves, and Drow as subspecies of Elves. We're acting like somehow High Elves and Wood Elves and Drow are more closely related to each other than to any of the others. Narratively, that's not necessarily the case. In some worlds and editions, High Elves and Wood Elves form a distinct clade apart from the others, while in other worlds and editions, High Elves and Eladrin form a clade distinct from Wood Elves. Specifically when it comes to the _Forgotten Realms_, a key part of the 4e thesis was that Eladrin from the Feywild were discovered to be the same clade as High Elves and Moon Elves, while Wood Elves and Wild Elves were different, and just called Elves for the most part. But then late in 4e, we get Dex/Int Elves as a second option to Dex/Wis Wood Elves, and they start acting like High Elves were a type of Elf and could be built with the Elf mechanics and not the Eladrin ones. And now fast forward to 5e, and Eladrin are most definitely their own thing apart from High Elves and Wood Elves, but this is still FR-official lore.

You see the problem of bringing taxonomy into D&D? We don't need that. Let's just present ALL options as full Species/Lineage/Ancestry/Heritage options, and let players work out the specifics of their character and whether they're like Elrond i.e. Part Dark Elf (Ñoldorin), Part Wood Elf (Sindarin), Part High Elf (Vanyarin), Part Human (First AND Third Houses of the Edáin), and Part Aasimar (Maiar).

Oh, and I JUST realised that Aasimar is a mixture of Asura and Maiar. DOH. I know they dropped it from 4e because it sounds like you want "more donkey", but I never thought about how it's likely just as Tolkien-derived as it is mythologically-derived.

TLDR: Make High Elf and Drow and Forest Gnome etc full separate write-ups from Wood Elf and Rock Gnome, etc. Or collapse them into a single people (Elf and Gnome) and let players work out the specifics. I don't think we NEED to distinguish Wood Elves from High Elves, or Rock Gnomes from Forest Gnomes. Just give features from both to a single people. Drow might be trickier, but I'd take the radical tact of claiming that they'd be better off just as a culture with universal elf stats, and lock some Drow-specific feats behind having a Drow background for your Elf.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

One of the most iconic Hybrid species characters of all time is Star Trek's Spock. He's the iconic Vulcan, and doesn't seem to have abilities much different from any other Vulcan, even if he's part Human. So in some ways as a D&D One playtest example, someone just picked "Vulcan" for their character abilities and then wrote how they were Part-Vulcan Part-Human in the characters concept. Roughly the same thing applies for Deana Troi who's Part-Human Part-Betazoid, in that she just used the "Betazoid" abilities.


----------



## Cadence

Relevant to some of the biology stuff here...






Is evolving from animals into a humanoid problematic at all?  Or am I misremembering other things?


----------



## Michael Linke

They should have gone full circle toward race-as-class and called species "Secondary class".


----------



## Michael Linke

Kobold Avenger said:


> One of the most iconic Hybrid species characters of all time is Star Trek's Spock. He's the iconic Vulcan, and doesn't seem to have abilities much different from any other Vulcan, even if he's part Human. So in some ways as a D&D One playtest example, someone just picked "Vulcan" for their character abilities and then wrote how they were Part-Vulcan Part-Human in the characters concept. Roughly the same thing applies for Deana Troi who's Part-Human Part-Betazoid, in that she just used the "Betazoid" abilities.



Hard to say since we see so few non-human Vulcans in classic Star Trek.


----------



## Mercador

Hex08 said:


> Can you elaborate on that?



@Marandahir got it right already but from my native language, "species" are used to talk about animal species, I wonder how they'll translate that. From my perspective, "species" is a more offensive word than "races" but it might be a matter of translation.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Kobold Avenger said:


> One of the most iconic Hybrid species characters of all time is Star Trek's Spock. He's the iconic Vulcan, and doesn't seem to have abilities much different from any other Vulcan, even if he's part Human. So in some ways as a D&D One playtest example, someone just picked "Vulcan" for their character abilities and then wrote how they were Part-Vulcan Part-Human in the characters concept. Roughly the same thing applies for Deana Troi who's Part-Human Part-Betazoid, in that she just used the "Betazoid" abilities.



Full Betazoids are demonstrably stronger telepathically than Deanna Troy, her mother being the prime example.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Michael Linke said:


> Hard to say since we see so few non-human Vulcans in classic Star Trek.



T'Pol and Tuvok who are both full-on Vulcans and regular characters in their respective series don't seem to be that much different, from what Spock can do. And one can argue in the character creation of B'elanna Torres the player picked "Human" over "Klingon".


----------



## Marandahir

Cadence said:


> I'm curious which other words were nuked due to what came up during...  'The term "species" was chosen in close coordination with multiple outside cultural consultants.'   I assume that many of them were tried out.



Just because they chose it in "close coordination with multiple outside cultural consultants" doesn't mean most of the alternatives are nuked or that they wouldn't accept changing it. 

They want a dialogue with us about it, so come 12/21/22, we should be prepared to give our thoughts to them in the OD&D UA #3 survey feedback window. Their outside cultural consultants might even have pushed toward a different option, but WotC decided that Species was "good enough" for their cultural consultants (i.e., NET least-hated option by their panel of 2+ consultants) to go forward with. Maybe each one preferred a different term but the other consultant(s) though that term was awful, and none of them hated Species as much as they hated the other's pick of Ancestry or Heritage or Lineage or Origin or People or Tribe or Thingy or whatever. 

Species may have been the Nash Equilibrium of replacements for Race - when considering the limited sample size of however many (but clearly at least 2) cultural consultants that WotC hired. 

That sounded more cynical than I meant it, though. I'm optimistic that the cultural consultants are good people who genuinely make the game better. People have different opinions, though, and the player-base sample size could encourage them to go back to said cultural consultants and say, "hey, a lot of survey respondents feel upset by the term species; it suggests their Drow character is somehow lesser than other Elves when we call it a subspecies. The general suggestions were Ancestry, Heritage, and Lineage. Can we review those terms again and why we didn't go that way earlier?" 

Maybe the cultural consultants will shoot them down again, or the general response will be something that wasn't even considered previously. Maybe there would be a change of mind. Or maybe they'd bring in new consultants and broaden their cultural consultant sample size. There are a bunch of options and this isn't a closed door that we need to accept Species because they said it was closely coordinated and this is what they came up with.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

"Species" is the word that to a modern ear means the thing D&D always (primarily) meant by "race". Trying to keep a separate in-game definition of "race" based on quasi-archaic usage in fantasy, when "race" has become so many people's favorite word in the 21st century just isn't viable, even with decades of prior usage in the game. Sometimes the writing is on the wall.


----------



## Mercador

Teemu said:


> They should just use ancestry. Yeah, Pathfinder has it. So what? Ancestry fits fantasy a little better than species. We can give them feedback, the term isn’t set in stone yet.



I agree. There's no shame using the best alternative (in my opinion), Paizo have no rights on the word, it's just part of the language.


----------



## Marandahir

Mercador said:


> @Marandahir got it right already but from my native language, "species" are used to talk about animal species, I wonder how they'll translate that. From my perspective, "species" is a more offensive word than "races" but it might be a matter of translation.



Thanks for your input, Mercador, I was looking forward to hearing your response and am glad I didn't stop you from responding when I jumped in. 

This just goes to show how messily-entangled linguistics and biology and anthropology etc are! What is offensive in one language or culture (consideration of humans as a type of animal) is readily accepted in another, or vice versa. That's before we get into the idea of considering some people a species and others just human, which is the slippery slope I spoke to in my tangential concern. Your point raises how it can be offensive to even consider human(oid)s as animals. I get that - it's weird that a huge list of character options are in _Monsters of the Multiverse_ (and _Volo's Guide to Monsters_ had a similar issue, as does of course the _Monster Manual_ by listing off PC-playable non-monsters with monster stat blocks). It's a dangerous sea of otherisms, and that's what racism bubbles out of. We need to be VERY careful.

I could imagine that if they go forward with Species as their final decision, they might have to change the word usage entirely for some foreign-translated editions lest they run into this sort of offense taken.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

Removal of race: good.

Species? Meh. Give me ancestry or heritage -- or even "people"; species causes me to ask questions about interbreeding and biology and I really dno't want to deal with that in my fantasy game.

Of course, now we need to deal with specist terms like dwarf or halfling ... why have a people defined by their relation in size to another people?

Alternate solution: It's just class. Dwarf is a class, elf is a class ...


----------



## Scribe

darjr said:


> Does the word Ilk have any bad connotations?



It's not a pretty word, so if it doesnt, it should.


----------



## Marandahir

Cadence said:


> Relevant to some of the biology stuff here...
> 
> View attachment 268453
> 
> Is evolving from animals into a humanoid problematic at all?  Or am I misremembering other things?



YEAAACH. Missed that. Yeah, this would be Hadozee 2.0… 

if it was published as is, and if it included simian forms. Note the lack of simian-suggestions in the various Animal Ancestries (though you could definitely make a Hannuman or Sun Wukong-inspired Monkey King that looks mostly human but with a monkey face and a tail using the Climber Ancestry).

I'm willing to be they didn't include Monkey as a suggestion for Climber for that VERY reason. Expect NO Monkey-headed Ardlings to show up in Ardling art, ever. 

And I'd suggest just to be careful that we push bac and tell them to drop the evolution from animals stuff. Maybe you were divinely created by the Beast Lord as a bidepal servant of them. You don't need to have evolved to this point; we're not beholded to Green Mana tropes from Magic: the Gathering.


----------



## Marandahir

Michael Linke said:


> They should have gone full circle toward race-as-class and called species "Secondary class".



This is not a terrible idea, and worth investigating further.

I think the biggest issue is that people will get confused and think that all classes could be Gestalt and let you be a Fighter/Cleric with no ancestry features but twice the job features.

You could call them Adventurer Class and Background Class, perhaps, showing how closely tied Ancestry is to Background and origins? I'd almost prefer calling your Class a Job a la FF and your Ancestry a Class… but then we just confuse EVERYONE, especially those who wanted to be using their cook's utensils during downtime for their night job of local chef, which is in their background and not their job class nor their background class…

It does open up some interesting creative spaces though. What if Sorcerer, being origin-focused, was a secondary class that took on the function of the primary class, allowing you to swap roles and get a perfunctory list of secondary class features for one of the other primary classes? What if every class had a primary or secondary role, so that you could be primary wizard and secondary elf, where you cast like an Elf Wizard in 2014 D&D, or you could be primary Elf and secondary Wizard, where you have some generic magey features that are equivalent to 2014 D&D lineages, but your Elfyness is what gives you your primary progress as a character - getting more elfy and elfy over time, until you're a full-on Archfey by the end of the game?

This probably is completely out of bounds for what One D&D is trying to achieve (what with backwards compatibility), but it would be an interesting thought experiment. How can we make the Dwarfiest Dwarf advance as a Dwarf and get Dwarfier? Could a Tiefling over time become an Archduke of Hell?

Perhaps this is better suited with something like 4e's Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, and thus to be relegated to Feats (and Epic Boon Feats) in One D&D? And if so, could we create a set of Ancestry Feats with various level requirements that can be taken INSTEAD of class features, so that you're more defined by them than by the features of your class? That I could actually see happening in One D&D as an advanced dial or toggle of the game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Marandahir said:


> I'm willing to be they didn't include Monkey as a suggestion for Climber for that VERY reason. Expect NO Monkey-headed Ardlings to show up in Ardling art, ever.



Black RPG dude check-in: I’m OK with various takes on simian inspired fantasy & sci-fi playable species _as long as they aren’t cribbing notes from RW bigoted stereotypes._

They show up in all kinds of genre fiction, after all.


----------



## Galandris

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Removal of race: good.
> 
> Species? Meh. Give me ancestry or heritage -- or even "people"; species causes me to ask questions about interbreeding and biology and I really dno't want to deal with that in my fantasy game.




The problem is that some aspects of the character depends on race that is'nt reflected by heritage. I have wings, because I am an Aacrowka (I banned them for so long in my game I don't know how they're spelt) is right. But if I am a human raised by Aacrowka from birth, I'll have an Aacrowka heritage, yet no wing. 

And ancestry, at the other hand of the spectrum, has the same problem as race as it exclude cultural elements. "Why should I be able to speak Dwarf because my ancestors are dwarves? I was raised by an elven hermit!!!"



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Alternate solution: It's just class. Dwarf is a class, elf is a class ...




Or "freebie". Since every PC can have a cool power from a list. And, instead of dropping the word race, drop the race concept. Everyone is a Unique Butterfly of Equal Opportunity.


----------



## Mercador

Marandahir said:


> I could imagine that if they go forward with Species as their final decision, they might have to change the word usage entirely for some foreign-translated editions lest they run into this sort of offense taken.



From what I understand so far, WotC is trying to go by consensus so I would suggest that they vote for this concept as well. I totally get they want to drop the term "race" as it can be seen as offensive (it can in French too) but if I was the author, I would go for Ancestries like Paizo. 

But time change as the meaning of words. Species is history charged, I'm a bit surprised they go with that one to be honest.


----------



## Eyes of Nine

Race gone great

Species better than many. 

I am curious to see if they provide ways to build out cultures (in an appropriate way) in the OD&D DMG


----------



## Michael Linke

Kobold Avenger said:


> T'Pol and Tuvok who are both full-on Vulcans and regular characters in their respective series don't seem to be that much different, from what Spock can do. And one can argue in the character creation of B'elanna Torres the player picked "Human" over "Klingon".



Your suggestion that Voyager and Enterprise are "classic" Trek has made me feel old.


----------



## Marandahir

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Black RPG dude check-in: I’m OK with various takes on simian inspired fantasy & sci-fi playable species _as long as they aren’t cribbing notes from RW bigoted stereotypes._
> 
> They show up in all kinds of genre fiction, after all.



Thanks for the check-in, sincerely!!

That's close to my feelings on it. Though as a white cisdude I prefer to stay as far away from writing anything that could be possibly seen as an analogue to RW bigotry, even if it can be done respectfully within genre fiction. I'm not saying black people need to be the ones writing all the Simian-inspired fantasy characters (that in and of itself would be an awful suggestion) and the burden and labour of being anti-racist falls on all of us anyway; I just have limited capacity to write NPCs for this hobby which is not my job, so I've prioritized writing stories I'm in safer grounds treading. 

I'm actually a big fan of Vanara and Hadozee and other Simian lineages as they can be a lot of fun - IF WRITTEN AND DRAWN CORRECTLY. Sun Wukong/Son Goku is a great source of inspiration, as is Hannuman and his Monkey Army. I love Spider Monkeys and Squirrel Monkeys and Howler Monkeys etc in general and find them beautiful and amazing creatures, and I love the idea of them as a playable character. I just don't want to be the one homebrewing the option, and I don't want to support options that were not playtested with cultural consultants either and somehow missed glaringly racist images and flavour text. 

I don't think a lot of people would consider Son Goku from Dragonball a racist caricature. I don't think a lot of people would consider M'Baku in the MCU a racist caricature. I DO think a lot of people would have issues with M'Baku as he was depicted in Marvel Comics, as well as with certain takes on _Planet of the Apes_. But those are my guesses and I'd welcome hearing you or others say differently if you disagree. 

I mostly meant above that I'd like them to stay away from the bipedal = "more sapiently evolved" trope, since that also leans on real world bigotted attitudes towards other cultures' norms and ways of living (sitting on the floor vs sitting in chairs, types of toilets used, types of clothing worn, etc). Those could be proxies for racist ideas, and I think WotC should tread VERY carefully. 

Honestly don't think it's even needed. Just say that these are divine furries, and can look more like Shifters or more like Egyptian Gods or more like Full-on Animal People a la Tabaxi or Loxodon, and leave it at that. Maybe mention that they're related to Guardianals and tied to the Beast Lands too, but no need to say they were once like a Natural Squirrel but now What? Natural Squirrel is evolving!? Natural Squirrel evolved into Squirrel Girl!!! Don't touch her stash of nuts!


----------



## Cadence

Marandahir said:


> YEAAACH. Missed that. Yeah, this would be Hadozee 2.0…
> 
> if it was published as is, and if it included simian forms. Note the lack of simian-suggestions in the various Animal Ancestries (though you could definitely make a Hannuman or Sun Wukong-inspired Monkey King that looks mostly human but with a monkey face and a tail using the Climber Ancestry).
> 
> I'm willing to be they didn't include Monkey as a suggestion for Climber for that VERY reason. Expect NO Monkey-headed Ardlings to show up in Ardling art, ever.
> 
> And I'd suggest just to be careful that we push bac and tell them to drop the evolution from animals stuff. Maybe you were divinely created by the Beast Lord as a bidepal servant of them. You don't need to have evolved to this point; we're not beholded to Green Mana tropes from Magic: the Gathering.




I'm wondering why they didn't just have them be something like "Rumoured to be descended from a humanoid and one of the Beast Lords (or perhaps Archon or Werecreature)." to parallel the Aasimar, Genasi, Tieflings.  Or do the Beast Lords not also appear in humanoid form 
sometimes anymore?


----------



## Benjamin Olson

darjr said:


> Does the word Ilk have any bad connotations?



I love the word "ilk", but while it is not intrinsically negative, it is most often used in a negative, dismissive, or disapproving context. So no, I don't think it works here.


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Cadence said:


> Relevant to some of the biology stuff here...
> 
> View attachment 268453
> 
> Is evolving from animals into a humanoid problematic at all?  Or am I misremembering other things?



If they're tying the Ardlings more explicitly to celestial animals from the Beastlands, it's important to understand that many of those animals would likely have been "petitioners" originally anyway, which is to say they were the souls of mortals that ended up in the Beastlands (for whatever reason) and transformed into animals in the same kind of way that evil souls condemned to Baator and the Abyss are transformed into devils and demons.

That, plus the fact that these are celestial entities that take the form of animals rather than actual animals as they exist on the Prime Material, kind of changes the dynamic a bit...


----------



## Vaalingrade

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Black RPG dude check-in: I’m OK with various takes on simian inspired fantasy & sci-fi playable species _as long as they aren’t cribbing notes from RW bigoted stereotypes._
> 
> They show up in all kinds of genre fiction, after all.



Giant apes! Giant, technologically superior apes!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Jeff Carlsen said:


> That said, I suspect some people are uncomfortable with D&D having species at all and are looking for a term that downplays the concept.



Been a gamer since ‘77, and black since ‘67.  

Played in over 100 different RPG systems in 5 cities across 3 states.  Been on this board for a while and have Modded here for a hot second.

And I have _never_ seen someone express that position.


----------



## CleverNickName

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Been a gamer since ‘77, and black since ‘67.
> 
> Played in over 100 different RPG systems in 5 cities across 3 states.  Been on this board for a while and have Modded here for a hot second.
> 
> And I have _never_ seen someone express that position.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dragonsbane said:


> Question is, does anyone not reading forums care about this stuff? No one at my table even knew about many of the latest "controversies" over race, orcs, drow, etc...... when I presented PF2, one player was like "where are the races".... when I mentioned the various online views, they all had trouble believing it was real and none had ever thought of any of it, even 30 year vets. And none said it would affect their purchasing habits.



Depends on who you are and what your gaming experiences have been like.  I was aware of some of this back in my earliest days in the hobby, but there really wasn’t anyone to talk about it with.  

For my first decade in the hobby, I met only one other gamer who was a racial minority, and no women in the hobby until the 1990s.


----------



## Tonguez

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Removal of race: good.
> 
> Species? Meh. Give me ancestry or heritage -- or even "people"; species causes me to ask questions about interbreeding and biology and I really dno't want to deal with that in my fantasy game.
> 
> Of course, now we need to deal with specist terms like dwarf or halfling ... why have a people defined by their relation in size to another people?
> 
> Alternate solution: It's just class. Dwarf is a class, elf is a class ...



The way its going Dwarf, Elf etc are just a feat chosen with your background package


----------



## Azzy

Marandahir said:


> Does Paizo have a trademark on the usage of the term in this context? If not, then WotC should use it too. They might be wanting to avoid a lawsuit, of course, much like everyone else uses GM instead of DM.



I doubt it. The term was used by a 5e-compatable product prior (I think) to PF2.


----------



## CleverNickName

What I'd like to see?
Ancestry: things you're born with, your DNA.  Hair color, eye color, etc.  "Nature"
Background: things you were taught, your upbringing.  Social aptitude, language, culture. "Nurture"
Class: what you do for a living, your expertise.  Training, knowledge, practice.  "Career."

Which is pretty much what we have already, especially if we use the options in _Tasha's Cauldron of Everything._  I'd make a few minor tweaks, like mapping ASIs to each category instead of feats, but I can cope.


----------



## Hex08

Dragonsbane said:


> Question is, does anyone not reading forums care about this stuff? No one at my table even knew about many of the latest "controversies" over race, orcs, drow, etc...... when I presented PF2, one player was like "where are the races".... when I mentioned the various online views, they all had trouble believing it was real and none had ever thought of any of it, even 30 year vets. And none said it would affect their purchasing habits.



I suspect this would be the view at my table as well. RPGs are really my hobby, everyone else in my group just enjoys playing. I generally buy most, if not all, of the books and am the only one who spends any time on message boards or reading about the hobby in general. Even the other GM inherited his Pathfinder 1E rulebooks from me and he only looks at forums when he is looking for an answer about an adventure related question when he feels that asking me would be spoilerish. I doubt I would even try an explain the controversies to them because they don't have the necessary background to understand. 

The modern view may be that some traditional D&D/RPG stuff hasn't aged well but without proper context it's not going to be an issue I would discuss with my players.


----------



## dragoner

Minigiant said:


> Too Sci-Fi



Yeah, I use species in _Solis People of the Sun._


----------



## Demetrios1453

Lieslo said:


> I dislike the term species as this could imply the biological species concept as members of a population that can potentially interbreed. Where does this leave half-orcs, half elves etc? Its too loaded a term to be of use for the game as is race. My preference is ancestry



Some species can interbreed and have offspring. Granted, in most cases those offspring are sterile, but in the fantasy realm, they could breed true.


----------



## Demetrios1453

MNblockhead said:


> Biologists use "specific".  Using "generic" (related to genus) and "specific" (related to species) traits is, however, a bit awkard in that that is not how people will read these terms in common usage. Then again, talking about "traits specific to elves" or "dwarf-specific traits" reads well enough to me.



Oooh, good point! That does work pretty well.


----------



## talien

Back in 2018 I converted all my 5E supplements to use the term "species" instead of "race" and it started with this article: Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?

I'm glad to see a better reception this go round.


----------



## R_Chance

Not a big deal for "race" to go out of use. Especially given it has a negative connotation for a lot of people. But "species"? IIRC the term entered common use in English with the scientific revolution via Latin, 17th century? Anyone knows for sure (or has already posted it and I missed it) I would be curious. I would think "ancestry" would be the appropriate reference to ones... ancestors  Ancestral would be a useful adjective reference to things connected to that too. I totally divorced my game world from real world science from the start and "species" (for me) evokes science.


----------



## Marandahir

Vaalingrade said:


> Giant apes! Giant, technologically superior apes!



More than meets the eye?


----------



## Cadence

R_Chance said:


> Not a big deal for "race" to go out of use. Especially given it has a negative connotation for a lot of people. But "species"? IIRC the term entered common use in English with the scientific revolution via Latin, 17th century? Anyone knows for sure (or has already posted it and I missed it)




Here ya go .




Cadence said:


> Species in a sense that applies pretty well to this situation goes back to at least 1561  ("Species of Homo").  The more specifically general biological sense goes to at least 1608 (used with Genus in a zoological sense about crocodiles).
> 
> These dates are more modern than many D&D things, but older than I thought they would be.  The spyglass (on the D&D equipment list) looks like it goes back only to 1608.
> 
> Avoiding work and wikipediaing, it looks like Aristotle used genos and eidos that were translated as genus and species (even if they don't map exactly).   And eidos is sometimes means "form".   Does "form" seem odd, or does that work?


----------



## Weiley31

SteveC said:


> "okay, so that means there are no half elves any more?"



Oh no: they are still there. In the 2014 PHB. Which OneD&D is STILL backwards Compatible with. Now if you have any questions on how I know this, please direct ALL your questions to Morrus and Umbram since they handle all my calls. Thank you, thank you, you're all beautiful!

_Goes into Trailer and slams door shut._


----------



## Weiley31

Marandahir said:


> More than meets the eye?



Well, that's just prime.


----------



## Marandahir

Weiley31 said:


> Well, that's just prime.



Eh, less prime, and more Primal…


----------



## Weiley31

Lidgar said:


> I know I’ll get used to it, but as a biologist, now I’m going to want the Latin names for all the species, subspecies, and genetic variants…



Behold: The Ardling pc: Genus _Thievius Racoonus._


----------



## Weiley31

Marandahir said:


> Eh, less prime, and more Primal…


----------



## jasper

how about Breed. Elf Breed Dwarf Breed Etc. And I have no problems with subclass as a word for a Rogue Thief.
Or the sub class like Seawolf. Or Sub Class $5 foot long.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Charlaquin said:


> Some closely related species can interbreed. That’s a far cry from all intelligent “species” being able to interbreed, as they can in D&D.



Magic. Dragons are obviously a different species from humans, but Half-Dragons exist because of magic. 

And, the other hominid species that we know were pretty similar in intelligence level to Homo Sapiens interbred with us. You're probably descended from some Neanderthals and Denisovans.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jasper said:


> how about Breed. Elf Breed Dwarf Breed Etc. And I have no problems with subclass as a word for a Rogue Thief.
> Or the sub class like Seawolf. Or Sub Class $5 foot long.



No. That is 10 times worse than "race".


----------



## FireLance

Jeff Carlsen said:


> That said, I suspect some people are uncomfortable with D&D having species at all and are looking for a term that downplays the concept. I don't agree with that opinion, but I do empathize with it and recognize that my arguments won't convince them.





Dannyalcatraz said:


> Been a gamer since ‘77, and black since ‘67.
> 
> Played in over 100 different RPG systems in 5 cities across 3 states.  Been on this board for a while and have Modded here for a hot second.
> 
> And I have _never_ seen someone express that position.



Why Race Is Still A Problem In Dungeons & Dragons

From the article: 
"Decoupling all skills from all races may seem like an extreme solution, but it’s how designers can begin to remove the bioessentialism from character creation. It will also open up possibilities for the fantasy of D&D to truly become fantastic. Why shouldn’t a dragonborn trance? Why can’t some orcs be naturally stealthy? Why don’t we have tieflings fly as a bonus action?"


----------



## Weiley31

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No. That is 10 times worse than "race".



"What's your breed?"

Me: French Bulldog.


----------



## Umbran

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Magic. Dragons are obviously a different species from humans, but Half-Dragons exist because of magic.




Heck, folks keep returning to real-world biology for how these things should work, but really, it doesn't have to.  It is a _fantasy_ world, after all.  It can be that breeding is achieved via combination of _spiritual essence_, and all birth is basically a natural magic.

That gives us the ability to make the rules of interbreeding as arbitrary as any of the other rules of magic.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Umbran said:


> Heck, folks keep returning to real-world biology for how these things should work, but really, it doesn't have to.  It can be that breeding is achieved via combination of _spiritual essence_, and all birth is basically a natural magic.
> 
> That gives us the ability to make the rules of interbreeding as arbitrary as any of the other rules of magic.



And the scientific definition of species isn't as nice and accurate as people sometimes act like they are. Ring species exist and prove that the "organisms that are capable of producing fertile offspring are of the same species" definition of a species isn't perfect.


----------



## FireLance

As a completely neutral, purely descriptive term that acknowledges that your character may have traits that are biologically inherited, magically changed, or artificially constructed, I propose "Physical Vessel".


----------



## Incenjucar

Both babies and crispy pickles come from stork-headed ardlings, and they do not explain the secrets to either.


----------



## Weiley31

Look: I know how Half-Dragons are made, but to describe the process would probably get me banned here on ENWorld. And I got too many booked mark posts on here as a form of reference that I wouldn't be able to remember otherwise for my 5E games. So, I'm keeping my mouth shut on that part of the class lesson.


----------



## Corinnguard

I wonder which Genus (genius) at WoTC thought it was a good idea to replace Race with Species.


----------



## Mecheon

Ancestry still works way better as there are very much playable options that are not races or species. Stuff like Revenants which are more 'life condition' (Well, unlife condition)


----------



## Umbran

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And the scientific definition of species isn't as nice and accurate as people sometimes act like they are. Ring species exist and prove that the "organisms that are capable of producing fertile offspring are of the same species" definition of a species isn't perfect.




So, you are technically correct.
But, that technical correctness isn't actually helpful for a game that isn't really beholden to technically correct science.

Overall, this discussion is less about what is technically correct, and more about how people _feel about the change_.


----------



## Corinnguard

I prefer Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition's Heritage and Pathfinder 2nd Edition's Ancestry over species.


----------



## MGibster

I don't have any objections to dropping the word race.  The only time a language jumps off the euphemism treadmill is when it drops dead.  i.e.  Things change.  

D&D has a long, long history of using words in a way that doesn't reflect their original meaning.  See exhibit A, the Druid.  
It could be in 30 years people decide species is problematic for some reason.  Perhaps when applied to sentient "people," species will come to have the same negative connotations as race.  If that's the case, they'll adopt a different word to use.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Mecheon said:


> Ancestry still works way better as there are very much playable options that are not races or species. Stuff like Revenants which are more 'life condition' (Well, unlife condition)



But being a revenant isn't an ancestry. It's a magical condition. How is that any more accurate to being a revenant or warforged than "species" is?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Incenjucar said:


> Both babies and crispy pickles come from stork-headed ardlings, and they do not explain the secrets to either.



My sandwich... _ruined_!

What am I supposed to do with this pickle?!


----------



## Weiley31

Vaalingrade said:


> My sandwich... _ruined_!
> 
> What am I supposed to do with this pickle?!



_Stork suddenly appears outta nowhere._


----------



## Tonguez

R_Chance said:


> Not a big deal for "race" to go out of use. Especially given it has a negative connotation for a lot of people. But "species"? IIRC the term entered common use in English with the scientific revolution via Latin, 17th century? Anyone knows for sure (or has already posted it and I missed it) I would be curious. I would think "ancestry" would be the appropriate reference to ones... ancestors  Ancestral would be a useful adjective reference to things connected to that too. I totally divorced my game world from real world science from the start and "species" (for me) evokes science.




while Species as understood today was defined in the 16/17th century, the term was used by Aristotle and Plato to refer to Living organisms.
Aristotle used the example of humans are a Species (Kind of thing) and their proximate group (Genus) is Blooded animals (_non-blooded animals = shellfish, insects etc_). Each species is marked by  a unique defining trait (differentia). For humans this is “rationality (Sapiens)

Thus the definition of “human” is a Rational Animal. “Blooded Animal” is the genus, “Homo” is the species, and “sapiens” is the differentia.

Aristotlian logic works better for DnD worlds …

Aristotle allowed for Dual-genus too eg Whales, seals and porpoises—are blooded Animals that give live birth, yet also they are Fish that live in the sea.
Bats are Birds yet also Animals

I suppose half-dragons could be fit in too


----------



## Minigiant

Lidgar said:


> I know I’ll get used to it, but as a biologist, now I’m going to want the Latin names for all the species, subspecies, and genetic variants…



That's the only way I'm be okay with it.

Draco nati metalicum
Draco kobold metalicum


----------



## Mortus

Not a fan of species. I’ve heard and read it used just as much as the word race in a negative way. No real difference in my opinion so it does not matter which of the two they use. 

Maybe bloodline? A bit dark sounding but seems neutral.


----------



## agrayday

I agreed with "Ancestry". I understand PF uses it, but it makes the most sense to me.


----------



## Charlaquin

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Magic. Dragons are obviously a different species from humans, but Half-Dragons exist because of magic.
> 
> And, the other hominid species that we know were pretty similar in intelligence level to Homo Sapiens interbred with us. You're probably descended from some Neanderthals and Denisovans.



Sure. But at that point “species” is a meaningless category.


----------



## Scribe

Funny to me that this was the most contentious topic of discussion today.

Poor form Wizards, give us something to fight over!

(No way does Species last, it has to be Ancestry, thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.)


----------



## M_Natas

I think it is good to move away from "race". Even without the racist problematic usage of that term it is just wrong. Humans and Elves are not different races. There is no race in any scientific way outside of breeding stock (like dog races). It is an outdated concept that never was used correctly and in the majority of cases to discriminate. But also it is not a medieval term. It started to get usage in the 15th century. It is quite a modern word and thus not fitting for a medieval based fantasy setting.

That's why I also don't like the term species. That started to get used in that context in the 18th century, so an even more modern word. I could imagine that the sage dwarf Charelius Darwinius would use the word in game but not as a commonly used name. Also it brings a lot of problems with it. Different species usally can't create offspring with each other. Elves, Humans, Orcs, Dwarfs, Tieflings ... all can. So species would be used incorrectly in these cases.

I would propose the term Folk. The Goblin folk, elve folk and so on. And the subcategory could be tribe. The Elven folk from the woodland tribe (woodelves). Folk is a medieval term. It feels medieval. It fits directly in a fantasy setting and is not immersion breaking. With the Folk and Tribe name you don't have to worry about scientific accuracy, interbreedability and usage history.


----------



## Clint_L

The problem with "folk" is that the German version, "Volk," was the Nazi's favourite term for describing their preferred racial group, so when you use the word "folk" to denote something similar you kinda run into the same problem as "race."


----------



## M_Natas

Clint_L said:


> The problem with "folk" is that the German version, "Volk," was the Nazi's favourite term for describing their preferred racial group, so when you use the word "folk" to denote something similar you kinda run into the same problem as "race."



The german Translation of DND 5e already uses the term "Volk" to not use the term race (Rasse).
Rasse/Race is way worse than Volk/Folk.
And the term Folk was used even way back in Ancient Greece.
So while the term Folk was misused by the nazis, it has a long history of okay use, while the term race never was used in any way in an okay way.


----------



## Parmandur

Cadence said:


> I was going to blame the whole 1/2 thing in D&D on Tolkien, but then just remembered John Carter and Dejah Thoris.  (And it would get rid of a bunch of Glen Cook things).
> 
> Would restricting it to humanoids hurt too badly in exchange for avoiding wondering about Thri-Kreen/Halflings?  (So, Thri-kreen are out; as are centaur being Fey).



This is actually how it already works in Packet 1 for OneD&D: the hybrid rule specifically calls out only Humanoids, which excludes Thri-Kreen, Hexbloods, Plasmids, or Centaurs, and leaves room for.oddball future species of other Creature types.

Glad Race is gone, meh on Species as a replacement: I'd love to get an in-depth explanation of the conversations with consultants to go over the reasoning and other alternatives that were rejected.


----------



## John R Davis

On the origin of species.

Origin is the better of the two words.

If you are going to have furries as a PC choice then you do that so the player can do what the animal does.
Monkeys are agile, climby and noisy.
Apes are strong and look wise


----------



## AnotherGuy

M_Natas said:


> I think it is good to move away from "race". Even without the racist problematic usage of that term it is just wrong. Humans and Elves are not different races. There is no race in any scientific way outside of breeding stock (like dog races). It is an outdated concept that never was used correctly and in the majority of cases to discriminate. But also it is not a medieval term. It started to get usage in the 15th century. It is quite a modern word and thus not fitting for a medieval based fantasy setting.
> 
> That's why I also don't like the term species. That started to get used in that context in the 18th century, so an even more modern word. I could imagine that the sage dwarf Charelius Darwinius would use the word in game but not as a commonly used name. Also it brings a lot of problems with it. Different species usally can't create offspring with each other. Elves, Humans, Orcs, Dwarfs, Tieflings ... all can. So species would be used incorrectly in these cases.



I think the argument with regards to these to words being "too modern" is not a particularly strong one given the reason for the change were modern sensibilities. I find it silly to be playing hop-scotch on which modern thing is ok and which is not for our medieval fantasy game. But maybe that is just me.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Charlaquin said:


> Sure. But at that point “species” is a meaningless category.





Sure. It kind of is. As a taxonomical classification tool and scientific term. It still works as a D&D term for the different types of creatures you can play.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

AnotherGuy said:


> I think the argument with regards to these to words being "too modern" is not a particularly strong one given the reason for the change were modern sensibilities. I find it silly to be play hop-scotch on which modern thing is ok and which is not for our medieval fantasy game. But maybe that is just me.



And the term has been around for longer than Rapiers have.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And the term has been around for longer than Rapiers have.



That is also true.


----------



## Charlaquin

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Sure. It kind of is. As a taxonomical classification tool and scientific term. It still works as a D&D term for the different types of creatures you can play.



Well, as I said earlier, all categories are socially constructed. But societies construct categories because they have utility. I don’t think species, as our society uses it, would have nearly the same utility in the world(s) of D&D. It just isn’t really applicable in a world of gods and magic.


----------



## AnotherGuy

So, after thinking about it and reading people's posts, I'm likely going to stick to Race for a whole host of reasons.
Although I like the words Ancestry, Lineage Heritage and Bloodline they do not describe in my mind what I get from the word Race, those words mean something different. A halfling sorcerer might have draconic blood in his Ancestry or Lineage but he is a halfling. Also Heritage and Lineage slides closer towards a Cultural discussion for me, not Racial. What is worse I'm not entertaining Tasha's creature cocktail concoctions such as lets mix a Firbolg with a Minotaur.
Species rips me straight out of fantasy and into sci-fi which I love playing in but not DMing.
Volk is cute but Volk I see as people - something plural, doesn't fit for me.
Origin is a terrible word, I might as well use the word Type or Being. _Have you chosen your Type or Origin._ Yuck!
Kin is the best fit for me I think, but meh - if I want to kill a couple of sacred cows in D&D, the word Race is not where I'd start.

Anyways we are all going to do what is best for our tables.


----------



## M_Natas

AnotherGuy said:


> I think the argument with regards to these to words being "too modern" is not a particularly strong one given the reason for the change were modern sensibilities. I find it silly to be playing hop-scotch on which modern thing is ok and which is not for our medieval fantasy game. But maybe that is just me.



The reason to remove is "modern" or how I would say, just common decency. That the term race is "too modern" is just an added argument for why race was the wrong term anyway.
It is two separate arguments that both argue foe the removal of the term.

First: The term race is just wrong in a scientific way and has so many negative connotations that it shouldn't be used.

Second: It is not fitting for a medieval based fantasy setting anyway and disturbs verisimilitude.

And third: Even if race wouldn't be an outdated, wrong category, the races in DnD don't make sense and don't fit race criterias.

There are a multitude of reasons why race needs to be replaced.


----------



## phuong

Scribe said:


> Would have rathered something less...sterilized?
> 
> Lineage, Ancestry, Heritage...Species?!



Right, species feels sci-fi.  I like Ancestry, also didn't some old games use Kindred?


----------



## R_Chance

Tonguez said:


> while Species as understood today was defined in the 16/17th century, the term was used by Aristotle and Plato to refer to Living organisms.
> Aristotle used the example of humans are a Species (Kind of thing) and their proximate group (Genus) is Blooded animals (_non-blooded animals = shellfish, insects etc_). Each species is marked by  a unique defining trait (differentia). For humans this is “rationality (Sapiens)
> 
> Thus the definition of “human” is a Rational Animal. “Blooded Animal” is the genus, “Homo” is the species, and “sapiens” is the differentia.
> 
> Aristotlian logic works better for DnD worlds …
> 
> Aristotle allowed for Dual-genus too eg Whales, seals and porpoises—are blooded Animals that give live birth, yet also they are Fish that live in the sea.
> Bats are Birds yet also Animals
> 
> I suppose half-dragons could be fit in too



Species originated as a word in Latin. Did Aristotle, a Greek, write in Latin or was it translated into Latin? Translated probably, Rome was not a significant power during Aristotle's life and Greeks tended to think anyone who didn't speak Greek was a howling barbarian. Eidos is roughly the Greek term (someone mentioned it upthread) meaning "form" or type iirc. Looking it up eidos would be the Greek term meaning form / essence / species. Translations, either into modern or ancient languages are always a bit tricky. Anyway, my objection is to the science based "feel" of the word usage for species today, not the actual meaning of the term in modern English or Classical Latin. It's a quirk  Ancestry is derived from medieval French (and thus probably Latin), but it refers to the descent of a person (typically) / being. Lineage would be close, but ancestry has "ancestral" as a useful adjective (also mentioned upthread by someone).  And, in a number of science fiction works, "speciest" is the equivalent of "racist"  Nobody has tagged ancestry with anything like that (yet)


----------



## AnotherGuy

M_Natas said:


> The reason to remove is "modern" or how I would say, just common decency. That the term race is "too modern" is just an added argument for why race was the wrong term anyway.
> It is two separate arguments that both argue foe the removal of the term.
> 
> First: The term race is just wrong in a scientific way and has so many negative connotations that it shouldn't be used.
> 
> Second: It is not fitting for a medieval based fantasy setting anyway and disturbs verisimilitude.
> 
> And third: Even if race wouldn't be an outdated, wrong category, the races in DnD don't make sense and don't fit race criterias.
> 
> There are a multitude of reasons why race needs to be replaced.



Yeah. I think because in D&D we do not use race to reflect culture as it has been done in real life. Even when I'm playing in published settings with a distinction between masses of human people, we do not refer to them as x and y race. I do not claim to have an answer for this.
I think perhaps a table should determine what the in-game word for it would be and use that.

_The elven monarch, pushed back his chair, causing everyone to turn to his direction as his chair scrapped along the stone-tiled floor. Standing up and placing his fists upon the hard oak table, he leaned in, "We have discussed this long enough, which _[fill in the word]_ can we count on to fight united against this impending threat?"_


----------



## reelo

Charlaquin said:


> Subspecies is super fraught, as the “sub” prefix is demeaning.



I don't see the problem, tbh. It's a purely hierarchical term. It doesn't mean the "species is sub", it means there is a distinction between different members of a species that is below the threshold for assigning a different species. 
It's like folders and subfolders.


----------



## amethal

If this was TSR, we could expect books to contain rules for chariot species and "speciesing against time".


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

amethal said:


> If this was TSR, we could expect books to contain rules for chariot species and "speciesing against time".



Someone made a joke on Reddit about how OneD&D's version of "Pass without Trace" will be "Pass without Tspecies".


----------



## ilgatto

Perhaps now would be a good time to ask WotC to also remove the term 'lantern' from their publications - its use always leaves me feeling grievously offended. Perhaps they can replace it/them with 'lamp'.


----------



## Jahydin

I don't care what they call it, I just want stat bonus/penalties back.


----------



## Branduil

Jahydin said:


> I don't care what they call it, I just want stat bonus/penalties back.



Good news, no one will stop you from putting a 17 Dex and 8 Con on every Elf you play.


----------



## phuong

jasper said:


> how about Breed. Elf Breed Dwarf Breed Etc. And I have no problems with subclass as a word for a Rogue Thief.
> Or the sub class like Seawolf. Or Sub Class $5 foot long.



your racism betrays you


----------



## AnotherGuy

@phuong I got thread-banned last week for joking about that because of fantasy race and I even couched that with a 10 minute comedic video clip of Craig Fergusson absurdly and constantly accusing his producer of being one over the years. And it didn't save me. Prob best you modify your post before it gets reported.


----------



## ilgatto

AnotherGuy said:


> Yeah. I think because in D&D we do not use race to reflect culture as it has been done in real life. Even when I'm playing in published settings with a distinction between masses of human people, we do not refer to them as x and y race. I do not claim to have an answer for this.
> I think perhaps a table should determine what the in-game word for it would be and use that.
> 
> _The elven monarch, pushed back his chair, causing everyone to turn to his direction as his chair scrapped along the stone-tiled floor. Standing up and placing his fists upon the hard oak table, he leaned in, "We have discussed this long enough, which _[fill in the word]_ can we count on to fight united against this impending threat?"_




_The elven monarch, pushed back his chair, causing everyone to turn to his direction as his chair scrapped along the stone-tiled floor. Standing up and placing his fists upon the hard oak table, he leaned in, "We have discussed this long enough, which _[who]_ can we count on to fight united against this impending threat?"_

meh...

_The elven monarch, pushed back his chair, causing everyone to turn to his direction as his chair scrapped along the stone-tiled floor. Standing up and placing his fists upon the hard oak table, he leaned in, "We have discussed this long enough, which _[lamp]_ can we count on to fight united against this impending threat?"_

meh... again.


----------



## Branduil

ilgatto said:


> _The elven monarch, pushed back his chair, causing everyone to turn to his direction as his chair scrapped along the stone-tiled floor. Standing up and placing his fists upon the hard oak table, he leaned in, "We have discussed this long enough, which _[who]_ can we count on to fight united against this impending threat?"_
> 
> meh...
> 
> _The elven monarch, pushed back his chair, causing everyone to turn to his direction as his chair scrapped along the stone-tiled floor. Standing up and placing his fists upon the hard oak table, he leaned in, "We have discussed this long enough, which _[lamp]_ can we count on to fight united against this impending threat?"_
> 
> meh... again.



Honestly, this is just pointing out another major problem with D&D and fantasy tropes, where virtually every nation is an ethnostate.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Branduil said:


> Honestly, this is just pointing out another major problem with D&D and fantasy tropes, where virtually every nation is an ethnostate.



Yep. There are some notable subversions, though (Wildemount's Menagerie Coast and Kryn Dynasty, for example).


----------



## Bagpuss

Lieslo said:


> I dislike the term species as this could imply the biological species concept as members of a population that can potentially interbreed. Where does this leave half-orcs, half elves etc? Its too loaded a term to be of use for the game as is race. My preference is ancestry




Leaves them the same as Ligers, Zebroids, Mules, etc. The exceptions to the general rule.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

John R Davis said:


> On the origin of species.
> 
> Origin is the better of the two words.
> 
> If you are going to have furries as a PC choice then you do that so the player can do what the animal does.
> Monkeys are agile, climby and noisy.
> Apes are strong and look wise



Dog people drool at the table and lap mead out their mug.   Cat people lift their bag legs up and lean down for a refreshing bath.

(I jest, I jest)

Origin is my vote too.  I like blood or bloodline as well but am waiting for someone to say it has negative connotations.

Species is fine for me but is a bit anachronistic feeling.


----------



## John R Davis

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Dog people drool at the table and lap mead out their mug.   Cat people lift their bag legs up and lean down for a refreshing bath.
> 
> (I jest, I jest)
> 
> Origin is my vote too.  I like blood or bloodline as well but am waiting for someone to say it has negative connotations.
> 
> Species is fine for me but is a bit anachronistic feeling.



He he.
Bloodline would cause to many triggers


----------



## Bagpuss

Personally I liked the fact D&D had a "human race", no matter what colour your skin was you were all part of the same race. It wasn't a divisive term in D&D like it has been increasingly used in society. I can't see people that are use to using race to describe elves, dwarves, etc. to suddenly change their conversational habits overnight because of the change in the books.

Fine with species as a replacement. I like it better than ancestry or heritage. We are all part of the same human species, but we don't all share the same ancestry or heritage.


----------



## Cadence

ilgatto said:


> _The elven monarch, pushed back his chair, causing everyone to turn to his direction as his chair scrapped along the stone-tiled floor. Standing up and placing his fists upon the hard oak table, he leaned in, "We have discussed this long enough, which _[lamp]_ can we count on to fight united against this impending threat?"_




Treebeard used peoples:

"Learn now the lore of Living Creatures!
First name the four, the free peoples:
Eldest of all, the elf-children;
Dwarf the delver, dark are his houses;
Ent the earthborn, old as mountains;
Man the mortal, master of horses"
[Later appending Hobbits]


----------



## Dire Bare

Umbran said:


> Heck, folks keep returning to real-world biology for how these things should work, but really, it doesn't have to.  It is a _fantasy_ world, after all.  It can be that breeding is achieved via combination of _spiritual essence_, and all birth is basically a natural magic.
> 
> That gives us the ability to make the rules of interbreeding as arbitrary as any of the other rules of magic.



True.

But there is a concept from theatre that I think applies to fantastic fiction and gaming . . . suspension of disbelief . . . for an audience member to "suspend" their disbelief and BELIEVE in the reality of the play, most of the play's elements are grounded in as much reality as possible, with only some elements pushing past those bounds. In a fantasy setting, if humans exist and behave much the same way humans do in the real world, it makes it easier to believe in the fantastical, like dragons, while engaging with the story.

It's why, whether we use the word "species" or not, we tend to view the various fantasy races as species . . . because it jives with our understanding of the real world, and makes the more fantastical elements of the game "believable" while we play (or read novels).

D&D races don't have to follow the "rules" of real world biology, but tracking generally with that understanding is already a thing, regardless of the words we use.


----------



## Dire Bare

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> But being a revenant isn't an ancestry. It's a magical condition. How is that any more accurate to being a revenant or warforged than "species" is?



The word "species" doesn't just apply to different categories of living things in the real world. At a more basic level, it just means "_different kinds of things within a larger category_". So, being a revenant or some other type of transformative character, is just as much a "species" as being an elf. The word works just fine for both concepts.


----------



## Dire Bare

Charlaquin said:


> Sure. But at that point “species” is a meaningless category.



No it isn't.

It isn't a rigid category. It's a category whose lines are debated by scientists all the time. But it's not meaningless, not by a long shot.

As humans, we like clearly defined and rigid categories when we classify things . . . but the more we learn about the natural world, the more we realize nature doesn't play that way.


----------



## Xamnam

As far as a word, it's fine to me. I like others more, but if this is it going forward, whatever. The biggest problem I see with species is that the response elsewhere is "Oh, fine, can we bring back locked ASIs then?"


----------



## Longspeak

Like others here, I don't like the word they picked, but I agree with the removal of "race." I have been and will continue to use "Ancestry."


----------



## Charlaquin

Dire Bare said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> It isn't a rigid category. It's a category whose lines are debated by scientists all the time. But it's not meaningless, not by a long shot.
> 
> As humans, we like clearly defined and rigid categories when we classify things . . . but the more we learn about the natural world, the more we realize nature doesn't play that way.



No of course it isn’t meaningless _in real life_. It would be meaningless in a world where dragons freely interbreed with humans, elves with thri-kreen, and centaurs with tritons. It’s meaningless in a world where our understanding of biology can be freely overridden by magic. Taxonomy, as we use it, is simply not applicable in a world where these unbelievably diverse life forms did not evolve from common ancestors but were directly created by gods, or materialized from pure elemental energy, or migrated from other realities, and all of them can be freely hybridized “because magic.”

And to be clear, there’s nothing wrong with that as a setting conceit. It’s fantasy, it doesn’t need to (and in my opinion shouldn’t) be bound by real-life science. However, “species” isn’t a meaningful term in a setting with such conceits.


----------



## Vaalingrade

That's not the only meaning of species though, Charlaquin.

And like I said before, most of the other alternatives don't actually solve the problem. They're words already steeped in a lesser or sometimes historically worse versions of the same rhetoric as 'race'. Believe me, growing up in the American South, I heard a lot of talk about 'heritage' and 'ancestry' from people trying to be 'intellectually' racist.


----------



## Umbran

Dire Bare said:


> D&D races don't have to follow the "rules" of real world biology, but tracking generally with that understanding is already a thing, regardless of the words we use.




I don't disagree with you.  But I this looks like you didn't see my point.

What I described "generally tracks" with what we see in the world - indeed, what I said was essentially the common worldwide understanding of breeding when humans started breeding domesticated animals and plants, several thousand years before the invention of the microscope or the discovery of genetics.

I merely substituted "spiritual essence" for "genes".  I noted that it allowed for us to make breeding work however we want - and if what you want is "generally tracking", well, you can have that, while still having dragons able to breed with anything, and gnomes not breed with other humanoids.

It isn't rocket science, and it shouldn't be rocket science, because it is fantasy.


----------



## Atomoctba

What about "birthright"? Supposing they does not resurrect the setting with the same name, because there, the word have a very special connotation


----------



## Justice and Rule

Species is odd, lineage would probably be better if you don't want to crib from someone else's notes, but moving away from "Race" is a good first step.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Black RPG dude check-in: I’m OK with various takes on simian inspired fantasy & sci-fi playable species _as long as they aren’t cribbing notes from RW bigoted stereotypes._
> 
> They show up in all kinds of genre fiction, after all.




In the recent PF2 release _Impossible Lands _they have the Vanara, which I believe are based of a Hindu myth? But I haven't seen any complaints yet about them.



CleverNickName said:


> What I'd like to see?
> Ancestry: things you're born with, your DNA.  Hair color, eye color, etc.  "Nature"
> Background: things you were taught, your upbringing.  Social aptitude, language, culture. "Nurture"
> Class: what you do for a living, your expertise.  Training, knowledge, practice.  "Career."
> 
> Which is pretty much what we have already, especially if we use the options in _Tasha's Cauldron of Everything._  I'd make a few minor tweaks, like mapping ASIs to each category instead of feats, but I can cope.




I'm going to assume this is not a Pathfinder joke, but this is literally how PF2 does it, and is even how they order it in their Core Rulebook. I'm not sure if it is officially called the ABC system, but I see it called that a lot.


----------



## payn

Justice and Rule said:


> In the recent PF2 release _Impossible Lands _they have the Vanara, which I believe are based of a Hindu myth? But I haven't seen any complaints yet about them.



Vanara been round awhile. I recall in the PF1 Serpent Skull AP they appeared a bit. Dont remember much about them.


----------



## Justice and Rule

payn said:


> Vanara been round awhile. I recall in the PF1 Serpent Skull AP they appeared a bit. Dont remember much about them.




Sure, my point was more to accent Danny's own point that there isn't really a need to fear making/releasing monkey ancestries, as evidenced by Paizo doing it within the last month. What matters is how you actually put it together.


----------



## payn

Justice and Rule said:


> Sure, my point was more to accent Danny's own point that there isn't really a need to fear making/releasing monkey ancestries, as evidenced by Paizo doing it within the last month. What matters is how you actually put it together.



Right, just affirming that Vanara been around awhile and not been an issue...yet.


----------



## CleverNickName

Justice and Rule said:


> I'm going to assume this is not a Pathfinder joke, but this is literally how PF2 does it, and is even how they order it in their Core Rulebook. I'm not sure if it is officially called the ABC system, but I see it called that a lot.



Huh...I honestly didn't know that.   I haven't even read PF2, let alone played it.  

I might have to check it out.


----------



## Azzy

payn said:


> Vanara been round awhile. I recall in the PF1 Serpent Skull AP they appeared a bit. Dont remember much about them.



Heck, they've been around since 3.5's OA (and were some of the least problematic aspects of that book).


----------



## Vaalingrade

payn said:


> Right, just affirming that Vanara been around awhile and not been an issue...yet.



Hadozee themselves, when they were hyping them up for the Spelljammer release were pretty well received. It wasn't until the actual content came out that there were problems.


----------



## glass

Charlaquin said:


> No of course it isn’t meaningless _in real life_. It would be meaningless in a world where dragons freely interbreed with humans, elves with thri-kreen, and centaurs with tritons.



Does any such world exist? Even if it does, for those categories of beings to be able to interbreed, they must exist as distinct types of beings. Species is as good a word as any (and better than most) for those types.


Anyway, most of the alternative suggestions in this thread (regardless of their merits otherwise) do not work as a question. "My lineage is elf" may be fine, but "what's you lineage?" is a bit dodgy (and "what's your parentage?" or "what your origin?" are even worse).


----------



## Morrus

Justice and Rule said:


> I'm going to assume this is not a Pathfinder joke, but this is literally how PF2 does it, and is even how they order it in their Core Rulebook. I'm not sure if it is officially called the ABC system, but I see it called that a lot.






CleverNickName said:


> What I'd like to see?
> Ancestry: things you're born with, your DNA.  Hair color, eye color, etc.  "Nature"
> Background: things you were taught, your upbringing.  Social aptitude, language, culture. "Nurture"
> Class: what you do for a living, your expertise.  Training, knowledge, practice.  "Career."



Or indeed _Level Up_ -- heritage, culture, (background), class, (destiny). Basically it's a mini-lifepath system and it already exists.


----------



## Galandris

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Origin is my vote too.




"What's your origin?" is much more likely to be answered by "I'm from Paris" than "I am human".
"What is your race?" is correctly answered by "I am human", with a roll of eyes, because IRL humans are generally pretty good at identifying other humans and differentiating them from chimps without asking for confirmation. (also, it can help identify a racist if he expects something like Asian or European).
"What is your ancestry" is much more likely to be answered by "I am thorin, son of thrain, 367th heir to the throne of the Undercity..." or "my dad was plumber but I can trace my family tree up to 1765."
"What is your species" is correcty answerede by "I am human" though "homo sapiens" would be better.
"What is your heritage" refers to one's stock portfolio in a trust fund, or maybe a +1 longsword.
"What is your ilk or breed?" is most likely to elicit a weird look because I wouldn't know what the question is...

At least they changed a word that described aptly what they wanted to describe, to another word that describes what they wanted to describe.


----------



## Dire Bare

Charlaquin said:


> No of course it isn’t meaningless _in real life_. It would be meaningless in a world where dragons freely interbreed with humans, elves with thri-kreen, and centaurs with tritons. It’s meaningless in a world where our understanding of biology can be freely overridden by magic. Taxonomy, as we use it, is simply not applicable in a world where these unbelievably diverse life forms did not evolve from common ancestors but were directly created by gods, or materialized from pure elemental energy, or migrated from other realities, and all of them can be freely hybridized “because magic.”
> 
> And to be clear, there’s nothing wrong with that as a setting conceit. It’s fantasy, it doesn’t need to (and in my opinion shouldn’t) be bound by real-life science. However, “species” isn’t a meaningful term in a setting with such conceits.



Sorry I misunderstood your point.

But still . . . not meaningless in the fantasy world either. In the D&D multiverse, anything can interbreed with just about anything if you involve a god, mad wizard, cataclysm or other magical macguffin . . . . but that doesn't mean it's common, that it happens all the time, or that separating people into different types, different species, still has meaning.

We can still meaningfully talk about elves, dwarves, genasi, dragonborn, etc being distinct types of peoples from each other . . . . despite the fact that, under the right circumstances, any of them could have a couple of kids with each other.

And whether we use the word race, species, lineage, heritage, or ancestry doesn't really impact that in any direction.


----------



## Charlaquin

glass said:


> Does any such world exist?



I mean… I’m describing D&D there…


glass said:


> Even if it does, for those categories of beings to be able to interbreed, they must exist as distinct types of beings. Species is as good a word as any (and better than most) for those types.



No, it isn’t a good word for it, that’s my entire point.


glass said:


> Anyway, most of the alternative suggestions in this thread (regardless of their merits otherwise) do not work as a question. "My lineage is elf" may be fine, but "what's you lineage?" is a bit dodgy (and "what's your parentage?" or "what your origin?" are even worse).



I don’t see the problem.


----------



## Clint_L

I don't understand how this gets to 15 pages. Everyone pretty much agrees that "race" has become an unfortunate term, some of us like "species," some of us dislike it, but pretty much everyone understands what it means. Pragmatically speaking it works, there won't be any word that is perfect for everyone...and it affects gameplay in no way whatsoever. So I am left with the question: _who cares_? Why are folks worked up about this? As long as we get away from accidentally offensive terms, then the actual choice doesn't matter. 

I am reminded of a work meeting where people just keep arguing for the sake of arguing.


----------



## dave2008

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> Which is a problem for established settings like Eberron that make extensive use of them.



Well, in the recent UA video Crawford does imply that setting specific "species" will remain a thing. So perhaps the generic version in the PHB, and the setting specific species are in the setting books. That would work IMO.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Clint_L said:


> I don't understand how this gets to 15 pages. Everyone pretty much agrees that "race" has become an unfortunate term, some of us like "species," some of us dislike it, but pretty much everyone understands what it means. Pragmatically speaking it works, there won't be any word that is perfect for everyone...and it affects gameplay in no way whatsoever. So I am left with the question: _who cares_? Why are folks worked up about this? As long as we get away from accidentally offensive terms, then the actual choice doesn't matter.
> 
> I am reminded of a work meeting where people just keep arguing for the sake of arguing.



At this point,  I'm just wondering how the survey will handle it.  If they just give a rating on "Do you like removal of race." without a follow-up to the replacement term, they may get a negative response that doesn't accurately represent how overwhelmingly people support removing the term "race."


----------



## dave2008

Sacrosanct said:


> At this point,  I'm just wondering how the survey will handle it.  If they just give a rating on "Do you like removal of race." without a follow-up to the replacement term, they may get a negative response that doesn't accurately represent how overwhelmingly people support removing the term "race."



I don't know if it will be a question they ask.  If they do ask, it will definitely be about the word choice, not its removal.


----------



## Galandris

I am pretty sure they'd get 80%+ agreeing with the removal of race. If they ask do you want term X to replace race, none of them might make the threshold.


----------



## Clint_L

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.


----------



## Charlaquin

Dire Bare said:


> Sorry I misunderstood your point.
> 
> But still . . . not meaningless in the fantasy world either. In the D&D multiverse, anything can interbreed with just about anything if you involve a god, mad wizard, cataclysm or other magical macguffin . . . . but that doesn't mean it's common, that it happens all the time, or that separating people into different types, different species, still has meaning.



Different types, sure, but species is not a good word to describe them.


Dire Bare said:


> We can still meaningfully talk about elves, dwarves, genasi, dragonborn, etc being distinct types of peoples from each other . . . . despite the fact that, under the right circumstances, any of them could have a couple of kids with each other.
> 
> And whether we use the word race, species, lineage, heritage, or ancestry doesn't really impact that in any direction.



Except that those words - race, species, lineage, heritage, ancestry - they have meanings in real life, which impact the impression they create of the groups they describe. That’s _why_ we’re changing the term from race in the first place. The word “species” is part of a system of categorization that doesn’t make sense in a fantasy world, which makes it a poor choice to use there.


----------



## Charlaquin

Clint_L said:


> I don't understand how this gets to 15 pages. Everyone pretty much agrees that "race" has become an unfortunate term, some of us like "species," some of us dislike it, but pretty much everyone understands what it means. Pragmatically speaking it works, there won't be any word that is perfect for everyone...and it affects gameplay in no way whatsoever. So I am left with the question: _who cares_? Why are folks worked up about this? As long as we get away from accidentally offensive terms, then the actual choice doesn't matter.
> 
> I am reminded of a work meeting where people just keep arguing for the sake of arguing.



We want to avoid moving from one problematic term to another. And since it’s an issue that touches on real-life hurt, it’s something people understandably have strong feelings about.


----------



## Xamnam

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.



I vote for Schmorp.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Clint_L said:


> I don't understand how this gets to 15 pages. Everyone pretty much agrees that "race" has become an unfortunate term, some of us like "species," some of us dislike it, but pretty much everyone understands what it means. Pragmatically speaking it works, there won't be any word that is perfect for everyone...and it affects gameplay in no way whatsoever. So I am left with the question: _who cares_? Why are folks worked up about this? As long as we get away from accidentally offensive terms, then the actual choice doesn't matter.
> 
> I am reminded of a work meeting where people just keep arguing for the sake of arguing.



Because this thread is clearly about, "what do you think about how they changed it", not, "was it a good idea to change it?"  The answer to the second question is rather clear.  The answer to the first is not.


----------



## Micah Sweet

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.



Can't say creature type.  That's already an established game term.

There's no answer that will please everyone.


----------



## Amrûnril

Sacrosanct said:


> At this point,  I'm just wondering how the survey will handle it.  If they just give a rating on "Do you like removal of race." without a follow-up to the replacement term, they may get a negative response that doesn't accurately represent how overwhelmingly people support removing the term "race."





Galandris said:


> I am pretty sure they'd get 80%+ agreeing with the removal of race. If they ask do you want term X to replace race, none of them might make the threshold.




I don't get the impression that the decision to remove the term "race" is subject to their approval rating system (nor do I think it should be). I'm not sure whether they're as committed to "species" as the replacement, so I wouldn't be surprised if we see some A/B testing in that regard.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Sacrosanct said:


> At this point,  I'm just wondering how the survey will handle it.  If they just give a rating on "Do you like removal of race." without a follow-up to the replacement term, they may get a negative response that doesn't accurately represent how overwhelmingly people support removing the term "race."



I just feel real bad for the people who have to read the write-in comments on it.


----------



## Azzy

I'd prefer either "Ancestry" or "Folk" (since there's already a folk in the game—like lizardfolk, and merfolk).


----------



## Charlaquin

Azzy said:


> I'd prefer either "Ancestry" or "Folk" (since there's already a folk in the game—like lizardfolk, and merfolk).



Ancestry, heritage, lineage, folk, people… Anything but species, IMO. (Besides race, of course. I dislike species, but I dislike race more).


----------



## Tonguez

Azzy said:


> Heck, they've been around since 3.5's OA (and were some of the least problematic aspects of that book).



Vanara first appeared in 1985 AD&D Oriental Adventures, theyre based on Hindu stories (particularly the Ramayana) and notably the diety Hanuman is a Vanara.


----------



## Stone Dog

My only problem with race in D&D is that in game it cludges together education and culture with biology.  I'm aware of other problems, but that is what always bugged me.

Like, I can get halflings having excellent hand-eye coordination or elven senses and such, but all elves learn swordsmanship?

But the term species is... Functional.   It fails on non-orgamic or constructed characters sure, but eh.  Just sounds clinical to me is all.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Micah Sweet said:


> Can't say creature type. That's already an established game term.



“Type” also has RW connotations that could get…interesting.

“So, what’s your type?”

“I like ‘em big, red and scaly!”


----------



## Galandris

As a powergamer myself, I approve this change. Since One D&D will be backward compatible, I fully expect to be able to pick both a 2014 Race and a 2024 Species when building my character. "I am a goliath of the mountain dwarf race."


----------



## Lanefan

FireLance said:


> As a completely neutral, purely descriptive term that acknowledges that your character may have traits that are biologically inherited, magically changed, or artificially constructed, I propose "Physical Vessel".



Does that mean a wraith is now classed as a Non-Physical Vessel?

Character names would start sounding like ships - _I'm the PV _Jelessa Evensong,_ out of Waterdeep bound for Baldur's Gate.  And you?_


----------



## Nikosandros

Clint_L said:


> people just keep arguing for the sake of arguing.



Isn't that the purpose of forums?


----------



## Eyes of Nine

Lots of great suggestions in this thread (I like Origin personally). Hopefully everyone will put their feedback on this into the next questionnaire


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> So, you are technically correct.
> But, that technical correctness isn't actually helpful for a game that isn't really beholden to technically correct science.



Au contraire, mon Capitan - it's very helpful; in that defaulting the in-game science to be the same as real-world science where possible makes it hella easier for everyone to intuitively grasp without having to think twice about it.

If questions of _non-magical _physics and other sciences can usually go like this, all is good:

Player: "How does [gravity, biology, erosion, rainfall, or other common thing] work in the game?"
DM: "Just like in the real world."
Player: "OK, got it."

Exceptions, where mundane things do NOT work as per the real world e.g. gunpowder doesn't work as advertised, can then be clearly noted and spelled out.


----------



## Clint_L

Xamnam said:


> I vote for Schmorp.



I am totally on board with Schmorp.

"One of the first steps in creating your character is deciding what sort of sentient being you would like them to be. In D&D our word for this is "schmorp," and possible schmorps include dwarves, humans, goliaths, elves, and many other schmorps detailed herein."


----------



## Micah Sweet

Stone Dog said:


> My only problem with race in D&D is that in game it cludges together education and culture with biology.  I'm aware of other problems, but that is what always bugged me.
> 
> Like, I can get halflings having excellent hand-eye coordination or elven senses and such, but all elves learn swordsmanship?
> 
> But the term species is... Functional.   It fails on non-orgamic or constructed characters sure, but eh.  Just sounds clinical to me is all.



The fact that Level Up doesn't do that is a big mark in the "pro" column for it (one of many, imo).


----------



## Galandris

Lanefan said:


> Au contraire, mon Capitan - it's very helpful; in that defaulting the in-game science to be the same as real-world science where possible makes it hella easier for everyone to intuitively grasp without having to think twice about it.
> 
> If questions of _non-magical _physics and other sciences can usually go like this, all is good:
> 
> Player: "How does [gravity, biology, erosion, rainfall, or other common thing] work in the game?"
> DM: "Just like in the real world."
> Player: "OK, got it."
> 
> Exceptions, where mundane things do NOT work as per the real world e.g. gunpowder doesn't work as advertised, can then be clearly noted and spelled out.




This is outside of the core topic of this thread but this is worth repeating. Having everything not explicitely working as in real life flagged as such is necessary for players not to have to wonder constantly how the fundamental workings of the world affects them. Even if it is all God-created, it happens to be, by default, like the world we know. Having to constantly decide if food rots, if cadaver decompose at the same rate, whether being in a arid environment affects that, and so on is a pain in the neck. Sure, nobody wrote in 5e that human children aren't brought to the parent by a stork, but when I see a human children in the game, as a player, I should be able to assume, that he has parents, and biologically, a father and mother, and if he is 8 years old, I can assume he is not the father of the other small human beside him that he calls "sis", irrespective of stork-action. It's not difficult to fix in the case of reproduction, by saying that there are no genes in D&D universes, that babies are produced out of the love of two (or, after all, one or more beings) really wanting to have one and _poof_, but if it is the case, it needs mentionning. Investigative scenarios often works better if everyone is on the same page with regards to things like that.

We recently had this discussion when a mechanical familiar with fly speed was sent to get an overview of the region (we were teleported to an unknown place and wanted to get our bearing). We made a detailed plan to provide cold protection and air to the observer (a small character in a bag of holding) while he was going to 12,000 meters to get a glimpse of the surrounding and identify notable landscape. The plan was based on (a) air becoming rare (b) temperature dropping with altitude (c) distance of vision increasing with altitude and so on. If air had been hotter and boiling at 12,000 meters could work as you're going nearer to the Fire Elemental Plane known as the sun who has a gate on a chariot in the sky, but it would need to explicit or the players would complain (or happy if they had make an academic discovery of extreme importance in the case this situation was unknown of humanity before).


----------



## FrogReaver

I have no issue with this change. I also had no issue with race.  

At least now d&d campaigns that feature bigotry against certain (lineages/species/heritages) as a backdrop won’t be immediately be called ‘racism’.


----------



## DarkCrisis

Stone Dog said:


> My only problem with race in D&D is that in game it cludges together education and culture with biology.  I'm aware of other problems, but that is what always bugged me.
> 
> Like, I can get halflings having excellent hand-eye coordination or elven senses and such, but all elves learn swordsmanship?
> 
> But the term species is... Functional.   It fails on non-orgamic or constructed characters sure, but eh.  Just sounds clinical to me is all.




It's because you played a "Typical Elf or Dwarf of Whatever."  It's like having an issue with playing The Boot in Monopoly when you wanted to play a Nike or a Croc or a Loafer instead of the bog standard Boot.  

Now-a-days people don't want to play a typical whatever.  Which is fine.  Nothing wrong with opening things up.

Kind of like that argument that all Orcs are bad.  It was always "the typical Orc" via the monster manual.  Good Orcs existed, just rarely used because they weren't considered typical.


Anywho, Species sounds to Sci-Fi for me.  I hope they change Barbarian to Berserker though.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Species is IMO the most correct for the categories that have been called "race" in D&D up until now. It may sound a bit weird to us now because it's associated with Science, but after a few years of useage it will sound completely natural.


----------



## darjr

Kind and Kindred!

I agree with @Alphastream and Richard.


----------



## Cadence

Granted that these aren't restricted to the biological meaning... but I'm intreagued by 'Kidney'* on the list of synonyms for species...

*Typo fixed





I had no idea...


----------



## Vaalingrade

Nature vs the Nurture of Class wouldn't have been too bad.


----------



## glass

Charlaquin said:


> I mean… I’m describing D&D there…



No D&D setting I am aware of has direct crossbreeding of elves and thri-kreen or centaurs and tritons - I do not remember any such hybrids existing but I am prepared to take your word for it that they do, but I would like a citation that they are the result of direct cross-breeding and not magical hybridisation.



Azzy said:


> I'd prefer either "Ancestry" or "Folk" (since there's already a folk in the game—like lizardfolk, and merfolk).



To reiterate, "What's your folk?" is weird.


----------



## Yaarel

glass said:


> No D&D setting I am aware of has direct crossbreeding of elves and thri-kreen or centaurs and tritons - I do not remember any such hybrids existing but I am prepared to take your word for it that they do, but I would like a citation that they are the result of direct cross-breeding and not magical hybridisation.
> 
> 
> To reiterate, "What's your folk?" is weird.



To me, "folk" sounds normal.

It is already officially, in terms like "Merfolk", "Lizardfolk", and so on. That said, in these contexts, the folk comes to mean "man-or-woman-or-other".

Heh, "Meradult" and "Lizardadult" would sound weird to me.

Merperson and Lizardperson.

I like "folk".


----------



## Yaarel

I am kinda getting into "Parentage".

(@Scribe)


----------



## Doctor Futurity

Species works fine, I've been essentially defaulting to thinking of it that way since the 1E days anyway.

That said, I like that Richard Baker link above, kindred is excellent as a concept, and was in use as early as 1975 with Tunnels & Trolls where it has served that game quite well.


----------



## Scribe

Yaarel said:


> I am kinda getting into "Parentage".
> 
> (@Scribe)




We should get a poll going, so we can spam feedback at Wizards because species is just terrible.


----------



## Cadence

Scribe said:


> We should get a poll going, so we can spam feedback at Wizards because species is just terrible.



As long as you include "kidney" as a choice, I'm all in.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Galandris said:


> "What's your origin?" is much more likely to be answered by "I'm from Paris" than "I am human".
> "What is your race?" is correctly answered by "I am human", with a roll of eyes, because IRL humans are generally pretty good at identifying other humans and differentiating them from chimps without asking for confirmation. (also, it can help identify a racist if he expects something like Asian or European).
> "What is your ancestry" is much more likely to be answered by "I am thorin, son of thrain, 367th heir to the throne of the Undercity..." or "my dad was plumber but I can trace my family tree up to 1765."
> "What is your species" is correcty answerede by "I am human" though "homo sapiens" would be better.
> "What is your heritage" refers to one's stock portfolio in a trust fund, or maybe a +1 longsword.
> "What is your ilk or breed?" is most likely to elicit a weird look because I wouldn't know what the question is...
> 
> At least they changed a word that described aptly what they wanted to describe, to another word that describes what they wanted to describe.



I suppose I was not imagining characters asking “what is your origin” and that it was more for players.  

Heritage is ok too.  

Species is technically more accurate but is not very fantasy pseudo medieval.  Honestly some old term we now find offensive is probably best excepting a modern lens.

I get it.  For my group it’s probably race merely because I doubt we move to 5e and have played for decades.  It’s pretty well taken for granted now.

It will be interesting to see the change in print regardless!


----------



## Clint_L

Cadence said:


> As long as you include "kidney" as a choice, I'm all in.



I'm only onboard if "schmorp" is an option.


----------



## Scribe

Cadence said:


> As long as you include "kidney" as a choice, I'm all in.


----------



## Dire Bare

Charlaquin said:


> Different types, sure, but species is not a good word to describe them.
> 
> Except that those words - race, species, lineage, heritage, ancestry - they have meanings in real life, which impact the impression they create of the groups they describe. That’s _why_ we’re changing the term from race in the first place. The word “species” is part of a system of categorization that doesn’t make sense in a fantasy world, which makes it a poor choice to use there.



Shrug. Agree to disagree. Species is fine, if a bit modern sounding for a medieval fantasy game.


----------



## Yaarel

Scribe said:


> We should get a poll going, so we can spam feedback at Wizards because species is just terrible.



Like minds. Just posted a new poll thread.


----------



## Charlaquin

glass said:


> No D&D setting I am aware of has direct crossbreeding of elves and thri-kreen or centaurs and tritons - I do not remember any such hybrids existing but I am prepared to take your word for it that they do, but I would like a citation that they are the result of direct cross-breeding and not magical hybridisation.



I mean, the Origins playtest explicitly says your character can be half-anything.


glass said:


> To reiterate, "What's your folk?" is weird.



In what way? That doesn’t sound weird to me at all.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Granted that these aren't restricted to the biological meaning... but I'm intreagued by 'Kindey' on the list of synonyms for species...
> 
> View attachment 268563
> I had no idea...
> View attachment 268564



*kidney


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> *kidney




Typing while multitasking, or misspelling to fit relations more?


----------



## Azzy

glass said:


> To reiterate, "What's your folk?" is weird.



Try "What kind of folk are you?" instead.


----------



## Davinshe

Osgood said:


> I'm all for dropping the term "race" but I don't love the term "species." It sounds too modern. It'll suffice, but hopefully they can come up with something better over the course of the play test. What about "Kind?" As in humankind, elfkind? Clunky, but it feels more in keeping medievalish fantasy lingo.



I'm glad I'm not the first to think of this -- I think this has a nice archaic feel that maps well to the old "race" term.


----------



## Xamnam

Azzy said:


> Try "What kind of folk are you?" instead.



Or, "Who are your folk?"


----------



## Galandris

After giving it much thought and ponderation, I've picked my definite  choice.

I hereby propose to replace race with "running contest".


----------



## BookTenTiger

Xamnam said:


> Or, "Who are your folk?"



Or "Who is your favorite New Zealand rock / rap / folk parody band?"


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Xamnam said:


> I vote for Schmorp.



Nah, I prefer "Smeerp". (Warning: TV Tropes link.)


----------



## Jahydin

Branduil said:


> Good news, no one will stop you from putting a 17 Dex and 8 Con on every Elf you play.



I switched to Pathfinder actually, but good looking out.


----------



## MGibster

Clint_L said:


> So I am left with the question: _who cares_? Why are folks worked up about this? As long as we get away from accidentally offensive terms, then the actual choice doesn't matter.



That's what I was thinking before I saw your post. Who cares?  Obviously everyone in this thread, including me, but is it going to change the game for any of us in a significant way?  I doubt it.


----------



## FrogReaver

MGibster said:


> That's what I was thinking before I saw your post. Who cares?  Obviously everyone in this thread, including me, but is it going to change the game for any of us in a significant way?  I doubt it.



Maybe because there's a rather pronounced culture war going on right now?


----------



## MGibster

FrogReaver said:


> Maybe because there's a rather pronounced culture war going on right now?




I'm a veteran of a thousand psychic wars.  But none of that prepared me for the ongoing culture war.


----------



## Vaalingrade

MGibster said:


> That's what I was thinking before I saw your post. Who cares?  Obviously everyone in this thread, including me, but is it going to change the game for any of us in a significant way?  I doubt it.



Language matters.

That's why some are working so hard to ridicule or minimize this. Because they know language matters.


----------



## MGibster

Vaalingrade said:


> Language matters.
> 
> That's why some are working so hard to ridicule or minimize this. Because they know language matters.



Sure, language matters.  I think what makes this hard for some people is that in many other contexts the word race isn't a problem.  I use it professionally on a fairly regular basis.  (I can't talk about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act without mentioning race.)  I say many, but really, other than D&D, it doesn't appear to be a problem in any other context.  So I really don't get the reason why a change is necessary, and admittedly, I find it kind of silly.  Not that it's a hill I'm willing to die on.  A rose by any other name.


----------



## Jahydin

Vaalingrade said:


> Language matters.
> 
> That's why some are working so hard to ridicule or minimize this. Because they know language matters.



Some.

Most because they've been playing the game just fine for 30+ years and not ran into a single PoC who took issue with the term race.

Personally, I think WotC has been going down the wrong path completely. I mean really, what's the endgame here? Completely rewrite everything that's ever been made that just so happens to resemble a stupid stereotype that's not even true to begin with?

Equating fantasy races with real world ones is where the racism lies. It needs to die there.


----------



## Olrox17

I'm fairly sure most (if not all) gamers I know IRL will keep using the term race reflexively forever, just out of habit. But that's probably also because, in my non-english native language, race is no longer used to differentiate between human beings. There's only one race, the human race. Nowadays, the term race is only used for animals and plants, and "ethnicity" is used to describe human variety.

So, I guess that gamers of my nationality won't care much for this shifting of terms, which seems to be more of a big deal for native english speakers.


----------



## Azzy

FrogReaver said:


> Maybe because there's a rather pronounced culture war going on right now?



Don't even go there.


----------



## broghammerj

My random thoughts:

The term race isn't inherently racist but I can see why some see it is problematic.  There are a lot of things that could be viewed as problematic: dwarves, the evilness of dark/black elves, etc.  Species is not less problematic.  The term species is equally dangerous when observed through the lens of historical dealings on race. Eugenics comes to mind when I hear the term.  The only benefit to species, is it is rooted in scientific definition/classification.

This change stinks of virtue signalling.  It's a meaningless change that does nothing to improve society.  It really won't effect the game much if at all either.  I don't think it make it makes DnD "more inclusive".  I've never encountered anyone who wouldn't play DnD due to it's racist undertones.  DnD used to be game that brought together the losers, misfits, and the socially awkward (myself being defined by one if not all of those terms).

I also think species will be replaced with some other negative word in the future.  This is the nature of language.  Idiot, imbecile, moron, and mentally retarded were all clinical/medical terms.  They weren't offensive until the term was used to insult others.  When my grand-kids start teasing other kids and call them intellectually disabled, that term will become a thing of the past.  I liken this to the story of the Buddha and the angry man.  Similarly, being offended is on you, especially when no offense was intended.  *https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lZnkzz0DoWo*


----------



## Ruin Explorer

broghammerj said:


> This change stinks of virtue signalling. It's a meaningless change that does nothing to improve society.



I don't think you know what "virtue signalling" means. I mean, it's funny because you point out that species isn't much better, but you still claim this. Species is indeed not much better, but you seem to think WotC are too dumb to know that?

As for "improve society", what the hell? That's obviously not something a one-word change in D&D is going to do. Why would you even bring that up? That's like objecting to fluoridation of the water because it doesn't cure cancer. Nonsensical.

They've moving away from race not to "virtue signal", but because it's not a good descriptor (species ain't great but it is better), and because it gives them clear space away from real-world discussions of race. You don't have to like it, but from a business point of view it's clearly smart. You're trying to see it through a very peculiar lens though and seem to have missed that.


broghammerj said:


> I've never encountered anyone who wouldn't play DnD due to it's racist undertones.



There are plenty of people who dislike D&D for that, especially younger ones. WotC is aware of this and is trying to avoid it becoming a major issue, though. It's called getting ahead of the problem.

What's actually astonishing is how long and well D&D has lasted despite being, essentially, about brutally murdering a bunch of often intellectually and physically inferior beings and taking their stuff (yikes lol). Honestly only sheer intertia and the fact that so very many games are about that are we still getting away with this, frankly. One day that may well not be true, but I think videogames will keep it going for long enough that TTRPGs will gradually transition away from killing goblins and the like.


broghammerj said:


> DnD used to be game that brought together the losers, misfits, and the socially awkward (myself being defined by one if not all of those terms).



Except that's not really true. Especially as those people often includes kids who were losers/misfits precisely because they were racists or misogynists even beyond what was acceptable in society back then. And girls and minority kids were often rejected or mistreated by the same "losers" you're claiming the game "brought together".

Further, even by the extremely early 1990s, RPGs weren't appealing to the same "I see myself as an outcast" crowd as a lot of '80s D&D players were. I don't think anyone in my D&D groups in the 1990s was a loser or misfit in terms of school/society. These were straight-A kids and jocks and so on. Hell the biggest toughest most violent (only towards objects/walls, mostly, thankfully) jock in my school was in my group for a while.

I'm not even sure it was entirely true in the '80s but I leave it to people who were around then to comment on that.


broghammerj said:


> When my grand-kids start teasing other kids and call them intellectually disabled, that term will become a thing of the past.



That will _literally never happen_ because it's not a punchy insult, it's a clunky multisyllabic term that a lot of eight-year-olds would struggle to pronounce, let alone use as an offensive weapon! Whereas the other words you list are pretty ideal. And only one of them is actually socially unacceptable.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Azzy said:


> Try "What kind of folk are you?" instead.



I think folk is not bad but ummm it's obviously derived the Germanic volk and er... that doesn't have the best associations.


----------



## Cadence

MGibster said:


> Sure, language matters.  I think what makes this hard for some people is that in many other contexts the word race isn't a problem.  I use it professionally on a fairly regular basis.  (I can't talk about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act without mentioning race.)  I say many, but really, other than D&D, it doesn't appear to be a problem in any other context.  So I really don't get the reason why a change is necessary, and admittedly, I find it kind of silly.  Not that it's a hill I'm willing to die on.  A rose by any other name.




Context feels kind of huge to me. I'm guessing that IRL seriously musing about "Which race (e.g. white, black, etc...) is better at <physical or mental skill>?" to try and start a debate on it  at work would not go well for a lot of us .  On the other hand, as you note, there are many clinical/legal ways the word race to refer to IRL group is used which are required by law.  

It feels to me like how quickly IRL discussions involving a term become problematic outside  the clinical/legal setting the more a game company might seek to avoid using that term if there is a good alternative.  (As someone noted above, every classifier in this arena is constructed by humans, some seem abundantly less pseudo-science based and less charged than others).

Tangentially, this also makes me think that using ethnicity or it's synonyms, instead of lived experience descriptors, to give any type of bonuses is also eventually destined for the scrap heap.


----------



## jasper

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No. That is 10 times worse than "race".



Why?


----------



## jasper

Dire Bare said:


> True.
> 
> But there is a concept from theatre that I think applies to fantastic fiction and gaming . . . suspension of disbelief . . . for an audience member to "suspend" their disbelief and BELIEVE in the reality of the play, most of the play's elements are grounded in as much reality as possible, with only some elements pushing past those bounds. In a fantasy setting, if humans exist and behave much the same way humans do in the real world, it makes it easier to believe in the fantastical, like dragons, while engaging with the story.
> 
> It's why, whether we use the word "species" or not, we tend to view the various fantasy races as species . . . because it jives with our understanding of the real world, and makes the more fantastical elements of the game "believable" while we play (or read novels).
> 
> D&D races don't have to follow the "rules" of real world biology, but tracking generally with that understanding is already a thing, regardless of the words we use.



Very well said. Much better than my blunt approach.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jasper said:


> Why?



If you seriously have to ask that question, I doubt your ability to engage in this discussion in a productive way. 

"Breed" has been used in the real world in ways equally as icky as "race" has. Calling different categories of sentient, playable D&D creatures different breeds has the same negative connotations, if not worse ones, than "race" does. There are few people that are actually offended by the term "race" being used. There are a lot of people that think it's a bad term and evokes bad themes, and a small part of the community that is actually offended, but most of the people that object to the use of the term aren't actually personally offended by its use. There are, however, a lot of people that would be genuinely offended by "breed" due to bigots using the term to denigrate them in real life, and it's even less accurate than "race" was.


----------



## Galandris

Olrox17 said:


> I'm fairly sure most (if not all) gamers I know IRL will keep using the term race reflexively forever, just out of habit. But that's probably also because, in my non-english native language, race is no longer used to differentiate between human beings. There's only one race, the human race. Nowadays, the term race is only used for animals and plants, and "ethnicity" is used to describe human variety.
> 
> So, I guess that gamers of my nationality won't care much for this shifting of terms, which seems to be more of a big deal for native english speakers.




I agree, but I fear what the translators would do. Species isn't better, it can even be _worse_ but I doubt the translator will keep the original term. He might translate species the easiest way, and it will sound very strange.

Also, it establishes elfs and humans are different species. When we described them as race, it made distinction between orcs, elves and humans unacceptable, by analogy with the real world term. I am not sure I like the implication of having them being different species.


----------



## Cadence

FireLance said:


> Why Race Is Still A Problem In Dungeons & Dragons
> 
> From the article:
> "Decoupling all skills from all races may seem like an extreme solution, but it’s how designers can begin to remove the bioessentialism from character creation. It will also open up possibilities for the fantasy of D&D to truly become fantastic. Why shouldn’t a dragonborn trance? Why can’t some orcs be naturally stealthy? Why don’t we have tieflings fly as a bonus action?"






Umbran said:


> Heck, folks keep returning to real-world biology for how these things should work, but really, it doesn't have to.  It is a _fantasy_ world, after all.  It can be that breeding is achieved via combination of _spiritual essence_, and all birth is basically a natural magic.
> 
> That gives us the ability to make the rules of interbreeding as arbitrary as any of the other rules of magic.




If everything in a world can commonly  have any trait and regularly interbreed with everything, then why even have the descriptors Elf or Orc except to describe either a particularly siloed group that has for some reason not been mixing with others or to describe a particularly stereotypical rubber mask?


----------



## jasper

Clint_L said:


> I don't understand how this gets to 15 pages. Everyone pretty much agrees that "race" has become an unfortunate term, some of us like "species," some of us dislike it, but pretty much everyone understands what it means. Pragmatically speaking it works, there won't be any word that is perfect for everyone...and it affects gameplay in no way whatsoever. So I am left with the question: _who cares_? Why are folks worked up about this? As long as we get away from accidentally offensive terms, then the actual choice doesn't matter.
> 
> I am reminded of a work meeting where people just keep arguing for the sake of arguing.






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.



I choose race as a game term.  And not Everyone agrees about the change, which is why it now 19 pages.  Everyone off line I have spoken to are laughing at the change. Some those who commented if they commented here would get banned from the thread.
I am reminded of a work meeting too. We were working on the data dictionary. AKA What in house jargon do when use to talking to each other. 
If a customers sends us money to their 401K is that a transaction with us? Yes.
But Companys bundle the money & send us a list of the customers and their payments, is that a transaction with us? Yes
We had 25+ college degreed people arguing of which was correct for 35+ minutes.  And ended the meeting in a tie.


----------



## jasper

darjr said:


> Kind and Kindred!
> 
> I agree with @Alphastream and Richard.
> 
> View attachment 268562



What Kind of Kind bar would you eat or buy? And is made of real Kind?  Okay I can maybe get behind kind. K.I.N.D and no space. So elfkind would be quicker to type than Elf race. You save me Mr. Richard Baker.


----------



## Cadence

M_Natas said:


> I think it is good to move away from "race". Even without the racist problematic usage of that term it is just wrong. Humans and Elves are not different races. There is no race in any scientific way outside of breeding stock (like dog races). It is an outdated concept that never was used correctly and in the majority of cases to discriminate. But also it is not a medieval term. It started to get usage in the 15th century. It is quite a modern word and thus not fitting for a medieval based fantasy setting.




Was the spyglass (in the 5e equipment list) invented the same year as the first OED quote using species in the modern sense?  



> Different species usally can't create offspring with each other.




This is patently untrue IRL.  It is quite common among species in the same genus.  Numerous examples are provided upthread.



> I would propose the term Folk. The Goblin folk, elve folk and so on. And the subcategory could be tribe. The Elven folk from the woodland tribe (woodelves). Folk is a medieval term. It feels medieval. It fits directly in a fantasy setting and is not immersion breaking.




This is growing on me (in spite of some IRL connotations in the related German word).


----------



## Olrox17

Galandris said:


> I agree, but I fear what the translators would do. Species isn't better, it can even be _worse_ but I doubt the translator will keep the original term. He might translate species the easiest way, and it will sound very strange.
> 
> Also, it establishes elfs and humans are different species. When we described them as race, it made distinction between orcs, elves and humans unacceptable, by analogy with the real world term. I am not sure I like the implication of having them being different species.



Translators will be probably be on their own, using their best judgement. 
I suspect that, in many cases, they may just keep using the translated term they have been always using, unless WotC puts its foot down and forces a change of terms, which could be really bad: let the translators do their job, they are the experts.

Yeah I don't really like species either, for the reasons you listed and more (feels too modern and science-y).


----------



## jasper

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If you seriously have to ask that question, I doubt your ability to engage in this discussion in a productive way.
> 
> "Breed" has been used in the real world in ways equally as icky as "race" has. Calling different categories of sentient, playable D&D creatures different breeds has the same negative connotations, if not worse ones, than "race" does. There are few people that are actually offended by the term "race" being used. There are a lot of people that think it's a bad term and evokes bad themes, and a small part of the community that is actually offended, but most of the people that object to the use of the term aren't actually personally offended by its use. There are, however, a lot of people that would be genuinely offended by "breed" due to bigots using the term to denigrate them in real life, and it's even less accurate than "race" was.



My cat breeds, American Short hair. American Long Hair, Maine Coon, Persian,  and Bob Tail. And I never heard of word "Breed" being used in a bad way. But thank you, you did follow up with more than one sentence to explain your view.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jasper said:


> My cat breeds, American Short hair. American Long Hair, Maine Coon, Persian,  and Bob Tail. And I never heard of word "Breed" being used in a bad way. But thank you, you did follow up with more than one sentence to explain your view.



Racists have called mixed-race people "half-breeds" for centuries. The word is definitely one of the worst suggested replacements I've seen on any site that's been discussing this topic.


----------



## Galandris

jasper said:


> My cat breeds, American Short hair. American Long Hair, Maine Coon, Persian,  and Bob Tail. And I never heard of word "Breed" being used in a bad way. But thank you, you did follow up with more than one sentence to explain your view.




Real question: how would sound half-breed to call a mix of Elf and Human? I think it sounds vaguely offensive, but I really am not familiar enough with English to be sure.


----------



## DEFCON 1

jasper said:


> My cat breeds, American Short hair. American Long Hair, Maine Coon, Persian,  and Bob Tail. And I never heard of word "Breed" being used in a bad way. But thank you, you did follow up with more than one sentence to explain your view.





Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Racists have called mixed-race people "half-breeds" for centuries. The word is definitely one of the worst suggested replacements I've seen on any site that's been discussing this topic.




There's a guy who used to work for the CBS television network in the USA for the National Football League named *Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder*... whose entire career was brought down due to him using the word "bred" in regards to human beings.  That was my very first recognizable exposure to what we now call "Cancelling".

Yes... using "breed" and all of its alternate word forms does have exceedingly negative connotations when used regarding people.


----------



## glass

Charlaquin said:


> I mean, the Origins playtest explicitly says your character can be half-anything.



Which is all well and fine, but nothing about that implies that (for example) giant/halfling hybrids come about by mummy halfling and daddy storm giant getting up close and personal. How would that even work?



Azzy said:


> Try "What kind of folk are you?" instead.



Still sounds weird to me, and more to the point is still too ambiguous.



Ruin Explorer said:


> As for "improve society", what the hell? That's obviously not something a one-word change in D&D is going to do



I disagree; it definitely will improve society. Only a tiny amount, but every little helps. Less racism is always good.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

glass said:


> Which is all well and fine, but nothing about that implies that (for example) giant/halfling hybrids come about by mummy halfling and daddy storm giant getting up close and personal. How would that even work?



It doesn't say anything about different creature types being able to mate. It just mentions that the humanoid races can. And, as for the question of how that even works for most of the combinations, the answer, as usual, is magic.


----------



## DEFCON 1

The way I look at it... I got used to the word 'Warlord' even though I didn't really like it and preferred a different one.  I'll get used to whatever word WotC goes with for this replacement too.


----------



## Cadence

As an aside, humanoid only goes back to 1870 in the OED and seems really science and sci-fi.


----------



## Umbran

Cadence said:


> If everything in a world can commonly  have any trait and regularly interbreed with everything




So, it would really be good if you checked what I actually said again.  Specifically, I said that you could have _whatever arbitrary rules you want_.

You don't want everything commonly breed with everything, then don't!  

Note, again, that the PHB is for making _player characters_.  Indeed, in 5e, NPCs don't use the same rules as PCs for creation.  So, the _world population_ doesn't have to work that way.

The point is to let a player have the kind of character they want, without giving them grief over it.


----------



## Cadence

Umbran said:


> So, it would really be good if you checked what I actually said again.  Specifically, I said that you could have _whatever arbitrary rules you want_.
> 
> You don't want everything commonly breed with everything, then don't!
> 
> Note, again, that the PHB is for making _player characters_.  Indeed, in 5e, NPCs don't use the same rules as PCs for creation.  So, the _world population_ doesn't have to work that way.
> 
> The point is to let a player have the kind of character they want, without giving them grief over it.





Those are good points, but the ones about PCs being what they want are not in your post that I quoted, which looked like it was replying to one about the world in general (Dragons, Elves, and Dragonborn) and talking about how the default in D&D would be thought of.  I read it as you saying folks who didn't like whatever the default was could rule 0 it, which didn't feel too constructive.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Cadence said:


> As an aside, humanoid only goes back to 1870 in the OED and seems really science and sci-fi.



Heh heh, yeah... and a whole host of people still want 'Psionics' in the game, with 'Psions' as the main class for it.  And that's even more sci-fi than Humanoid or Species.

The point really is... once a word is incorporated into the game (regardless of how or where it came from or what "time period" it originated)... most of us get used to it pretty quickly and the original word loses whatever traditional meaning it had and it just becomes a word for D&D.


----------



## glass

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> It doesn't say anything about different creature types being able to mate. It just mentions that the humanoid races can. And, as for the question of how that even for most of the combinations l, the answer, as usual, is magic.



Exactly, so even if shambling mound/fire elemental hybrids exist, that says nothing about whether fire elementals and shambling mounds are separate species (even if the "can produce ofspring" was an accurate definition of species, which it isn't).



DEFCON 1 said:


> The point really is... once a word is incorporated into the game (regardless of how or where it came from or what "time period" it originated)... most of us get used to it pretty quickly and the original word loses whatever traditional meaning it had and it just becomes a word for D&D.



This is true, but in this case while the word might take a little getting used to for some, it doesn't actually need to change its meaning. "Species" _already means_ what D&D has traditionally used "race" to mean.


----------



## Cadence

DEFCON 1 said:


> Heh heh, yeah... and a whole host of people still want 'Psionics' in the game, with 'Psions' as the main class for it.  And that's even more sci-fi than Humanoid or Species.




Made a thread looking for other such words because I'm always curious about how D&D merges things from different eras and about etymology.









						D&D General - Which D&D Words and Things are Post 1608?
					

Going from another thread...   Heh heh, yeah... and a whole host of people still want 'Psionics' in the game, with 'Psions' as the main class for it.  And that's even more sci-fi than Humanoid or Species.   So, which words and objects in D&D are of modern origin.  Take modern to be after 1608...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Warpiglet-7

One question answers all of this for me.

Who is it written for?  Us or the characters/world?  I would say it’s a species. I am alive in 2022, in this world.

That is way too clinical for my game world.  We see hit points and armor class in the book.  I assume the characters might note someone is indefatigable or unassailable without using the terms armor class or hit points.

Likewise, they would not say species in my games but might well say “race of men” or “the seed of elves” the progency of orcs, whatever.

If we separate game terms from world terms we can solve the flavor problem.

All of that said, I am not worried about 10 degrees of Kevin bacon.  All old stuff has some bad connotation somewhere and if we play in an old world you have the choice of abandoning flavor to be clean, make concessions or whatever.  

I play well with others so will go with what they hand me and avoid the clinical “in game.”  The Paladin does not know that the Nazis or our real world racists ever existed.  They probably have their own world prejudices.  Probably against gnomish bards but hey


----------



## Galandris

Umbran said:


> Note, again, that the PHB is for making _player characters_.  Indeed, in 5e, NPCs don't use the same rules as PCs for creation.  So, the _world population_ doesn't have to work that way.




While I can see this argument working for, say, how spellcasting work or how good a character can farm, so Farmy McFarmer the NPC can have +10 to farming while the characters can't before 15th level, I don't see it working for... baby-making.

Sure, PCs are extraordinary characters, but, if we establish in our world that Human can't interbreed with bulls, and you're the first minotaur ever born (as in the mythological precedent), it's _possible_ but it will be very strange to the rest of the world, starting with the mom. Pasiphae and Minos first, then the rest of the world. I am sure Athenians would be surprised to see the minotaur landing in their port and trying to book a room in an inn...

Sure, you _can_ have whatever rules you want for PCs, but it can affect the type of game that results of it.


----------



## Incenjucar

It's a game with wizards and gods. There is an endless potential for unique backgrounds, and if you meet enough unique people chances are you'll get over them as a category.

Warforged tabaxi, half-elf half-goblin, genasi tengu, drow dwarf, orc kender, shardmind shifter, etc. all can make sense and all can be gotten over once they save a few towns from illithid centaurs.


----------



## the Jester

I don't have a strong opinion here, but I find "species" a bit too modern/sci-fi for my taste. Maybe lineage?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Good change. "Species" is already what's written on the character sheets I made.


----------



## lkj

Just to put in my opinion. Species is fine, but a little clinical. I'd probably get used to it pretty fast though.

I like 'folk' better. But I'll openly admit I'm unfamiliar with whatever Germanic connotations it might have and will leave that up to people more educated on the topic. After that, 'kindred' sounds cool, with 'kind' being the suffix.

Other terms, like 'ancestry', 'heritage', and 'lineage' are terms that, in my mind, speak to cultural or familial ties within a given species. I'd like to leave them that way. 

In the end though, all good with whatever thoughtful change takes hold. 

AD


----------



## MNblockhead

Charlaquin said:


> Except all of this is silly because the peoples of D&D didn’t arise through evolution by natural selection and don’t have a common ancestor. Real-life taxonomy makes no sense when applied to them.



Really doesn't matter if they did or didn't. The term predates the theory of evolution. 

Whether a class of beings' appearance or outward form are the result of divine creation, magic, evolution, or a mix of the three, the term retains its utility. 

Personally, I don't care much what term they use. I'm sure I'll get used to whatever term is decided upon. How peoples refer to themselves and other creatures in game will differ based on the setting I'm running. 

I care more about what it means mechanically.  I'll use "species" for now because it looks like that will be the term.  I would expect that species will be used as a classification for creatures sharing similar forms.  Traits, abilities, bonus, etc. that are innate to that group are applied on the selection of species. 

Everything that is not innate, should come from the PCs class and background (ancestry/heritage). 

Origins feels a bit too all encompassing. But again, as long as I'm given the trifold parts of PC creation: (1) innate nature. (2) background/culture, and (3) highly-specialized, dedicated training (class)... I'm not all that invested in the labels.


----------



## Rabulias

Azzy said:


> I doubt it. The term was used by a 5e-compatable product prior (I think) to PF2.



Pathfinder 2nd edition came out in August 2019. That product you link to came out in 2020. That being said, I don't think there is any legal reason to prevent WotC from using the term "ancestry" if they chose to (though note IANAL).


FrogReaver said:


> At least now d&d campaigns that feature bigotry against certain (lineages/species/heritages) as a backdrop won’t be immediately be called ‘racism’.



This raises an interesting question. If an NPC villain is known for hating elves (for example), what do citizens of the game world call them? "Racist" would not make sense in a world without the term "race," so I guess it would be "bigot" or "prejudiced" or "<insert villain's ancestry here> supremacist."


----------



## MGibster

Cadence said:


> Context feels kind of huge to me. I'm guessing that IRL seriously musing about "Which race (e.g. white, black, etc...) is better at <physical or mental skill>?" to try and start a debate on it at work would not go well for a lot of us . On the other hand, as you note, there are many clinical/legal ways the word race to refer to IRL group is used which are required by law.



Wasn't this problem solved by separating ability score modifiers from species in the first place?  Now we're just going to use species to describe what we previous called races, and while they won't have ASIs, they'll still have different abilities based on their species.  


Cadence said:


> Tangentially, this also makes me think that using ethnicity or it's synonyms, instead of lived experience descriptors, to give any type of bonuses is also eventually destined for the scrap heap.



Ditto.  At this point, they might as well pull the trigger and make a cafeteria style creation system where each player selects the abilities they want their character to have.  

DM:  Okay, John, please describe your elf, Yinro Lightdew, to the group.  

John:  Okay!  Lightdew is very much a traditional elf who specializes in the outdoors and archery.  His dark green skin and three foot stature helps him blend into the forest, and his little wings allow him to reach the top of any tree very quickly.  Though he does not smoke a pipe, on occasion a small cloud of blue smoke exits his mouth when he burps, which is the telltale sign that he can breath fire when necessary.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

MGibster said:


> Wasn't this problem solved by separating ability score modifiers from species in the first place?



Floating ASIs was mostly about placating minmaxer fomo, couching it as an inclusivity measure was just greasing the tracks.


----------



## reelo

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think folk is not bad but ummm it's obviously derived the Germanic volk and er... that doesn't have the best associations.



Are you against folk music, also? 

Seriously, though, folk _is_ of Germanic origin, it existed as "folc" in Old English and meant "people". Just as the French word "peuple" does. Without a definite article it just means "a number of persons" and with a definite article it means "A people". It's completely neutral and perfectly fine, imho.


----------



## MNblockhead

Charlaquin said:


> But the term opens the door to all these nonsense arguments over taxonomy in a world of gods and wizards, which a more fitting word like ancestry wouldn’t do.



How does any other term solve that? Whether gods or wizards or evolution created the creatures, people are going to group and classify them. You'll still have beasts, humanoids, giants, dragons, fey, fiends, etc. and elves, dwarves, humans, orcs, etc. Whether any can interbreed because of biology or magic, that's just flavor.  Do humans, elves, and orcs share a common ancestor and share the same number of chromosomes to enable, or do the gods just allow, half orcs and half elves?  

Personally I would rather they do away with half elves and half orcs and replace with rules for make hybrid species player characters. I think half elves and half orcs may be too iconic now to drop, but it would be good to mention in a side bar in the PHB that other hybrids are possible if they make sense in your game--see the DMG for further guidance.  Actually, full rules for creation of new species of PCs should be given in the DMG to allow players and DMs to work on creating concepts players bring to the table without breaking game balance.


----------



## Galandris

Rabulias said:


> This raises an interesting question. If an NPC villain is known for hating elves (for example), what do citizens of the game world call them? "Racist" would not make sense in a world without the term "race," so I guess it would be "bigot" or "prejudiced" or "<insert villain's ancestry here> supremacist."




Honestly, hating another species isn't problematic in our world. We have no qualms not giving them the same rights as our species, and being from different species afford different rights (any animal can afford some modicum of protection against cruelty, but it might be sanctionned more to torture a domestic animal owned by a human and in no case killing one is as bad as killing a human -- and nobody will bat an eye if you're trying to make several species extinct, smallpox, while global extinction will certainly bring concern... mostly because of how it affects Homo sapiens. We also have no problem having other species being property, not people). Sure, it's because the last time our species met another intelligent species, said species soon became extinct (bye-bye Denisovans, bye-bye Neanderthals...) so we didn't have to deal with affording rights to other intelligent species, but at least with calling elves and gnomes and humans "races" implied a common people, it was implied by the connotations of the real-world use that everyone of them was equal and making distinction between them morally faulty. Depending on your game world, the local people could use bigot if they are more socially advanced than our world and grant equal rights to every living being (maybe requiring them an intelligence test? But it is extremely ableist.. or they'd have closed list of species afforded civil rights, which will make first contact awkward...), but it's probably just being called elfhater and might not have the same connotation as racist.


----------



## MNblockhead

darjr said:


> Does the word Ilk have any bad connotations?



It is often used in the phrase "[so-and-so] and their ilk" in an often derisive manner. But the word itself seems neutral and doesn't carry much political baggage as far as I'm aware. 

Oh no...I just looked up the etymology in the OED:

*Etymology: *Apparently  <  the Germanic pronominal stem seen in Old Dutch _er_ , Old High German _ir_ , _er_ , Gothic _is_ , etc. (see he pron.  and compare it pron.) *+ the Germanic base of lich n.

*


----------



## MNblockhead

payn said:


> I think you are missing the point. EN World could have just used ancestry also. Making the change, and choosing how you are changing it shows thought was put into it. Says you understand why this needs to happen and are not doing it just because it makes sense in the current cultural climate. That you are not too lazy to address it yourself.



It can take a lot of work to come to the conclusion that your competition got it right. Sometimes trying to hard to find different words for things for which apt and commonly words already exists comes across like a juvinile with a thresaurus trying too hard to be different. Not saying that's the case here. I much prefer species over ancestry, but if WOTC went with ancestry, I wouldn't have accused them of being lazy.


----------



## Scribe

MGibster said:


> John: Okay! Lightdew is very much a traditional elf who specializes in the outdoors and archery. His dark green skin and three foot stature helps him blend into the forest, and his little wings allow him to reach the top of any tree very quickly. Though he does not smoke a pipe, on occasion a small cloud of blue smoke exits his mouth when he burps, which is the telltale sign that he can breath fire when necessary.


----------



## Galandris

MGibster said:


> DM:  Okay, John, please describe your elf, Yinro Lightdew, to the group.
> 
> John:  Okay!  Lightdew is very much a traditional elf who specializes in the outdoors and archery.  His dark green skin and three foot stature helps him blend into the forest, and his little wings allow him to reach the top of any tree very quickly.  Though he does not smoke a pipe, on occasion a small cloud of blue smoke exits his mouth when he burps, which is the telltale sign that he can breath fire when necessary.




STR 18, CON 16, DEX 8, INT 12, WIS 10, CHA 11... what?


----------



## Jahydin

Ruin Explorer said:


> I don't think you know what "virtue signalling" means.



"The action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue."

Not that I'm saying it's a bad thing, but the Beyond post certainly seems to match that definition...


Ruin Explorer said:


> What's actually astonishing is how long and well D&D has lasted despite being, essentially, about brutally murdering a bunch of often intellectually and physically inferior beings and taking their stuff (yikes lol). Honestly only sheer intertia and the fact that so very many games are about that are we still getting away with this, frankly. One day that may well not be true, but I think videogames will keep it going for long enough that TTRPGs will gradually transition away from killing goblins and the like.



Sounds like you despise the very core of the game, haha.

Not making fun! Genuinely intrigued what your D&D games are like now and how you envision the perfect "final form" of the game in the future.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Except that's not really true. Especially as those people *often *includes kids who were losers/misfits precisely because they were racists or misogynists even beyond what was acceptable in society back then. And girls and minority kids were *often *rejected or mistreated by the same "losers" you're claiming the game "brought together".



Often huh? Get out of here...

This fictional version of the past really needs to stop being repeated. The table top community has always been one step ahead in terms of acceptance and inclusion my entire life. Anyone telling you different is just trying to sell you something.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Further, even by the extremely early 1990s, RPGs weren't appealing to the same "I see myself as an outcast" crowd as a lot of '80s D&D players were. I don't think anyone in my D&D groups in the 1990s was a loser or misfit in terms of school/society. These were straight-A kids and jocks and so on. Hell the biggest toughest most violent (only towards objects/walls, mostly, thankfully) jock in my school was in my group for a while.



Well, there was this small company called WhiteWolf...


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Jahydin said:


> Sounds like you despise the very core of the game, haha.



I think you're knee-jerking a bit there.

Someone describing real issues with something doesn't mean they "despise" it. That's this weird thing people jump to on the internet these days. It's got worse and worse over the years. The mildest criticism now is you hate something, and if you praise something even slightly, you're a "FANBOY!!!" and love the product beyond all reason. It's always particularly funny when in the same thread, you get called both.

The point is D&D has been built on this yikes-y concept, historically. I don't hate the concept, it can absolutely be fun to act like a bunch of vikings or whatever, but I do think it's got a fuse on it and however long that fuse is, it's eventually going to reach the bomb. And I will be honest, I'd much rather fight Drow or the like (intellectually and physically equal to the PCs) than some race/species that's all-round inferior. I do not D&D has been moving away from the concept of inferiority, even in monster races, for a long time though. It backslid a ton going from 4E to 5E (even from 3E to 5E there was some backsliding), particularly with Volos, but is moving rapidly away from that now.


Jahydin said:


> Not making fun! Genuinely intrigued what your D&D games are like now and how you envision the perfect "final form" of the game in the future.



I mean, we're usually fighting people who are effectively making the PCs the underdogs, rather than having the PCs kicking and looting their way through of bunch of goblins/kobolds or the like. In my main campaign an East India Company-style megacorporation is the long-term adversary, which is something I think fits surprisingly well with D&D plus everybody hates the East India Company, they're the Arasaka of the 1700s.

I think what a lot of designers do is just make supernatural beings/forces be behind everything, which also works but I find gets pretty old pretty fast.


Jahydin said:


> This fictional version of the past really needs to stop being repeated. The table top community has always been one step ahead in terms of acceptance and inclusion my entire life. Anyone telling you different is just trying to sell you something.



It's not "fictional" and no-one is "telling" me it. I started playing in 1989. I met a lot of gamers who were older than me, and about the same age, and whilst the majority were definitely cool people, there was a sadly significant minority who were just creeps of various kinds, and particularly misogynists. As time has worn on, it's been increasingly unacceptable to act like that, so those people have been pushed out of the hobby to a significant degree. But they existed well into the '90s.

I guess the point is that both were true at the same time. There were plenty of groups people who were more accepting and open-minded than the norm (not all of those people were "losers" or "outsiders" though), but there were also groups of people who were the unpleasant kinds of loser, and trying to paint a rosy picture of the past is misleading.


Jahydin said:


> Well, there was this small company called WhiteWolf...



Uh-huh, which appealed to a wide section of the market, including plenty of kids who weren't in any meaningful way "losers" or "outsiders". The LARP might have been Goths-only, but the tabletop sure wasn't. This was never more obvious than playing it at university in the late '90s.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

EDIT: wrong thread.


----------



## Cadence

Me: "And they're also changing the word race to maybe species."

13yo:  <pause>  "Oh, I get it.  So it's less mean and not like racist and stuff."


----------



## Jahydin

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, we're usually fighting people who are effectively making the PCs the underdogs, rather than having the PCs kicking and looting their way through of bunch of goblins/kobolds or the like.



Oh, makes sense, totally understand. I think my DM shares a similar sentiment, which is why he switched over to the 4th edition "variety of orcs" type of Monster Manual.

I'm the opposite though. Never liked the idea of PCs killing sentient NPCs like bandits or other adventurers. Having clean cut "evil" races, animals, and monsters is less "yikes" to me, haha.


Ruin Explorer said:


> I guess the point is that both were true at the same time. There were plenty of groups people who were more accepting and open-minded than the norm (not all of those people were "losers" or "outsiders" though), but there were also groups of people who were the unpleasant kinds of loser, and trying to paint a rosy picture of the past is misleading.



That certainly sounds more balanced. 

Pulling away from individual tables though, I think the community as a whole was pretty alright. I mean, most of the designers we love today came from it after all.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Uh-huh, which appealed to a wide section of the market, including plenty of kids who weren't in any meaningful way "losers" or "outsiders". The LARP might have been Goths-only, but the tabletop sure wasn't. This was never more obvious than playing it at university in the late '90s.



I was in high school in the US, so it was mostly the trench coat wearing Drama department crowd that played. Didn't know it was popular outside that crowd. I owned all the core books I never could get anyone to play with me...


----------



## Galandris

Ruin Explorer said:


> What's actually astonishing is how long and well D&D has lasted despite being, essentially, about brutally murdering a bunch of often intellectually and physically inferior beings and taking their stuff (yikes lol). Honestly only sheer intertia and the fact that so very many games are about that are we still getting away with this, frankly. One day that may well not be true, but I think videogames will keep it going for long enough that TTRPGs will gradually transition away from killing goblins and the like.




I think we've time. People have been seeing cathartic works of art for litterally millenia. MCU is going strong despite being about vigilantes killing people. Hollywood will certainly be about people killing people for our lifetime...


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Galandris said:


> I agree, but I fear what the translators would do. Species isn't better, it can even be _worse_ but I doubt the translator will keep the original term. He might translate species the easiest way, and it will sound very strange.
> 
> Also, it establishes elfs and humans are different species. When we described them as race, it made distinction between orcs, elves and humans unacceptable, by analogy with the real world term. I am not sure I like the implication of having them being different species.




In German games we usually use "Volk".
But by definition it is more cultural than actual biological... but then, in the actual world there are no different humanoid species left on earth. The last were gone when the Neanderthals disappeared.


----------



## broghammerj

Ruin Explorer said:


> I don't think you know what "virtue signalling" means. I mean, it's funny because you point out that species isn't much better, but you still claim this. Species is indeed not much better, but you seem to think WotC are too dumb to know that?
> 
> As for "improve society", what the hell? That's obviously not something a one-word change in D&D is going to do. Why would you even bring that up? That's like objecting to fluoridation of the water because it doesn't cure cancer. Nonsensical.
> 
> They've moving away from race not to "virtue signal", but because it's not a good descriptor (species ain't great but it is better), and because it gives them clear space away from real-world discussions of race. You don't have to like it, but from a business point of view it's clearly smart. You're trying to see it through a very peculiar lens though and seem to have missed that.



I think WotC is virtue signaling.  "the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue."  It allow WotC to say, "Hey look at what we are doing to make the game more inclusive."


Ruin Explorer said:


> There are plenty of people who dislike D&D for that, especially younger ones. WotC is aware of this and is trying to avoid it becoming a major issue, though. It's called getting ahead of the problem.
> 
> What's actually astonishing is how long and well D&D has lasted despite being, essentially, about brutally murdering a bunch of often intellectually and physically inferior beings and taking their stuff (yikes lol). Honestly only sheer intertia and the fact that so very many games are about that are we still getting away with this, frankly. One day that may well not be true, but I think videogames will keep it going for long enough that TTRPGs will gradually transition away from killing goblins and the like.



Show me some data that it's a problem?  Getting out ahead of what? DnD is probably just fine.  From the LoTR, Harry Potter movies, Game of Thrones, Witcher, and Stranger things, fantasy can't be much more popular right now.

DnD is murdering and butchering a ton of sentient beings.  We kill the orcs, drow, and goblins because of who they are (an evil group of beings).  That itself is more "racist" than calling the dwarves, elves, and humans races.  If race is so terrible then what do you propose the US Census us to describe its citizens.  This is a diverse board of non-Americans.  Here is a reference: About the Topic of Race


Ruin Explorer said:


> Except that's not really true. Especially as those people often includes kids who were losers/misfits precisely because they were racists or misogynists even beyond what was acceptable in society back then. And girls and minority kids were often rejected or mistreated by the same "losers" you're claiming the game "brought together".
> 
> Further, even by the extremely early 1990s, RPGs weren't appealing to the same "I see myself as an outcast" crowd as a lot of '80s D&D players were. I don't think anyone in my D&D groups in the 1990s was a loser or misfit in terms of school/society. These were straight-A kids and jocks and so on. Hell the biggest toughest most violent (only towards objects/walls, mostly, thankfully) jock in my school was in my group for a while.
> 
> I'm not even sure it was entirely true in the '80s but I leave it to people who were around then to comment on that.




Go to Gen Con.  If you think that represents a cross section of popular high school kids and jocks, you must not be attending the same convention as me or went to a very different high school then I did (graduated 1994, USA).

DnD might not be the most diverse group and is mostly white males, but out of the 10 or so people that slipped in and out of my group for 10-15 years, five of them were black.  Although I can't diminish any story that others have experienced, I can't say I've personally ever witnessed someone excluded due to race, having racial epitaph hurled at them, etc.  That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

However, changing a word to race doesn't mean racists, misogynists, and jerks won't play DnD.  


Ruin Explorer said:


> That will _literally never happen_ because it's not a punchy insult, it's a clunky multisyllabic term that a lot of eight-year-olds would struggle to pronounce, let alone use as an offensive weapon! Whereas the other words you list are pretty ideal. And only one of them is actually socially unacceptable.




You say that now but I would put money in escrow against you.  Case in point: "*Retarded* comes from the Latin _retardare_. This means, "to make slow, delay, keep back, or hinder." The first record of the word "retarded" in relation to developmental delay was in 1895. The term retarded was used to replace terms like idiot, moron, and imbecile. This was because it was not a derogatory term at that time. However, by the 1960s, the term became a word used to insult someone."






						History Of Stigmatizing Names For Intellectual Disabilities Continued - Mental Help
					

As introduced by S.G. Howe (1846), simpleton was intended to mean people with mild intellectual disability. However, it never fully entered the worldwide




					www.mentalhelp.net


----------



## broghammerj

Ruin Explorer said:


> And I will be honest, I'd much rather fight Drow or the like (intellectually and physically equal to the PCs) than some race/species that's all-round inferior. I do not D&D has been moving away from the concept of inferiority, even in monster races, for a long time though. It backslid a ton going from 4E to 5E (even from 3E to 5E there was some backsliding), particularly with Volos, but is moving rapidly away from that now.



You don't think making the black skinned elves, evil couldn't be interpreted as racist in and of itself?  I'm sort of chuckling at the example you decided on.  It depends how far you want to take this level of personal offense and perceived need for inclusiveness.  Dwarves, drow, violent killing, etc can all be offensive.  At some point the game is no longer DnD and becomes unplayable as such.


----------



## Tsuga C

A species may have several races/breeds/subspecies, extant or extinct, which qualify as members of said species. I had no problem--still don't, to be honest--with the term race being used as a synonym for species by Tolkien because the orcs were altered and corrupted elves and all (humans, elves, orcs, hobbits, dwarves) were referred to by him as Incarnates.

This "race" bruhaha is just another example of people looking to take offense over something so they can engage in moral preening. If you disagree, fine. I'm old enough (early GenX) not to care if others consider me an ossified grognard.


----------



## broghammerj

My buddy is a PC game designer.  He was brought on in later stages of development for an unpublished game.  The games basic premise was to travel to an island and compete against others to retrieve archeological items.  They playtested it and a person in the group criticized the premise which sent management into a tizzy.  The person said they didn't approve the theme of robbing a deserted island of its archeological items because somewhere they would have belonged to a group of indigenous people.  He found this incredibly interesting as the reviewer had no issue pointing a gun at the other players face and blowing their head off.  Interesting how we choose to define whats important and what's a moral problem.

This current change strikes me in a similar fashion.


----------



## Lanefan

Azzy said:


> Try "What kind of folk are you?" instead.



"I ain't no folk.  Ain't no jazz or country neither.

"I'm _metal as hell_!"


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Lanefan said:


> "I ain't no folk.  Ain't no jazz or country neither.
> 
> "I'm _metal as hell_!"



So a warforged then!


----------



## Staffan

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If you seriously have to ask that question, I doubt your ability to engage in this discussion in a productive way.
> 
> "Breed" has been used in the real world in ways equally as icky as "race" has. Calling different categories of sentient, playable D&D creatures different breeds has the same negative connotations, if not worse ones, than "race" does.



Yeah, "breed" is super bad. Primarily, because (at least to me) it sounds like something artificially imposed, like eugenics. Dogs have different breeds, and they are that way because humans have used artificial selection to promote traits we want and reduce traits we don't. That's not something I want applied to sapient beings.


----------



## R_Chance

Staffan said:


> Yeah, "breed" is super bad. Primarily, because (at least to me) it sounds like something artificially imposed, like eugenics. Dogs have different breeds, and they are that way because humans have used artificial selection to promote traits we want and reduce traits we don't. That's not something I want applied to sapient beings.



I agree "breed" brings up some negative connotations. As for applying it (artificial selection for traits etc.) to sapient beings, it sounds like how the original dark lord, Morgoth, created Orcs in Tolkein's world. Sounds more likely, and even creepier, than the standard "Elves tortured and turned into Orcs" bit.


----------



## Marandahir

R_Chance said:


> I agree "breed" brings up some negative connotations. As for applying it (artificial selection for traits etc.) to sapient beings, it sounds like how the original dark lord, Morgoth, created Orcs in Tolkein's world. Sounds more likely, and even creepier, than the standard "Elves tortured and turned into Orcs" bit.



We prefer to be called Uruk, and Children of Adar.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

broghammerj said:


> I think WotC is virtue signaling.



*Mod Note:*

I _was_ going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now you’re doubling down.
[


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Tsuga C said:


> This "race" bruhaha is just another example of people looking to take offense over something so they can engage in moral preening.



*Mod Note:*

You‘re gone, too.

_Anyone else?_


----------



## Joshua Randall

Does the use of species imply that half-orcs and half-elves are now the sterile offspring of their parents species?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Joshua Randall said:


> Does the use of species imply that half-orcs and half-elves are now the sterile offspring of their parents species?



Not automatically, because:

1) not all cross-species pairings result in sterile offspring

2) in past products, TSR (at least) explicitly pointed out that a particular cross-species pairing was sterile (DarkSun’s Muls).

3) other historical aspects of D&D strongly imply in-game “genetics” are a lot more complex and fluid than in the RW.


----------



## MGibster

Joshua Randall said:


> Does the use of species imply that half-orcs and half-elves are now the sterile offspring of their parents species?



I don't think so.  If barbarian and druid mean something different in D&D than it does to the rest of the world, why should species be any different?


----------



## Scribe

MGibster said:


> I don't think so.  If barbarian and druid mean something different in D&D than it does to the rest of the world, why should species be any different?




In that case, lets just make up a definition for a better sounding/looking word.

Like Ancestry.


----------



## billd91

Joshua Randall said:


> Does the use of species imply that half-orcs and half-elves are now the sterile offspring of their parents species?



It doesn’t have to. Organisms might be classified into different species not because they can’t produce fertile offspring in a physical sense. Rather, their separate environments or behavior may generally prevent them from doing so.


----------



## Joshua Randall

billd91 said:


> It doesn’t have to. Organisms might be classified into different species not because they can’t produce fertile offspring in a physical sense. Rather, their separate environments or behavior may generally prevent them from doing so.



Ah.  Either way it’s such a loaded scientific term it raises more questions than it answers.


----------



## Joshua Randall

MGibster said:


> I don't think so.  If barbarian and druid mean something different in D&D than it does to the rest of the world, why should species be any different?



Because barbarian and Druid are not common scientific terms.


----------



## Clint_L

Scribe said:


> In that case, lets just make up a definition for a better sounding/looking word.
> 
> Like Ancestry.



We already did that. The word is "schmorp."


----------



## Scribe

Clint_L said:


> We already did that. The word is "schmorp."




I'm pretty sure that is some kind of a space jelly fish, it's in the book somewhere.


----------



## Dire Bare

Joshua Randall said:


> Does the use of species imply that half-orcs and half-elves are now the sterile offspring of their parents species?



No. Why would it? Doesn't always work that way in the real world, why should it in the fantasy world?

In Dark Sun, muls (half-human, half-dwarf) were considered sterile. In Mystara, half-elves were considered impossible . . . until they started showing up in the setting. But usually in D&D, those of mixed ancestry are not sterile. The only reason to change it is if you want to for your home game. The word "species" doesn't impact that either way.



Joshua Randall said:


> Ah.  Either way it’s such a loaded scientific term it raises more questions than it answers.



Nah, not really.

EDIT: Removed some of my initially testy response.


----------



## Xamnam

Scribe said:


> I'm pretty sure that is some kind of a space jelly fish, it's in the book somewhere.



You're thinking of the Space Flumph, the Spumph.


----------



## MGibster

Joshua Randall said:


> Ah. Either way it’s such a loaded scientific term it raises more questions than it answers.



I don't know about everyone else, but back when it was called race in the ancient less enlightened era, and by ancient I mean 2014, I don't remember it raising too many questions at the game table as we were too preoccupied with adventuring.  I don't believe a significant number of people are going to be confused or have questions because WotC started using species instead of race.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Joshua Randall said:


> Does the use of species imply that half-orcs and half-elves are now the sterile offspring of their parents species?



No. Because some different species can produce fertile offspring with one another.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Jahydin said:


> I think the community as a whole was pretty alright. I mean, most of the designers we love today came from it after all.



I meeeaaaaan, there are plenty of designers with some deeply problematic ideas and behaviours, so that doesn't really prove the point you think it does. I can immediately off the top of my head think of five designers who were once very well-regarded (at least in certain areas) who turned out to be not-great. And two of them were major D&D designers. Oh god seven if you count a recent example, which I think you should because it's so spot-on in showing that just because people are "alternative" or whatever, that doesn't mean they aren't incomprehensibly awful.


Jahydin said:


> I was in high school in the US, so it was mostly the trench coat wearing Drama department crowd that played. Didn't know it was popular outside that crowd. I owned all the core books I never could get anyone to play with me...



It definitely sucks that you couldn't find anyone to play with, but I dunno, I know a quite a few Americans IRL who play, and none of them are from the real "outcast/loser" end of things when they were at school. Sure, they might not be the prom king/queen, but like, that's two people out of what, dozens, hundreds?

I'm from the UK, note, and my main experience is that yeah, it's usually more imaginative people who play it (so there is some cross-over with drama), but even then there are plenty of people who don't fit that.


broghammerj said:


> Go to Gen Con. If you think that represents a cross section of popular high school kids and jocks, you must not be attending the same convention as me or went to a very different high school then I did (graduated 1994, USA).



I know he's gone but I just wanted to note that the idea that GenCon is remotely representative of D&D players as a whole is pretty wildly hilarious. It's like thinking Star Trek conventions are representative of the Star Trek viewers as a whole.


----------



## Galandris

Ruin Explorer said:


> I meeeaaaaan, there are plenty of designers with some deeply problematic ideas and behaviours, so that doesn't really prove the point you think it does.




1. Leonardo da Vinci (his work ethic was problematic, often accepting works and not delivering, like a kickstarter not fulfilled, not to mention having a romantic involvement with his apprentice he became in charge of when he was 10... talk about creepy)
2. Caravaggio (several count of agression, and a real problem with alcohol)
3. Roald Dahl (obviously a racist and anti-Jews)
4. Handel (staunch supporter of monarchy, rabid character)
5. Berlioz (abandonned his fiancé, engaged with another woman, and when he received a break letter from his former betrothed, he planned to murder her).

I don't know what conclusion we can draw from this list of horrible people about classical art lover community.


----------



## Jahydin

Ruin Explorer said:


> I meeeaaaaan, there are plenty of designers with some deeply problematic ideas and behaviours, so that doesn't really prove the point you think it does.



Right.

Remember, I only took offensive to you implying *most *of the older, unpopular gamers (i.e., most gamers) were racist/misogynistic. The current hobby's inclusive zeitgeist didn't come about by "new blood" pouring in recently, but from the older views of "millennial and up" designers who were all deeply involved in the TTRPG community in the early days, so I'd argue that *most *were not.

I think we agree on that though, so kind of a non issue.


----------



## Jahydin

So a question for those that are smarter than me on these matters...

Does this change of words fix the "bioessentialism" problem some where having? Make it worse?


----------



## Scribe

Jahydin said:


> So a question for those that are smarter than me on these matters...
> 
> Does this change of words fix the "bioessentialism" problem some where having? Make it worse?




The 'fix' for that 'problem' was the removal of ASI on a racial level, and anything that could be deemed cultural as well.

Though you then have the Giff issue, where they love guns cuz of their God...but well anything further said on this will just lead to another tangent.

And yes, the air quotes are implied.


----------



## BookTenTiger

Jahydin said:


> So a question for those that are smarter than me on these matters...
> 
> Does this change of words fix the "bioessentialism" problem some where having? Make it worse?



I don't think this word change has to do with bioessentialism, I think it has to do with separating the game from the context of the use of race in reality.


----------



## Galandris

Jahydin said:


> So a question for those that are smarter than me on these matters...
> 
> Does this change of words fix the "bioessentialism" problem some where having? Make it worse?




I don't think it changes anything. The bioessentialism problem was linked to some settings only. If your species is created so it has a genetic memory of the language of the lower planes, it's neither "better" nor "worse" than have a race created as such. It's just strange that, when no setting element link the species to some _knowledge_ a dwarf raised in elven land would speak dwarf. Why would a dwarf be better with the forging tools even if he was never taught anything, if no setting elements explain it, while he could very well be naturally blessed by Moradin so that the metal obey him a little more than the metal would obey any other species trying to work it...

What remains to be seen is instincts impacting behaviour. Since race was connoted as a "real life human thing", you couldn't have a "savage race", because that referred to lexicon used to describe Africans in colonial times. Now you can have a territorial species, driven to agression of any competitor entering its territory, and it will be much more acceptable. Some will say the new word doesn't change anything, some will say it removes the bad associations.


----------



## Dire Bare

Jahydin said:


> So a question for those that are smarter than me on these matters...
> 
> Does this change of words fix the "bioessentialism" problem some where having? Make it worse?



It helps, but doesn't itself solve the problem It's just a change of wording . . . although words do matter.

"Race" is a problematic term, species isn't. As long as designers separate cultural traits (learned) from biological traits (inherent), we should be fine. They could have done that without the wording change, and in fact have started to do just that with Tasha's, but the word "race" remains problematic on it's own. So, it's gone. A good change, but not enough on it's own.

The term "bioessentialism" is one I don't like in these types of discussions . . . because different species SHOULD have biological differences. The problem is that all of these fantasy races are stand-ins for real-world ethnic differences between people. So when we describe a fantasy race with the same loaded stereotypes we pejoratively describe real world peoples, it is a problem.

But goliaths can still tend towards being huge and brawny, even if some specific members of the species might not be. Gnomes can still tend to be small and adorable, even if some individuals don't fit that mold. There's significant diversity in humanity, there can be in the various fantasy races as well. Technically, could a race be less mentally adept than other races? Sure, but . . . again considering that fantasy races are stand-ins for real people, it's a bad design idea.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

I favour Origin over species, like Autognomes, Warforged, Shardminds (if they ever get an update), aren't species, they haven't evolved via reproduction (or descend from races that have), so species is too constrictive, Origin more flexible.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Galandris said:


> 1. Leonardo da Vinci (his work ethic was problematic, often accepting works and not delivering, like a kickstarter not fulfilled, not to mention having a romantic involvement with his apprentice he became in charge of when he was 10... talk about creepy)
> 2. Caravaggio (several count of agression, and a real problem with alcohol)
> 3. Roald Dahl (obviously a racist and anti-Jews)
> 4. Handel (staunch supporter of monarchy, rabid character)
> 5. Berlioz (abandonned his fiancé, engaged with another woman, and when he received a break letter from his former betrothed, he planned to murder her).
> 
> I don't know what conclusion we can draw from this list of horrible people about classical art lover community.



I think responding to a bunch of living designers literally of whom are still working (even if in some cases no-one buys their stuff) with a bunch of dead people who haven't been working in decades to centuries means you're either responding in bad faith or you don't understand the issue on a pretty basic level.

Also "classical art lover", wth lol? There are only two "classical" artists on that list of five people. That's a pretty severe error rate.

If you wanted "problematic classical artists" you could have just listed like _any_ random 5 male artists from between 1500 and 1800 and been right. But no, you had to randomly bring in composers and 20th century writer/cartoonist. Totally bizarre but very funny at least.

On top of all that, you're responding with a non-sequitur, because I didn't imply anything about the audience by pointing out the issues with various creators.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Jahydin said:


> So a question for those that are smarter than me on these matters...
> 
> Does this change of words fix the "bioessentialism" problem some where having? Make it worse?



To me, this is like asking "Does this insulin cure cancer?"

No. It's intended to solve a different problem.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Jahydin said:


> The current hobby's inclusive zeitgeist didn't come about by "new blood" pouring in recently, but from the older views of "millennial and up" designers who were all deeply involved in the TTRPG community in the early days, so I'd argue that *most *were not.



I don't think that's a "fact in evidence".

That that's your view is absolutely fine. But you've provided no evidence to support it, and I'm at least moderately familiar with the history of RPGs and their designers, and an awful lot of them has pretty heinous ideas in the early days (Gygax being a great example - positively quoting a guy who was calling for the genocide of the Native Americans, for example). The early D&D crowd seems to have been moderately conservative, if anything, and wasn't seemingly particularly open to "off-beat" people who weren't like themselves. I'm not saying they were all bigots but I'm not seeing the "inclusive zeitgeist" you're claiming.

When did it come in then? I feel like you see the start of it in the late '80s, but that it's more accidental than intentional in most cases (with notable exceptions like Mike Pondsmith's approach, which intentionally included minorities and excluded people of all kinds). I'd suggest most of the inclusivity of RPGs was accidental, to be clear, and more stemming from the basic concept of RPGs. RPGs differed from videogames and the like because if you wanted to play someone like you, many/most RPGs allowed it, or at least had no rules specifically preventing it.

So I would absolutely say the much stronger push, the actual zeitgeist for inclusiveness largely from people who are 40 and under. You can see this in RPG design, even, I'd suggest. That was absolutely helped along by some of the older designers, but in many cases it clearly wasn't a particular goal or the like.


----------



## vecna00

I haven't read any of the 23 pages of this, and for my mental health I probably won't, but I'm fine with this change.


----------



## Jahydin

Dire Bare said:


> Sure, but . . . again considering that fantasy races are stand-ins for real people, it's a bad design idea.



(Also @Galandris) Thanks for the long explanations, I think I understand the differences now.

This sentence of yours is troubling to me though. I didn't realize there were people that think this way. If I'm reading a book about a race who has a celebration similar to Day of the Dead, my first thought isn't, "Oh, these folks must be Mexican stand-ins", but, "Oh, they have a celebration *just like *the one we have in real life."

I guess this explains the need for sensitivity experts. Rather than spend the resources on these specialized teams though, wouldn't it just be easier to acknowledge fantasy is not real life? It can reflect it, but it's no more real than an image in a mirror is?


----------



## Bagpuss

Dire Bare said:


> The problem is that all of these fantasy races are stand-ins for real-world ethnic differences between people.




Only they aren't, unless you try and make them to be. Which is the problem, not "bioessentialism" between species that have clear physical attribute differences. Stop equating fantasy species to different human ethnicities, the issue goes away. The different human ethnicities are ALL already represented in fantasy RPGs by the Human race species and they don't have different stat mods (well unless you are playing Birthright 2nd Ed AD&D).


----------



## Jahydin

Ruin Explorer said:


> So I would absolutely say the much stronger push, the actual zeitgeist for inclusiveness largely from people who are 40 and under. You can see this in RPG design, even, I'd suggest. That was absolutely helped along by some of the older designers, but in many cases it clearly wasn't a particular goal or the like.



I think maybe you don't realize how much of the industry is still ran by Gen X (ages 42 - 57)? Pretty much every major name that comes to my mind is within that age range. None of them strike me as people that needed "pushing" from their younger coworkers. If anything, they seem to be the trendsetters the younger generations are learning from.

But you're right, just my view and all.


----------



## Cadence

Jahydin said:


> This sentence of yours is troubling to me though. I didn't realize there were people that think this way. If I'm reading a book about a race who has a celebration similar to Day of the Dead, my first thought isn't, "Oh, these folks must be Mexican stand-ins", but, "Oh, they have a celebration *just like *the one we have in real life."




Tangentially, The question I might ask concerning the game is - What about the race (species) causes the entire race to celebrate a certain holiday, as opposed to the national/cultural/ethnic subset of the race celebrating it?

If it's not the whole race then does it hurt to name their nation/culture/whatnot as the ones generally  celebrating it?


----------



## Raduin711

Bagpuss said:


> Only they aren't, unless you try and make them to be.



My problem with this is that you can say this about any interpretation of a work of fiction. Even interpretations that most people would agree on. Nothing means anything until you "make it out to be." Until then, it's just ink on paper.

What is happening here is that D&D is being brought to a wider audience now, and some of the language and images that came from figures like Gygax and Tolkien are being examined with new perspectives, and a not-small number of folks (large enough for WotC to take notice) are pointing out ways that those images are not very welcoming, and echo modern and historical issues regarding race relations, colonialism, etc. We have a choice to either to be welcoming and empathetic and try to see things from another point of view, or we can be gatekeepers, and say "That's like, your opinion, man, and if you don't like it, there's the door."


----------



## Frozen_Heart

SteveC said:


> I think the removal of the race term is something that's been expected for a long time. I think the term species is a poor choice for a fantasy game, and the scientist in me says "okay, so that means there are no half elves any more?"
> 
> I think there are a lot better alternatives (Ancestry or Kin come immediately to mind, I'm sure there are many others) but from the things I have a mind to argue on, it doesn't make the list. I do think think the specific choice will be jarring as there are better options for a fantasy based rpg.



Why can't there be half elves if species replaces race? Many irl species are capable of hybridisation.

There are even rare cases of domestic chickens and peafowl producing offspring. They're not the same species. Or the even the same genus. They're not even the same tribe of birds!

Genetics are weird.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Bagpuss said:


> Only they aren't, unless you try and make them to be. Which is the problem, not "bioessentialism" between species that have clear physical attribute differences. Stop equating fantasy species to different human ethnicities, the issue goes away. The different human ethnicities are ALL already represented in fantasy RPGs by the Human race species and they don't have different stat mods (well unless you are playing Birthright 2nd Ed AD&D).



You're basically asking people to just turn off their brains.  Which unfortunately... for all of us thinking human beings just isn't possible.

Seems to me you're saying essentially "You know... the movie _Starship Troopers_ is only an allegory to the rise of fascism if you THINK about it being it an allegory to fascism that way.  But it's humans and alien insects, not humans against other humans!  Totally different!  Don't think about that way and everything's good!"

Well, no.  Sorry.  If something gets written or made that makes a 1-to-1 comparison from something "unreal" to something real... we thinking people are going to recognize it and make that connection.  That's how our human brains work.  That's why simile and metaphor _are a thing_.  Telling us no to do that is like telling us not to taste our food when we put it in our mouths.  It's just not something you can switch off.

And when that "unreal" thing that our brains WILL make a connection to is connected to a bad "real" thing... people will rightly point that out.  And no amount of just saying "Just stop thinking about it that way and everything will be fine!" will actually work or solve the problem.


----------



## Morrus

Jahydin said:


> (Also @Galandris)
> 
> This sentence of yours is troubling to me though. I didn't realize there were people that think this way. If I'm reading a book about a race who has a celebration similar to Day of the Dead, my first thought isn't, "Oh, these folks must be Mexican stand-ins", but, "Oh, they have a celebration *just like *the one we have in real life."



May I ask whether you're Mexican?


----------



## Knight_Marshal

Species doesn't work either. Is a Half-Elf a species?


----------



## Umbran

Jahydin said:


> I guess this explains the need for sensitivity experts. Rather than spend the resources on these specialized teams though, wouldn't it just be easier to acknowledge fantasy is not real life? It can reflect it, but it's no more real than an image in a mirror is?




Fiction (that it is "fantasy" is irrelevant) can still be hurtful to people in the real world.  

 We are a language-using people.  We understand _symbolism_.   We understand simile and metaphor.  We understand a thing standing in for something in the real world.  

It is easy to say it is, "no more real than an image in a mirror" if that image isn't of _you_.


----------



## MGibster

Galandris said:


> 4. Handel (staunch supporter of monarchy, rabid character)



Wait a minute.  Are we seriously going to argue that a dude who spent the majority of his life in the 18th century is "problematic" because he supported the monarchy?  I'm an American, and I don't even list "supporter of the monarchy" among the problematic elements of George III.  


Galandris said:


> What remains to be seen is instincts impacting behaviour. Since race was connoted as a "real life human thing", you couldn't have a "savage race", because that referred to lexicon used to describe Africans in colonial times. Now you can have a territorial species, driven to agression of any competitor entering its territory, and it will be much more acceptable. Some will say the new word doesn't change anything, some will say it removes the bad associations.



I know this is the hope, but I don't think that's what's going to happen.  It might placate people at first, but eventually species in D&D will have the same connotation as race.  Each species in D&D is essentially human, and terms used to negatively describe them will be connected to language used to describe actual groups of people from our past and present.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Knight_Marshal said:


> Species doesn't work either. Is a Half-Elf a species?



It's a hybrid species. Just like many irl examples of hybrids.


----------



## Bagpuss

DEFCON 1 said:


> You're basically asking people to just turn off their brains.  Which unfortunately... for all of us thinking human beings just isn't possible.




No I am asking you to see one as fantasy and the other as reality. Most thinking human beings are pretty good at telling the difference.



DEFCON 1 said:


> Seems to me you're saying essentially "You know... the movie _Starship Troopers_ is only an allegory to the rise of fascism if you THINK about it being it an allegory to fascism that way.  But it's humans and alien insects, not humans against other humans!  Totally different!  Don't think about that way and everything's good!"




Lots of people managed to enjoy it as a popcorn blockbuster, bug hut like Aliens. Even if you look at it as humans vs humans and realise it is about fascism and the othering of the enemy, it doesn't stop your enjoyment of it, if anything it improves it.



DEFCON 1 said:


> And when that "unreal" thing that our brains WILL make a connection to is connected to a bad "real" thing... people will rightly point that out.  And no amount of just saying "Just stop thinking about it that way and everything will be fine!" will actually work or solve the problem.




Then play something different. If you are forever going to see gnomes or dwarves as anti semitic and orcs as a racial stereotype, and dark elves as racist no changes are ever going to remove that historical context for you. Because that context is always going to be there, it will never go away.


----------



## Galandris

MGibster said:


> Wait a minute.  Are we seriously going to argue that a dude who spent the majority of his life in the 18th century is "problematic" because he supported the monarchy?  I'm an American, and I don't even list "supporter of the monarchy" among the problematic elements of George III.




No, I am jokingly pointing that viewing people with our current cultural values doesn't yield any useful result. It was obviously lost in translation. Sorry.



MGibster said:


> I know this is the hope, but I don't think that's what's going to happen.  It might placate people at first, but eventually species in D&D will have the same connotation as race.  Each species in D&D is essentially human, and terms used to negatively describe them will be connected to language used to describe actual groups of people from our past and present.




It's possible and even likely, despite the hope. I also think any term used will have the same fate in the end.


----------



## MGibster

Galandris said:


> No, I am jokingly pointing that viewing people with our current cultural values doesn't yield any useful result.



Darn it.  I was all aboard the cancel Handel train!


----------



## Galandris

MGibster said:


> Darn it.  I was all aboard the cancel Handel train!




And he never ONCE made a positive comment on disco!


----------



## SteveC

Frozen_Heart said:


> Why can't there be half elves if species replaces race? Many irl species are capable of hybridisation.
> 
> There are even rare cases of domestic chickens and peafowl producing offspring. They're not the same species. Or the even the same genus. They're not even the same tribe of birds!
> 
> Genetics are weird.



Sigh. So I now have to figure how to get my friend who works in genetic research a case of beer (and beer that's only sold in my State) because they said "you know, people are going to point out that breeding between species does exist."

So yes, things like this do happen. Science, and life in general is more complicated than simple definitions make it out to be.

I was referring to the definition of species, which I just did a google search on again...


> a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.



Now you're right, it is more complicated than that.

And now I must figure out how to get Spotted Cow to New Jersey. From what I've seen, that may need to wait until their next visit to my State.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Jahydin said:


> I guess this explains the need for sensitivity experts. Rather than spend the resources on these specialized teams though, wouldn't it just be easier to acknowledge fantasy is not real life? It can reflect it, but it's no more real than an image in a mirror is?



No.

Let me put it this way: when you see a new mole on yourself in the mirror, it's not the mirror image that needs to see a doctor.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Bagpuss said:


> Then play something different. If you are forever going to see gnomes or dwarves as anti semitic and orcs as a racial stereotype, and dark elves as racist no changes are ever going to remove that historical context for you. Because that context is always going to be there, it will never go away.



Sure.

OR...

The writers of the material CAN change what they write if they wish to do so, _and you_ as the recipient of said material just have to deal with it.

Either one could work-- the Giver of material choosing what they give, or the Recipient of the material demanding what they be given.  But I suspect only one of the two ways is more likely to happen.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Most of this seems silly to me but I like harmony.  If I play a computer game with race or species identifying the aliens I am not troubled either way.  I just want to freaking play.

The assertion that huge swaths of people are upset by this does not square with my observations/readings.  Assertions that this is some clear big blight that hurts people seems absurd.  Designers from one section of the US and a small vocal twitter/Reddit block does not make me turn off my powers of reasoning.

But…

If it does not matter much it cuts both ways.  Whatever.  My books all say race, new ones won’t.  Old ones excluded half orc paladins.  New ones don’t.

The change of this word does not in itself change the flavor of the whole.  And honestly?  Species is more accurate.  Isn’t it?

Folks should be more concerned about substantive rules changes that are happening if they are not to taste.

Speaking of flavor—for me to fork out money for a phb I need fewer tieflings with lasers from their butts and more earth based armors and weapons.  Or at least some samples of more grounded fantasy mixed in the weird.  Which is not not weird but, meh.  It’s another monsters smiling with a lute.

I am excited about the prospect of some purported tentative changes.  Others are less thrilling.  

But I have learned it’s ok to pick my battles and to be “just ok” with some things.  This is one of them.  

If species works—-and folks realize monsters are not supposed to be real world groups (as I had always held)  I will happily make the change.  Whatever it takes to just get back to playing.


----------



## Mallus

I'm fine with 'species', will probably still use 'race' out of habit, and probably should try not to, because in my new home-brew setting the preferred term is 'people'.


----------



## Shades of Eternity

I'm glad they are doing it, but <looks at Rifts main book 1991>, they might be a bit slow on the draw.


----------



## payn

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Most of this seems silly to me but I like harmony.  If I play a computer game with race or species identifying the aliens I am not troubled either way.  I just want to freaking play.
> 
> The assertion that huge swaths of people are upset by this does not square with my observations/readings.  Assertions that this is some clear big blight that hurts people seems absurd.  Designers from one section of the US and a small vocal twitter/Reddit block does not make me turn off my powers of reasoning.
> 
> But…
> 
> If it does not matter much it cuts both ways.  Whatever.  My books all say race, new ones won’t.  Old ones excluded half orc paladins.  New ones don’t.
> 
> The change of this word does not in itself change the flavor of the whole.  And honestly?  Species is more accurate.  Isn’t it?
> 
> Folks should be more concerned about substantive rules changes that are happening if they are not to taste.
> 
> Speaking of flavor—for me to fork out money for a phb I need fewer tieflings with lasers from their butts and more earth based armors and weapons.  Or at least some samples of more grounded fantasy mixed in the weird.  Which is not not weird but, meh.  It’s another monsters smiling with a lute.
> 
> I am excited about the prospect of some purported tentative changes.  Others are less thrilling.
> 
> But I have learned it’s ok to pick my battles and to be “just ok” with some things.  This is one of them.
> 
> If species works—-and folks realize monsters are not supposed to be real world groups (as I had always held)  I will happily make the change.  Whatever it takes to just get back to playing.



Even if its a small minority, the move is in the direction of inclusiveness. You may not have ever felt put off by this, as perhaps you can easily see yourself in the role of the protagonists, but many folks have only seen themselves represented as sidekicks, or villains, if folks like them are included at all. To them this change is recognition of that.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

payn said:


> Even if it’s a small minority, the move is in the direction of inclusiveness. You may not have ever felt put off by this, as perhaps you can easily see yourself in the role of the protagonists, but many folks have only seen themselves represented as sidekicks, or villains, if folks like them are included at all. To them this change is recognition of that.



Yeah, I merely wanted to say even if it’s not someone’s preference, this won’t make a negative impact on most people’s games.  Going with it does not mean you agree with the premise even if you can sympathize with the care behind it.

I am making the term ‘species’ player and not character facing.  In world, people will talk about the race of men or seed of the mountain king or whatever.

Character sheets will likely say “species.”

The reason I note I don’t buy the rationale is to point out to those who also don’t, that it’s not a game breaker or even a game detractor unless you make it one.

A long time ago I offered “species” as a win-win. 

Where I have issue is with ability score modifiers for certain groups of humans in some older publications.  Eek.  That surely does make for some not good stuff and is literally based on junk science and old weirdnesses with as much credibility as phrenology.  (I am familiar with the actual scholarly literature related to IQ, etc.) so can say that with comfort.

If it takes ‘species’ to make it abundantly clear monsters are not just shades of people so be it. 

Honestly had they just done it and not announced it, I don’t think it would even make a stir.  Then again, it’s the internet.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Yeah, I merely wanted to say even if it’s not someone’s preference, this won’t make a negative impact on most people’s games.
> 
> I am making the term ‘species’ player and not character facing.  In world, people will talk about the race of men or seed of the mountain king or whatever.
> 
> Character sheets will likely say “species.”
> 
> The reason I note I don’t buy the rationale is to point out to those who also don’t, that it’s not a game breaker or even a game detractor unless you make it one.
> 
> A long time ago I offered “species” as a win-win.
> 
> Where I have issue is with ability score modifiers for certain groups of humans in some older publications.  Eek.  That surely does make for some not good stuff and is literally based on junk science and old weirdnesses with as much credibility as phrenology.  (I am familiar with the actual scholarly literature related to IQ, etc.) so can say that with comfort.
> 
> If it takes ‘species’ to make it abundantly clear monsters are not just shades of people so be it.
> 
> Honestly had they just done it and not announced it, I don’t think it would even make a stir.



I've never heard a single person I play with object to the term, "race" in the context of D&D.  That said, it doesn't matter to me either way, so I have no objection to WotC's use of the term, "species".


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Micah Sweet said:


> I've never heard a single person I play with object to the term, "race" in the context of D&D.  That said, it doesn't matter to me either way, so I have no objection to WotC's use of the term, "species".



Yeah, let’s argue about the merits of crits not doubling smites!   My fiend pact of the blade warlock takes exception!


----------



## Bagpuss

DEFCON 1 said:


> Sure.
> 
> OR...
> 
> The writers of the material CAN change what they write if they wish to do so, _and you_ as the recipient of said material just have to deal with it.



I think you are missing my point. People are getting worked up over the history of these races, that is never going to go away.

It doesn’t matter what they write today, as they can’t change the origin of these races. They could get rid of the problematic races altogether, but that is very unlikely to happen.

They could completely change the races to unrecognisable, also unlikely but even if they did the history is there.

Also races like goblins and orcs fill a role in fantasy so even if they remove them completely something will fill that role and some folks will then start associating them with the same stereotypes.


----------



## Dire Bare

Bagpuss said:


> Only they aren't, unless you try and make them to be. Which is the problem, not "bioessentialism" between species that have clear physical attribute differences. Stop equating fantasy species to different human ethnicities, the issue goes away. The different human ethnicities are ALL already represented in fantasy RPGs by the Human race species and they don't have different stat mods (well unless you are playing Birthright 2nd Ed AD&D).



No. Ignoring the issue because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't make it go away.

Each specific fantasy race isn't a one-to-one stand-in for a specific real world ethnicity . . . usually. But as whole, fantasy/sci-fi races very much are stand-ins for the differences between real world peoples. That's the basis of the entire problem, describing "orcs" in the same way European colonialists have described indigenous peoples, for just one example. If you can't see it . . . . after all of the discussions here on ENWorld on the topic . . . . there's no point in engaging on the issue further.


----------



## codo

Ruin Explorer said:


> That that's your view is absolutely fine. But you've provided no evidence to support it, and I'm at least moderately familiar with the history of RPGs and their designers, and an awful lot of them has pretty heinous ideas in the early days (Gygax being a great example - positively quoting a guy who was calling for the genocide of the Native Americans, for example). The early D&D crowd seems to have been moderately conservative, if anything, and wasn't seemingly particularly open to "off-beat" people who weren't like themselves. I'm not saying they were all bigots but I'm not seeing the "inclusive zeitgeist" you're claiming.



Its even worse then you make it sound. The quote Gary Gygax was using to explain why it is Morally Good is murder defenseless orc children, was literally the words a racist genocidal child murderer officially used to justify his genocide.  Colonel John Chivington was the commanding officer of the American troops at the Sand Creek Massacre where the U.S. army murdered, tortured and mutilated the bodies of 133 peaceful, defenseless Cheyenne Indians, 105 of them women and children.

But sure, there is no history of ingrained racism in D&D, and there is absolutely no correlation between orcs and other monstrous races and real world minority groups.


----------



## Incenjucar

As I've said before, "race" was a squicky word to use even in the 90s. By at least 2E, things were starting to improve here and there, but it's hard to scrape off all the bad parts of a legacy, and backward steps happen.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

The origin of the problem is not old…it’s timeless.

Archetypes found in all cultures have imagined monsters and enemies at the gates.  When we play in myth, we revisit those tales and experiences of being run down by Huns and wolves.



codo said:


> It’s even worse than you make it sound. The quote Gary Gygax was using to explain why it is Morally Good is murder defenseless orc children, was literally the words a racist genocidal child murderer officially used to justify his genocide.  Colonel John Chivington was the commanding officer of the American troops at the Sand Creek Massacre where the U.S. army murdered, tortured and mutilated the bodies of 133 peaceful, defenseless Cheyenne Indians, 105 of them women and children.
> 
> But sure, there is no history of ingrained racism in D&D, and there is absolutely no correlation between orcs and other monstrous races and real world minority groups.



i get tearful when I see those “save a puppy commercials and people hurting children makes me want to puke.

But i am still going to put orcs to the sword.  

The correlation is as noted.  We have myths and archetypes and some of them get mapped onto real world people.  Undoing that is a noble and good thing.

It’s why we need to separate the myth from reality.  No whole group of people is bad.  But if there were evil vampires, I would be pretty ready to dispatch any of them I could.

And with that I will respectfully unfollow the thread.  I know where this all leads.  But happy gaming whatever your flavor of fun


----------



## Incenjucar

Xenophobia is not a universal perspective. For me, Huns are probably bloodlines in my family and wolves are creatures to admire. Vampires can fight their curse, beholders can adore a pet goldfish, dragons can be generous, finding a way to stop a war without putting armies in a grave is an option, and the orphans of evil ambushers deserve sympathy and protection.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Warpiglet-7 said:


> If species works—-and folks realize monsters are not supposed to be real world groups (as I had always held)  I will happily make the change.  Whatever it takes to just get back to playing.



Here we go again.

The fact that someone fictionalized racism doesn't make the trop, language or attitudes presented not racist, especially if they're using elements from real world people who are marginalized by those tropes, language usages or attitudes.

Saying 'but it's fiction' does not thing but desperately try to mock people's feelings and experiences and absolve bad actors accidental or intentional.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Bagpuss said:


> I think you are missing my point. People are getting worked up over the history of these races, that is never going to go away.
> 
> It doesn’t matter what they write today, as they can’t change the origin of these races. They could get rid of the problematic races altogether, but that is very unlikely to happen.



Then what IS your point?  I don't think I've gotten it then.  From what I've gathered from your posts (and admittedly perhaps I could be misunderstanding what you've been saying)... it's that because people will remember how these races were portrayed in the past, then there's no reason to change the portrayal now.  We shouldn't bother.  Even though the game wants to change the portrayal of orcs, since we can remember how orcs used to be portrayed back in the '70s then there's no reason to do so.  Is that what you mean?

If it is... then that is rather... silly.  Cause last I checked... Japan isn't looked at as an enemy of the USA even though they used to be back in World War II.  Their portrayal has changed and we all have gone along with it without any problem.


----------



## Vaalingrade

People should never improve. We used to run deer to death for our food. Anyone going to the grocery store, or even using a bow on a deer is just wrong and going against history.


----------



## CreamCloud0

DEFCON 1 said:


> Then what IS your point?  I don't think I've gotten it then.  From what I've gathered from your posts (and admittedly perhaps I could be misunderstanding what you've been saying)... it's that because people will remember how these races were portrayed in the past, then there's no reason to change the portrayal now.  We shouldn't bother.  Even though the game wants to change the portrayal of orcs, since we can remember how orcs used to be portrayed back in the '70s then there's no reason to do so.  Is that what you mean?
> 
> If it is... then that is rather... silly.  Cause last I checked... Japan isn't looked at as an enemy of the USA even though they used to be back in World War II.  Their portrayal has changed and we all have gone along with it without any problem.



having looked back through this reply chain the original point as far as i can tell isn't about not disconnecting the species portrayal from racist stereotypes but rather not removing all exclusive species abilities to prevent claims of bioessentiallism? yes, certain species have historically had unfortunate parralels made with real life groups, this is something we are trying our best to remove, but this does not mean modern species should have no exclusive strengths and capabilities to make them all appear 'equal' or because they might be interpreted as a commentary on XYZ group, they should be goblins and orcs and tieflings first, and a stand in for real life groups never.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

delete


----------



## Micah Sweet

CreamCloud0 said:


> having looked back through this reply chain the original point as far as i can tell isn't about not disconnecting the species portrayal from racist stereotypes but rather not removing all exclusive species abilities to prevent claims of bioessentiallism? yes, certain species have historically had unfortunate parralels made with real life groups, this is something we are trying our best to remove, but this does not mean modern species should have no exclusive strengths and capabilities to make them all appear 'equal' or because they might be interpreted as a commentary on XYZ group, they should be goblins and orcs and tieflings first, and a stand in for real life groups never.



This is a big issue I have with orcs in particular, since without their culture, there's very little to differentiate them from humans other than physical appearance. Even the culture is hardly something humans couldn't have.


----------



## Marandahir

Micah Sweet said:


> This is a big issue I have with orcs in particular, since without their culture, there's very little to differentiate them from humans other than physical appearance. Even the culture is hardly something humans couldn't have.



Why can't Orcs have various cultures in D&D?

The point is that they shouldn't be DEFINED by a single culture. 

_Eberron_ Orcs have very different cultures from Tolkien Orcs from _Warhammer 40k _Orks from _WarCraft _Orcs from _Forgotten Realms _Orcs from _The Elder Scrolls_ Orcs from _The Legend of Zelda _Moblins from _Star Wars _Gamorreans from _Magic: the Gathering _Tarkir Orcs, but you'd recognise them all as Orcs at a glance, no question (okay, well MAYBE you'd argue that Tolkien's Orcs or _Zelda_'s Moblins are more like goblins, but still…).

There's a common set of tropes that are kept to or deviated from. The PHB is NOT THE PLACE to define which set are kept to outside of biology.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Marandahir said:


> Why can't Orcs have various cultures in D&D?
> 
> The point is that they shouldn't be DEFINED by a single culture.
> 
> _Eberron_ Orcs have very different cultures from Tolkien Orcs from _Warhammer 40k _Orks from _WarCraft _Orcs from _Forgotten Realms _Orcs from _The Elder Scrolls_ Orcs from _The Legend of Zelda _Moblins from _Star Wars _Gamorreans from _Magic: the Gathering _Tarkir Orcs, but you'd recognise them all as Orcs at a glance, no question (okay, well MAYBE you'd argue that Tolkien's Orcs or _Zelda_'s Moblins are more like goblins, but still…).
> 
> There's a common set of tropes that are kept to or deviated from. The PHB is NOT THE PLACE to define which set are kept to outside of biology.



Yes, of course Orcs can have any culture.  But every heritage has that going for it.  Other than that, what makes an orc any different from a human?


----------



## Marandahir

Micah Sweet said:


> Yes, of course Orcs can have any culture.  But every heritage has that going for it.  Other than that, what makes an orc any different from a human?



Orcs have a "toughness and tenacity that can't be matched", they're "tireless guardians and mighty allies wherever they are found" and they seem to have a religious culture of some sort in D&D regardless of worlds, whether to primal forces, shamanistic spirits, Gruumsh and the other Orc gods, etc. 

They can adrenaline rush, have darkvision, have a powerful build, and have relentless endurance.


----------



## Morrus

Marandahir said:


> Why can't Orcs have various cultures in D&D?



They do.


----------



## Marandahir

Morrus said:


> They do.



Thanks Morrus, I'll definitely take a look tonight before the sale is over. 

I was saying it more as a rhetorical question, since I immediately listed off several varying Orc cultures within D&D settings.


----------



## Mecheon

Micah Sweet said:


> Yes, of course Orcs can have any culture. But every heritage has that going for it. Other than that, what makes an orc any different from a human?



I mean, purely going off what they have...

You can see in the dark, you're more in tune with nature as a baseline (Humans don't get anything like Primal Awareness), and pretty much everyone's going to be able to lift heavier stuff, so that stuff alone's going to lead to way more different town design


----------



## Scribe

Micah Sweet said:


> Other than that, what makes an orc any different from a human?




Depends.

Are Gods real?
How influencial are they in the world?
Did they factually create the race schorlp?
Whats the afterlife?
Whats the socio-political situation in the setting?
Do they still mature quicker?
Does this impact their mentality and outlook?
How do others interact with them?

Otherwise what do we know?

Their ASI is the same as a Human now.
They are HUMANoids.
They are medium size, like humans and most anything else.
Walk speed is the same as Human.

They would appear to be able to hype themselves up (Adrenaline Rush).
They have an ability to see in the dark better than Humans.
They can carry stuff better.
They have a type of resilience that Humans do not.

Frankly...meaningfully speaking, they are not that different at all now, and its all cultural/setting specific, but based on MotM, they are quite noble and positively presented within the multiverse.

Take that as you will.


----------



## Marandahir

Mecheon said:


> I mean, purely going off what they have...
> 
> You can see in the dark, you're more in tune with nature as a baseline (Humans don't get anything like Primal Awareness), and pretty much everyone's going to be able to lift heavier stuff, so that stuff alone's going to lead to way more different town design



That's the legacy Orc. The current Orc from _Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse_ and the 2024 PHB UA series doesn't have any traits that make them more in-tune with Nature, because that would be cultural more than biological.


----------



## Incenjucar

Humans have their own traits which orcs lack. Orcs are going to be much more casual about heavy loads, which can have a major impact on industries and trade and architecture, and will spend a lot more time being up at night, and will probably build based on their vision limits. Lacking human extreme skill capacity, skill sets will be more precious and prized  Etc etc.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Incenjucar said:


> Humans have their own traits which orcs lack. Orcs are going to be much more casual about heavy loads, which can have a major impact on industries and trade and architecture, and will spend a lot more time being up at night, and will probably build based on their vision limits. Lacking human extreme skill capacity, skill sets will be more precious and prized  Etc etc.



Ok, I can see a little bit there.  What stories can you possibly tell with an orc that you can't tell with a human?  Minions of the evil overlord is no longer their niche (no one's niche now, apparently).


----------



## Incenjucar

Micah Sweet said:


> Ok, I can see a little bit there.  What stories can you possibly tell with an orc that you can't tell with a human?  Minions of the evil overlord is no longer their niche (no one's niche now, apparently).



Baseline humans cannot see in the dark, shrug off death, carry roughly the same amount as a horse, or put out a sudden burst of speed AND endurance.


An orc rescue worker would be freaking amazing at their job in ways a human could never match. Orc rangers could save so many more kids lost in the woods and do amazing wildlife surveys.


----------



## Scribe

Incenjucar said:


> Baseline humans cannot see in the dark, shrug off death, carry roughly the same amount as a horse, or put out a sudden burst of speed AND endurance.
> 
> 
> An orc rescue worker would be freaking amazing at their job in ways a human could never match. Orc rangers could save so many more kids lost in the woods and do amazing wildlife surveys.




So all upside, Elves 2.0 for a modern mentality.


----------



## Incenjucar

Scribe said:


> So all upside, Elves 2.0 for a modern mentality.



They lack human skill versatility and ego that lets humans start off with advantage after a rest. Humans are skillful polymaths relative to most other species.


----------



## Jahydin

Morrus said:


> May I ask whether you're Mexican?



Nope.
Location wise, Californian. 
Ethnicity wise, English, and Welsh.


----------



## Jahydin

Umbran said:


> It is easy to say it is, "no more real than an image in a mirror" if that image isn't of _you_.



Appreciate the comment.

Will certainly give me something to think about.


----------



## Jahydin

Shades of Eternity said:


> I'm glad they are doing it, but <looks at Rifts main book 1991>, they might be a bit slow on the draw.



They used R.C.C, Racial Character Class right?


----------



## Jahydin

Vaalingrade said:


> No.
> 
> Let me put it this way: when you see a new mole on yourself in the mirror, it's not the mirror image that needs to see a doctor.



Yeah, I could have used a better analogy... It was late, okay.


----------



## Galandris

Jahydin said:


> Nope.
> Location wise, Californian.




So, you're a Mexican deprived of his heritage by the 1846-1850 war.


----------



## Jiggawatts

I wish Gygax had done this 50 years ago, would have saved us all from a number of issues, very possibly preventing the orc/drow business of the past few years from even occurring.


----------



## Scribe

Jiggawatts said:


> I wish Gygax had done this 50 years ago, would have saved us all from a number of issues, very possibly preventing the orc/drow business of the past few years from even occurring.




How? The 'issues' are the result of people conflating things which are already distinct. Changing race to species would not help, as what is being compared leading to any perceived issues, are functionally neither of these things in the first place.


----------



## Shades of Eternity

Jahydin said:


> They used R.C.C, Racial Character Class right?



Ha, I forgot about that.

However they refer to species that can take a O.C.C. 

So 50/50?


----------



## Yaarel

Scribe said:


> How? The 'issues' are the result of people conflating things which are already distinct. Changing race to species would not help, as what is being compared leading to any perceived issues, are functionally neither of these things in the first place.



Switching from a concept of race to a concept of species, while removing cultural features, can help.

Then a species can serve as a silo for instinctive inborn capabilities − and can be a member of any culture.



Of course, to use the term species, but then say the god created this species to exhibit certain cultural traits, is the problem of racism all over again.


----------



## Alzrius

Yaarel said:


> Of course, to use the term species, but then say the god created this species to exhibit certain cultural traits, is the problem of racism all over again.



I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly; are you suggesting that there's no room for a god creating a race/species with hard-coded "cultural" traits in fantasy fiction/gaming (i.e. the concept of a god making a people in their own image) without it being "the problem of racism"?


----------



## Scribe

Alzrius said:


> I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly; are you suggesting that there's no room for a god creating a race/species with hard-coded "cultural" traits in fantasy fiction/gaming (i.e. the concept of a god making a people in their own image) without it being "the problem of racism"?



That is an argument that has been put forward many times before, yes.


----------



## Yaarel

Alzrius said:


> I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly; are you suggesting that there's no room for a god creating a race/species with hard-coded "cultural" traits in fantasy fiction/gaming (i.e. the concept of a god making a people in their own image) without it being "the problem of racism"?



To say God created the descendants of Kham to be slaves, is racist.

To say Moradin created the descendants of Dwarf to speak Dwarfish and be miners, is the same ethical problem of reallife racism.


----------



## Galandris

And what is it to say that humans were created to grow and multiply, with a strong inborn drive to reproduce, leading them to have in their cultures a strong emphasis on regulation/celebration of this drive (often called marriage)? Does the answer change if the breeding drive is implanted into the species Homo sapiens or into the Race of Men?


----------



## Yaarel

Galandris said:


> And what is it to say that humans were created to grow and multiply, with a strong inborn drive to reproduce, leading them to have in their cultures a strong emphasis on regulation/celebration of this drive (often called marriage)?



Birds and fish also have the blessing to be fruitful and multiply, to become a numerous species.

The species of humanity is numerous, especially in modern times.

With regard to humans, there is a "commandment" and learning, rather than an instinct. To be fruitful and multiply, includes teaching and adopting, and helping the next generation survive and be well. It doesnt necessarily mean having children oneself.

Moreover, human sexuality evolves to foster social bonds, much more than mere reproduction. The cooperation helps ensure survival.

Humans evolve to live long lives well beyond the age of sexual reproduction, because these infertile elders are sages whose teaching the next generation ensures the survival of the species.

The "commandment" to multiply is more about assisting the survival of humanity. It isnt about how to get laid.


----------



## Xamnam

I personally want absolutely zero deity level influence/mandate/control over the entirety of a player schmorp, unless it is a schmorp that specifically hails from some sort of celestial or infernal plane. I hate that a degree of that was added to Dwarves in the playtest.


----------



## Yaarel

Maybe the Creature Type of Humanoid specifically means surviving by free will, learning, and inventing cultures, in the same way humans do.


----------



## Yaarel

Consider Nordic traditions.

All of the nature beings are members of the same Nordic cultures that humans are members of. They speak the same Nordic languages that humans do.

Icelandic nature beings including humans are Icelandic. Norwegian nature beings including humans are Norwegian. Finish nature beings including humans are Finish. And so on.

The culture is separate from the modality of the nature being.


----------



## Galandris

Yaarel said:


> Birds and fish also have the blessing to be fruitful and multiply, to become a numerous species.




Indeed, this isn't something specific to Humans, but they are the only sentient/free-willed one.



Yaarel said:


> The species of humanity is numerous, especially in modern times.
> 
> With regard to humans, there is a "commandment" and learning, rather than an instinct. To be fruitful and multiply, includes teaching and adopting, and helping the next generation survive and be well. It doesnt necessarily mean having children oneself.




I don't agree with your analysis (on this point, I agree that the goal of having a surviving species and numerous one (because being numerous is a good way not to be wiped out at the first fluke) is served by several things you mentionned, as well as having an interest in reproduction). There is an instinct to try to get your genes out. And in order to make it happen, it is pleasurable to have sex. Given his goal of having a surviving (and numerous) population, the creator god of humans made it so humans are actually enjoying trying to reproduce. When they can't get laid, they often emulate reproductive behaviour. Despite being sentient. They consciously choose, more often than not, to seek this pleasurable activity.

If I were Moradin, I'd copy the evolutionary god and, since I wouldn't be focusing to making a lot of dwarves (in the classical representation of them, they don't seem to have many more children than humans despite their century-long existence, and I don't have an example of the son of a dwarf being born at the same time as the great-great-great-grandson of one. Multiplication wasn't a strong design goal apparently). I would make them rely on few food, would make them feel ever so slightly ill-at-ease when it's too hot, so they seek underground habitat (to maximize their comfort) and I'll make them have orgasm while forging swords instead of making babies. The longer and the more intense as the quality of the sword increase. Even sentient and free-willed, you'd be seeing a lot of forging dwarves. Teenagers dwarves would exchange prints of virile dwarves swinging their tool (to forge swords, keep focused) and they'd massively undertake forging activity. Old dwarves would lament their younger days, when they could forge three or four swords in a single evening... Some would because it has a social utility (providing goods for the city to trade or weapons to use in war), some because "it's what everyone does", and most would do it because they just enjoy doing it. Non-forging dwarves would exist, of course, much like asexual humans do exist, but they'd be the exception. There would be many dwarven culture, much like ours, united by a few commonalities (tend to eat soberly, tend to live in underground cities, tend to engage in forging activies a lot). Much like IRL humans are diverse, united by a few commonalities (tend to be overweight as soon as food abound, tend to live in overground cities, tend to engage in sexual activities a lot). There is no reason to consider our pecularities as "baseline".


----------



## Umbran

Yaarel said:


> With regard to humans, there is a "commandment" and learning, rather than an instinct.




*Mod Note:*
Please leave real-world religion out of this discussion.


----------



## Cthulhugh

There is nothing wrong at all with using race in D&D. Why the change? It's suited the game for years. The group pushing these changes can't be criticised on this forum.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Cthulhugh said:


> There is nothing wrong at all with using race in D&D. Why the change? It's suited the game for years. The group pushing these changes can't be criticised on this forum.



I mean just becuse it works for the 90's doesn't mean it shouldnt be changed


----------



## Jahydin

Cthulhugh said:


> There is nothing wrong at all with using race in D&D. Why the change? It's suited the game for years.



Let me see if I can get this right... I'm learning with you...

1. The term is no longer accurate. It comes from Tolkien's works, but has since changed meanings. u/qjones1955 sums it up pretty good here:


> The definition of “race” that you are thinking of is sociological concept of race that we’ve all come to understand now, as a group of individuals WITHIN a species that exhibit similar practices, have similar qualities, etc.
> 
> The word “race” in the context of the 1940’s and 1950’s was different, and generally ran parallel to our current understanding of the word “species” and “sub-species”. This is the primary reason you have the men, elves, hobbits, and dwarves being referred to as “races”, as they are all similar in overall biological function, but have distinct characteristics and behaviors that would qualify them, in modern terms, as species, not races. However, the comparison of, for example, the men of Gondor, Rohan, Harrad, and Rhun would be considered different races while all being the same species in a modern context.




2. "Race" is a sensitive word for some, so WotC is willing to sacrifice legacy terminology if it means less people are offended. 
A few fans in this Gizmoda article explains it well: 


> “But the fact is,” said cosplayer and TTRPG fan Isa, “_D&D_ still uses the word ‘race.’ While it might not have the exact meaning in the context of the world of _Dungeons & Dragons_ as it does in our own... [we] are the ones who read this product and play this game. So, obviously people bring their own real-world baggage and connotations and understandings to that word.”
> 
> Kimchi said he was disappointed to see the word ‘race’ used, especially since it’s something that a lot of people have complained about and sought to remedy. “It seemed like the most basic change they could have done so that everyone could move on, but they didn’t go that far,” he said, describing the shift from ‘race’ to ‘species’ as “low-hanging fruit.”




For what its worth, I think they were just going to change it quietly, but since they just had a few major PR disasters involving insensitive racial stereotypes (involving both D&D and Magic), they announced it a bit heavy handedly (IMO) as a way to show their commitment to doing better going forward.

Bonus commentary: Although those bothered by the word see this as a step in the right direction, some are still upset that not enough steps are being taken towards solving the "bioessentialism problem" they see in the game.

From the same article:


> And even if WotC did change from the word race to the word species, Isa said, that would still be a problem, “because there would still be a lot of racial coding.”
> 
> Racial coding is when language used to describe something that is seemingly race-neutral (in this case, literal fantasy) imitates stereotypes associated with racism without a direct one-to-one association. Racial coding allows for subtle racism because it allows people to be racist in ‘safe’ ways that can be dismissed by pointing at the race-neutral stand-in. There are many ways in which _Dungeons & Dragons_ unintentionally encourages racism through racial coding.


----------



## Galandris

Jahydin said:


> For what its worth, I think they were just going to change it quietly, but since they just had a few major PR disasters involving insensitive racial stereotypes (involving both D&D and Magic), they announced it a bit heavy handedly (IMO) as a way to show their commitment to doing better going forward.




Yes, and that's why I expect them to make a big change, and consider them as species and not as races-under-the-species name. The latter wouldn't warrant a big announcement resonating on Internet board (and would be enough to remove the uneasiness of people bothered by the word race), but the former would. So, while I welcome the new concept of playable shlorps being now _different species_ I want them to behave like different species. Much like if they changed fireball to waterball, I'd expect waterball not to ignite flamable materials (though I'd have lived without an announcement about that).

I hear that many people think they'll just change the word and not consider the implication, but I give them the benefit of the doubt before saying they did a bad job about it. The next non-edition is around the corner, so they have the exact right time to correct the game to take that into account.



Jahydin said:


> Bonus commentary: Although those bothered by the word see this as a step in the right direction, some are still upset that not enough steps are being taken towards solving the "bioessentialism problem" they see in the game.




If they just change the name, nothing will have changed on the bioessentialism front, irrespective of the side one is (pro- saying that a fantasy species can be blessed by their creator god with innate knowledge of dwarvish, anti- saying that you can't "tend" to do something if you've free will).

Also, I don't think the argument quoted, which I understand isn't necessarily yours, is right:



> There are many ways in which _Dungeons & Dragons_ unintentionally encourages racism through racial coding.




To be unintentional, they'd need to do it without knowing it. With the care they display to avoid racism, it is very unlikely they didn't know about this argument. If it continues, it is voluntary, not unintentional. They might not agree with the quoted person's position, but I don't think they can, having in Internet connection and probably reading D&D reddit or boards, be ignorant of this argument at this point.


----------



## Remathilis

Cthulhugh said:


> There is nothing wrong at all with using race in D&D. Why the change? It's suited the game for years. The group pushing these changes can't be criticised on this forum.




There is nothing wrong at all with Thac0 in D&D. Why the change? It's suited the game for years. 

There is nothing wrong at all with non-human level limits in D&D. Why the change? It's suited the game for years. 

There is nothing wrong at all with "elf" as a character class in D&D. Why the change? It's suited the game for years. 

Shall I go on?


----------



## Andvari

If they decide on kind, which kind do you think is the kindest kind of kind in D&D?


----------



## Mercurius

Yaarel said:


> To say Moradin created the descendants of Dwarf to speak Dwarfish and be miners, is the same ethical problem of reallife racism.



So much for fantasy fiction, then.

I take it you're saying that fantasy authors (and game designers) can't or shouldn't present ideas that don't pass the smell test of real world academic theory?

Let's say a fantasy author wants to write a story in a world in which an evil, demiurgic deity created people as a slave species. Are you saying that they shouldn't even posit such a world, because it is inherently a racist idea? 

Or let's say a fantasy author creates a world in which different races are created in the image of their creator deity, and thus have different inborn traits reflecting the nature of their deity...that is a no-no?

Or to put it another way, what _can _we create and imagine? Must it all reflect real-world ideology, and _whose _real-world ideology?

Isn't a major aspect of fantasy to imagine different worlds and scenarios that are _different _from our own?


----------



## Incenjucar

D&D is not a novel series penned by a single author who can be responsible for everything written in it.


----------



## Cadence

As a reminder, the mods pointed out either in this thread or the poll one, this probably isn't the thread to rehash everything that has gone before in numerous other closed threads.


----------



## Mercurius

Incenjucar said:


> D&D is not a novel series penned by a single author who can be responsible for everything written in it.



But is it still not a game for imagining things that aren't the same as in the real world?

And what's the point of having different settings, if not to explore different themes?


----------



## Cadence

Mercurius said:


> But is it still not a game for imagining things that aren't the same as in the real world?
> 
> And what's the point of having different settings, if not to explore different themes?




Are you wanting them to be cursed in your one game world?  Or are you wanting them to be cursed in the default D&D?


----------



## Mercurius

Cadence said:


> Are you wanting them to be cursed in your one game world?  Or are you wanting them to be cursed in the default D&D?



A lot of these concerns could be ameliorated by more clearly differentiating between "default D&D" and specific worlds, and exploring the range of diversity of those worlds. Meaning, rather than publishing the next setting as just a change in venue, but with the same old default D&D assumptions, really double-down on the "diversity of worlds" -- make each world distinct, beyond just window-dressing.

Now with the more recent focus on the multiverse, I'm not sure I see this happening.

But I'm also highlighting that a lot of issues come from equating fantasy stuff with real world stuff. This common fallacy seems based on a misunderstanding of the nature of fantasy fiction (regardless of medium) and creates unnecessary problems (i.e. D&D must reflect real world ideology).


----------



## Cadence

Mercurius said:


> But I'm also highlighting that a lot of issues come from equating fantasy stuff with real world stuff.




Like describing the fantasy stuff using real world descriptors that were actually used to denigrate and dehumanize the ancestors of current players?  (a la Gygax and nits).

----

It feels to me like there clearly has to be some vague lines somewhere delineating a realm of what is ok - or the slippery slope one way leads to grossly offensive stuff and the slippery slope the other way leads to not being able to tell stories that are relatable.  I'm not sure where those vague lines are and it feels like they don't need to be fully nailed down.  It also feels to me like riding the slippery slope either way isn't helpful (either in arguments or in publishing games of wide appeal as a publicly traded company).


----------



## codo

Mercurius said:


> But is it still not a game for imagining things that aren't the same as in the real world?
> 
> And what's the point of having different settings, if not to explore different themes?



Exploring the theme of "What if the the world was full of racists?", isn't exactly a strange, magical, fantasy realm, it's the real world.  It's a world where lots of people spend the vast majority of their time struggling with the ramifications of it.  

D&D is a family friendly game.  People should be able to play without having the the harsh realities of real life racism thrown in their face.  If you have a group a respectful, mature, adults who want to deal with that sort of issues in you game, as long as everyone is comfortable with it, knock your self out.  The actual d&d books should never touch them.


----------



## Cadence

codo said:


> Exploring the theme of "What if the the world was full of racists?", isn't exactly a strange, magical, fantasy realm, it's the real world.  It's a world where lots of people spend the vast majority of their time struggling with the ramifications of it.
> 
> D&D is a family friendly game.  People should be able to play without having the the harsh realities of real life racism thrown in their face.  If you have a group a respectful, mature, adults who want to deal with that sort of issues in you game, as long as everyone is comfortable with it, knock your self out.  The actual d&d books should never touch them.




Yes.  But it feels like your argument might need some refinement?  It's a family friendly game where a huge part of the rules and play are about weapons, armor, and killing things .  And a lot of folks in the world currently live in places of horrific violence and killing  (whether by war, or crime, or the state).  Is there a way to phrase your concern without getting rid of that too?  Or do you want that gone too?


----------



## codo

Cadence said:


> Yes.  But it feels like your argument might need some refinement?  It's a family friendly game where a huge part of the rules and play are about weapons, armor, and killing things .  And a lot of folks in the world currently live in places of horrific violence and killing  (whether by war, or crime, or the state).  Is there a way to phrase your concern without getting rid of that too?  Or do you want that gone too?



Discussing racism in the game is an important issue that needs to be discussed, and I am not going to derail this thread with what-aboutism.  If you really want to talk about violence in D&D start a new thread.  I will say though that racism is not the same as violence.  There are plenty of times the violence is justified or even good.  Self defense or defending the lives of innocent people.  Racism is never justified or a good thing.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Cadence said:


> Are you wanting them to be cursed in your one game world?  Or are you wanting them to be cursed in the default D&D?



The thing is there needs to be an expected rough baseline, or 'default setting' as it were. With notes that the DM can make any changes they want when adapting things to their own setting. The reason being that there are infinite varieties of orcs in across every individuals settings.

Trying to make the core books truly setting agnostic means that you end up with this: Orcs are roughly human sized and human weight though they can be larger or small. And they have similar lifespans to humans but could be longer or shorter. Their skin colour can be anything including human skin colours. Mentally they are like humans, but may also differ from humans.

And at that point you're not describing orcs. You're describing a variant build-a-species system.


----------



## Micah Sweet

codo said:


> Exploring the theme of "What if the the world was full of racists?", isn't exactly a strange, magical, fantasy realm, it's the real world.  It's a world where lots of people spend the vast majority of their time struggling with the ramifications of it.
> 
> D&D is a family friendly game.  People should be able to play without having the the harsh realities of real life racism thrown in their face.  If you have a group a respectful, mature, adults who want to deal with that sort of issues in you game, as long as everyone is comfortable with it, knock your self out.  The actual d&d books should never touch them.



This seems like classic Disneyfication to me.  Is that what we're advocating?


----------



## Micah Sweet

codo said:


> Discussing racism in the game is an important issue that needs to be discussed, and I am not going to derail this thread with what-aboutism.  If you really want to talk about violence in D&D start a new thread.  I will say though that racism is not the same as violence.  There are plenty of times the violence is justified or even good.  Self defense or defending the lives of innocent people.  Racism is never justified or a good thing.



So we can only have our fantasy villains and societies perpetrate acts of evil if those same acts, channeled in another way, could be used for good?


----------



## Cadence

codo said:


> Discussing racism in the game is an important issue that needs to be discussed, and I am not going to derail this thread with what-aboutism.  If you really want to talk about violence in D&D start a new thread.  I will say though that racism is not the same as violence.  There are plenty of times the violence is justified or even good.  Self defense or defending the lives of innocent people.  Racism is never justified or a good thing.




I agreed with you about the racism.  My point was that (as seen in countless of these threads that have been locked over the years) that a poorly phrased argument usually creates details.  

Your further explanation here makes a great addenda to it and cuts a bunch of the objections off at the knees.


----------



## Yaarel

Mercurius said:


> So much for fantasy fiction, then.
> 
> I take it you're saying that fantasy authors (and game designers) can't or shouldn't present ideas that don't pass the smell test of real world academic theory?
> 
> Let's say a fantasy author wants to write a story in a world in which an evil, demiurgic deity created people as a slave species. Are you saying that they shouldn't even posit such a world, because it is inherently a racist idea?
> 
> Or let's say a fantasy author creates a world in which different races are created in the image of their creator deity, and thus have different inborn traits reflecting the nature of their deity...that is a no-no?
> 
> Or to put it another way, what _can _we create and imagine? Must it all reflect real-world ideology, and _whose _real-world ideology?
> 
> Isn't a major aspect of fantasy to imagine different worlds and scenarios that are _different _from our own?



In the past, ethnicities lived farther away from each other. It was easier to think in racist ways. Today, all of the "races" grow up together in the same school classes, play in the same games, work together in the same jobs, and are each others neighbors, friends, and family members.

Today it is obvious that racist generalizations are wrong and toxic.


----------



## Cadence

Frozen_Heart said:


> The thing is there needs to be an expected rough baseline, or 'default setting' as it were. With notes that the DM can make any changes they want when adapting things to their own setting. The reason being that there are infinite varieties of orcs in across every individuals settings.
> 
> Trying to make the core books truly setting agnostic means that you end up with this: Orcs are roughly human sized and human weight though they can be larger or small. And they have similar lifespans to humans but could be longer or shorter. Their skin colour can be anything including human skin colours. Mentally they are like humans, but may also differ from humans.
> 
> And at that point you're not describing orcs. You're describing a variant build-a-species system.




Have many folks anywhere said they don't want to have any other traits at all?

It seems strange  to me to liken saying a species/race are "always evil" to saying a species/race tusks and dark vision and being much larger on average andthus  having greater strength (in terms of carrying capacity).


----------



## Remathilis

Cadence said:


> Yes. But it feels like your argument might need some refinement? It's a family friendly game where a huge part of the rules and play are about weapons, armor, and killing things . And a lot of folks in the world currently live in places of horrific violence and killing (whether by war, or crime, or the state). Is there a way to phrase your concern without getting rid of that too? Or do you want that gone too?



D&D combat is already sanitized. HP and AC are abstract methods of resolving combat. There are no rules for dismemberment, lingering wounds, infection, or death spirals. Opponents drop at 0 l
HP and are "dead" unless the DM rules otherwise. D&D combat is more like Breath of the Wild than God of War. It's Avenger's Endgame, not Saving Private Ryan. A DM might opt to add such things to the game, but he's intentionally adding more intensity than the base game assumes. 

Which is exactly what people are advocating for when it comes to these inclusionary elements. Xenophobia, sexual content, slavery, and bigotry should be absent or only touched in the broadest terms unless the individual DM wants to add that in themselves.


----------



## codo

Micah Sweet said:


> This seems like classic Disneyfication to me.  Is that what we're advocating?



You can call it what every demeaning term you want.  I want a game I can give to my 13 year old nephew to play with his friends without havening to worry the books are full of racist crap.  The game should be the equivalent of a P-13 movie. I thinks that is what the designers want as well.

If in you home games if your party wants to be hardcore edgelords who deal with super serious, mature topics like racism, rape, and genocide, knock your self out.  It's no skin off my nose, but don't expect the game to support it, or especially don't expect it to be the default.


----------



## codo

Double Post


----------



## Micah Sweet

Cadence said:


> Have many folks anywhere said they don't want to have any other traits at all?
> 
> It seems strange  to me to liken saying a species/race are "always evil" to saying a species/race tusks and dark vision and being much larger on average andthus  having greater strength (in terms of carrying capacity).



They're the same size mechanically, anyone can get darkvision incredibly easily, and tusks and other aesthetic considerations are meaningless.  Are you sure you want to stand by the only real difference between orc and human being Powerful Build?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> In the past, ethnicities lived farther away from each other. It was easier to think in racist ways. Today, all of the "races" grow up together in the same school classes, play in the same games, work together in the same jobs, and are each others neighbors, friends, and family members.
> 
> Today it is obvious that racist generalizations are wrong and toxic.



Is that your answer to their question then?  We need to severely curtail what we allow in fantasy fiction?


----------



## Cadence

Micah Sweet said:


> They're the same size mechanically, anyone can get darkvision incredibly easily, and tusks and other aesthetic considerations are meaningless.  Are you sure you want to stand by the only real difference between orc and human being Powerful Build?




As descriptors of almost all populations of Orcs everywhere, or in a particular setting?  

(Are minotaurs one of the ones that is most variable across settings?)

What other traits should almost all Orcs have?  

Are all Dwarves miners or love mining, or does the somewhat shorter but broader typical size, darkvision, and tremor sense allow those that are interested to more easily excel at mining?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Fictional settings can contain bigotry. The issue is with _depicting bigotry as a good thing_ like the alignment often did.


----------



## Yaarel

Personally, I want the Players Handbook to have Humans only.

The Nonhuman options can be in the Setting Guides. The Forgotten Realms Guide will have Elf, Dragonborn, Tiefling, Dwarf, Halfling, Genasi, Goliath, Gnome, etcetera, including the cultures, like High culture, Wood culture, and Uda culture, Loren culture, and Aeven culture.

The Eberron Guide will have its Nonhuman options, and so on.

The Players Handbook can focus on game rules and player Classes, and have all the information necessary to play a complete game.

The Dungeon Masters Guide will focus on worldbuilding and variant rules.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Crimson Longinus said:


> Fictional settings can contain bigotry. The issue is with _depicting bigotry as a good thing_ like the alignment often did.



From what I'm hearing here, you are unfortunately wrong.  Fictional settings apparently _ cannot_ contain bigotry, even as an evil to be fought.


----------



## Cadence

Micah Sweet said:


> They're the same size mechanically, anyone can get darkvision incredibly easily, and tusks and other aesthetic considerations are meaningless.  Are you sure you want to stand by the only real difference between orc and human being Powerful Build?




Didn't have the book handy for my last reply, so update.

Comparing the 1e MM entry to the MPMotM PC entry seems to make a nice distinction to me.   Getting rid of needing to be descended from Gruumsh on all worlds would make it even better to me.


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> Is that your answer to their question then?  We need to severely curtail what we allow in fantasy fiction?



The fantasy fiction from earlier centuries is what it is.

The fantasy fiction we write today will be for us, not for dead people.

The D&D game that isnt even written yet, will be for us. Today.

Racism is no longer "interesting".


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> The fantasy fiction from earlier centuries is what it is.
> 
> The fantasy fiction we write today will be for us, not for dead people.
> 
> The D&D game that isnt even written yet, will be for us. Today.
> 
> Racism is no longer "interesting".



Is that a yes?  Because it reads like a yes to me, even if you don't want to say it straight out.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Cadence said:


> Didn't have the book handy for my last reply, so update.
> 
> Comparing the 1e MM entry to the MPMotM PC entry seems to make a nice distinction to me.   Getting rid of needing to be descended from Gruumsh on all worlds would make it even better to me.



The MMotM PC entry is one of the blandest things I've ever read in a D&D book.  If that's the best they can do, I'm happy I've largely decided to leave WotC behind.


----------



## Cadence

Micah Sweet said:


> The MMotM PC entry is one of the blandest things I've ever read in a D&D book.  If that's the best they can do, I'm happy I've largely decided to leave WotC behind.




I'm guessing they could give paragraph entries to several distinct versions of them.

How much of the page-plus in the MM description actually impacts play more than the (iirc) shorter B/X or 1e descriptions?


----------



## Jahydin

codo said:


> You can call it what every demeaning term you want.  I want a game I can give to my 13 year old nephew to play with his friends without havening to worry the books are full of racist crap.



You wouldn't let your kids play 5E as as it was released originally cause of how racist it is?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Cadence said:


> I'm guessing they could give paragraph entries to several distinct versions of them.
> 
> How much of the page-plus in the MM description actually impacts play more than the (iirc) shorter B/X or 1e descriptions?



I like lore.  That entry intentionally eschews it to avoid potentially offending anyone.  I feel there's a way to thread the needle on this one.


----------



## Cadence

Micah Sweet said:


> From what I'm hearing here, you are unfortunately wrong.  Fictional settings apparently _ cannot_ contain bigotry, even as an evil to be fought.




It feels to me like fighting bad folks will always be in D&D's wheel house.  Sometimes raiders, sometimes oppressors based on religion or race or greed, sometimes monstrous killers, and sometimes maybe kidnappers and enslavers.   Which gets the most spotlight will probably be related to marketing.


----------



## codo

Micah Sweet said:


> From what I'm hearing here, you are unfortunately wrong.  Fictional settings apparently _ cannot_ contain bigotry, even as an evil to be fought.



A wandering forum discussion is a horrible place to discuss complicated topics, writing can be sloppy and confusing. I think you may be reading to much into what people are saying here.  I know that's not what I was trying to say, and I don't think that is what anyone else has been saying.  If you though I meant that, I am sorry I didn't explain myself better.

There is a big difference between having your Villain be a evil racist who wants to murder all elves and the world itself being racist.  It can be cathartic and a lot of fun to pretend to beat up bigots and defeat their evil plans.  Your PC having to constantly deal with hatred and distrust because of their "race" and having racial slurs thrown at them, not so fun, and should not be in the game.


----------



## Cadence

Micah Sweet said:


> I like lore.  That entry intentionally eschews it to avoid potentially offending anyone.  I feel there's a way to thread the needle on this one.




So, giving space to a few different flavors in the MM and then giving more in a particular setting book doesn't help?

There are few things I dislike more organizationally  than the core books being too deep into one particular setting.


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> Is that a yes?  Because it reads like a yes to me, even if you don't want to say it straight out.



You seem to imply that fantasy fiction is the same thing as racist fiction. As if, without racism, there would be no fantasy to write about.

LOL!

Fantasy fiction is about thought experiments, to deal with reallife challenges.

Fantasy writers have been engaging very many different societal challenges.

Todays fantasy writers will find our challenges interesting.

Some of the challenges from previous centuries are no longer challenging and no longer interesting.

Racism is uninteresting.


----------



## Jahydin

All this talk makes me very curious what One D&D's Appendix N would look like...


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> Racism is uninteresting.




It feels like dealing with racism  and sexism still show up in lots of popular movies, TV shows, and books and so might still be interesting to quite a few people?  Or was Black Panther, for example,  just touching on colonialism without racism being a thing?  (As was noted above by @codo  , how they're interestingly used seems to have changed.)


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> I like lore.  That entry intentionally eschews it to avoid potentially offending anyone.  I feel there's a way to thread the needle on this one.



Lore belongs in a Setting Guide.


----------



## Yaarel

Cadence said:


> It feels like dealing with racism  and sexism still show up in lots of popular movies, TV shows, and books and so might still be interesting to quite a few people?  Or was Black Panther, for example,  just touching on colonialism without racism being a thing?  (As was noted above by @codo  , how they're interestingly used seems to have changed.)



Challenges with sexism remain interesting, including phobias about gay and trans.

Challenges about how to value ones ethnic identity in a homogenizing culture is also interesting. Black Panther seems part of that. For example, it explores what African cultures (or an American Pan-African identity) might look like while integrating accelerating technology.


----------



## Mecheon

Micah Sweet said:


> They're the same size mechanically, anyone can get darkvision incredibly easily, and tusks and other aesthetic considerations are meaningless. Are you sure you want to stand by the only real difference between orc and human being Powerful Build?



Y'know, if we're breaking stuff down like this, I'd argue you're arguing for the removal of most player. Because, well, going off this, all of the long life stuff of elves and dwarves isn't really important as you can get that semi-easily. Aesthetic is the reason why folks care about a bunch about races as well and completely it just seems... Not understanding a lot of the draw? I know folks strip away the Dragonborn aesthetic a lot of times for just 'human with horns and a tail' or whatever, but its still an important part of why there's a draw for stuff

Folks like orcs because we're in a universe where Warhammer and Warcraft have done more for the orc image than D&D ever has, and people want to be green peeps, go 'zug zug', and be the popular orc image. Being a human isn't going to sell you on that.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Jahydin said:


> You wouldn't let your kids play 5E as as it was released originally cause of how racist it is?



Wouldn't let thme use Volo's Guide, that's for dang sure.


----------



## codo

Jahydin said:


> You wouldn't let your kids play 5E as as it was released originally cause of how racist it is?



I think overall 5E did a pretty good job, and I believe the designers actually care about not being racist and are trying, but nobody is perfect.  There have been a few issues, but they are attempting to correct them when pointed out.  The new policy on cultural consultants in a really good move. 

I don't have a kid, I mentioned my nephew, but yes I would let them play 5E, but there are a few things I would need to discuss with them first.  Just like I know my sister needs to screen most of the movies or books from our childhood before letting my nephews watch them, and when she does let them watch one of the movies, she almost inevitable needs to discuss certain inappropriate parts with them before watching.

Turns out, just because you enjoyed something when you were a kid, it doesn't mean it isn't full of some shockingly racist, misogynistic , and homophobic content.


----------



## Yaarel

Cadence said:


> It feels like dealing with racism  and sexism still show up in lots of popular movies, TV shows, and books and so might still be interesting to quite a few people?  Or was Black Panther, for example,  just touching on colonialism without racism being a thing?



I want to emphasize, Black Panther avoids racism.

There is no hint that some human groups are superior because of their genetics, or different.

(Heh, any human group might birthe mutants.)

It is about preserving cultural identity. The citizens of Wakanda actually hide from the world in order to preserve their cultural identity. The decision to champion Wakandan identity out in the open, was a difficult one.

Critique of colonialism does show up in Black Panther, noting the injustice when cultures prey on other cultures.

But racism is uninteresting. Even in Black Panther.


----------



## codo

Yaarel said:


> I want to emphasize, Black Panther avoids racism.
> 
> There is no hint that some human groups are superior because of their genetics, or different.
> 
> (Heh, any human group might birthe mutants.)
> 
> It is about preserving cultural identity. The citizens of Wakanda actually hide from the world in order to preserve their cultural identity. The decision to champion Wakandan identity out in the open, was a difficult one.
> 
> Critique of colonialism does show up in Black Panther, noting the injustice when cultures prey on other cultures.
> 
> But racism is uninteresting. Even in Black Panther.



I haven't had a change yet to see the new Black Panther yet, but the lack of racism in the first movie was a breath of fresh air.  It was nice just to have a fantasy story about black people without having to wallow around examining racism.  It really gets exhausting sometimes.


----------



## Remathilis

Jahydin said:


> You wouldn't let your kids play 5E as as it was released originally cause of how racist it is?



This feels like the "you couldn't make Blazing Saddles in 202X" argument. I can look at Blazing Saddles as a movie and still find it hilarious and yet acknowledge there are parts of it that go over the line today (the use of the N word and the homophobic dance number). You can acknowledge something is good and still try to do better.


----------



## Yaarel

codo said:


> I haven't had a change yet to see the new Black Panther yet, but the lack of racism in the first movie was a breath of fresh air.  It was nice just to have a fantasy story about black people without having to wallow around examining racism.  It really gets exhausting sometimes.



Yeah. Positivity is more empowering than negativity.

It is important to confront negative challenges.

But it is more effective when one is coming from a good place to face it.


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> I want to emphasize, Black Panther avoids racism.
> 
> There is no hint that some human groups are superior because of their genetics, or different.
> 
> (Heh, any human group might birthe mutants.)
> 
> It is about preserving cultural identity. The citizens of Wakanda actually hide from the world in order to preserve their cultural identity. The decision to champion Wakandan identity out in the open, was a difficult one.
> 
> Critique of colonialism does show up in Black Panther, noting the injustice when cultures prey on other cultures.
> 
> But racism is uninteresting. Even in Black Panther.






codo said:


> I haven't had a change yet to see the new Black Panther yet, but the lack of racism in the first movie was a breath of fresh air.  It was nice just to have a fantasy story about black people without having to wallow around examining racism.  It really gets exhausting sometimes.




Didn't one of the flashback scenes that was pretty central to it have the 1992 riots in LA playing live (in movie time) on TV in the background to help explain what N'Jobu was experiencing?   And it feels odd to me to separate colonialism from racism (especially in a game forum where the two usually seem to come up in tandem - say any time B2 is mentioned).

But I agree that the movie certainly didn't do anything I would call wallowing!


----------



## Yaarel

Cadence said:


> Didn't one of the flashback scenes that was pretty central to it have the 1992 riots in LA playing live (in movie time) on TV in the background to help explain what N'Jobu was experiencing?   And it feels odd to me to separate colonialism from racism (especially in a game forum where the two usually seem to come up in tandem - say any time B2 is mentioned).
> 
> But I agree that the movie certainly didn't do anything I would call wallowing!



I need to see the movie again to comment carefully how it characterizes the riots in LA.

But it is probably fair to say, a majority of American citizens are impatient with any racist cops.


----------



## Tonguez

Yaarel said:


> I need to see the movie again to comment carefully how it characterizes the riots in LA.
> 
> But it is probably fair to say, a majority of American citizens are impatient with any racist cops.



The scene featured the Oakland riots and poster images of Huey Newton (Black Panther Party) and Public Enemy. N’Jobu is described as radicalised to support ‘Black Empowerment’ against the oppressor.

the sentiment itself isnt racist, but as stated earlier seperating colonialism, oppression and racism isnt easy and portraying one without the others a delicate balancing act


----------



## Yaarel

Tonguez said:


> The scene featured the Oakland riots and poster images of Huey Newton (Black Panther Party) and Public Enemy. N’Jobu is described as radicalised to support ‘Black Empowerment’ against the oppressor.
> 
> the sentiment itself isnt racist, but as stated earlier seperating colonialism, oppression and racism isnt easy and portraying one without the others a delicate balancing act



Maybe racism is something like forgetting that ones own child or grandchild can be a member of that other culture.


----------



## Mercurius

Cadence said:


> It feels to me like there clearly has to be some vague lines somewhere delineating a realm of what is ok - or the slippery slope one way leads to grossly offensive stuff and the slippery slope the other way leads to not being able to tell stories that are relatable.  I'm not sure where those vague lines are and it feels like they don't need to be fully nailed down.  It also feels to me like riding the slippery slope either way isn't helpful (either in arguments or in publishing games of wide appeal as a publicly traded company).



Yes, agreed, and unfortunately most debates end up in a kind of mutually reified strawman. But the problem is, there's no clear, collective agreement on what constitutes that "slippery region," because there's a wide range of views on "what is ok." WotC has to thread the needle and, hopefully at least, not cater to extremes. Not sure they're up to the task.


codo said:


> Exploring the theme of "What if the the world was full of racists?", isn't exactly a strange, magical, fantasy realm, it's the real world.  It's a world where lots of people spend the vast majority of their time struggling with the ramifications of it.



I'm not sure what you mean by this, as I can't think of an example of a D&D world--or fantasy world in general--that could be characterized as "full of racists." But certainly, a given adventure or even setting could be characterized by enslavement - that would make for an interesting, "fight for our freedom" campaign, ala the OGL Midnight setting, or perhaps even Dark Sun. And furthermore, fantasy fiction--and D&D worlds--exists in great diversity. There is room for "strange, magical fantasy realms" and also "dark, oppressive, hellish domains." There's low and high fantasy, dark and epic, whimsy and grimdark, etc. I wouldn't want to curtail the number of "strange, new (and old) worlds" for D&D players to explore, just to make the every product palatable to a segment of the gaming populace that wants everything to be a certain way.



codo said:


> D&D is a family friendly game.  People should be able to play without having the the harsh realities of real life racism thrown in their face.  If you have a group a respectful, mature, adults who want to deal with that sort of issues in you game, as long as everyone is comfortable with it, knock your self out.  The actual d&d books should never touch them.



Again, I don't see many D&D products "throwing the harsh realities of real life racism" in anyone's face. There have been specific examples that have been cited over the years, but not only are most of them in the past, but a lot of them are controversial, and only a segment of the gaming population takes issue with them. So while I would agree with you that WotC shouldn't publish stuff that condones Bad Stuff (including racism), it is quite different to depicting worlds in which Bad Stuff happens - and stories which usually involve facing and defeating the Bad Stuff.

Let me ask you: If WotC publishes a Dark Sun setting book, will you take issue if slavery is involved? (assuming that they don't glorify it, which I don't think they ever have). Where is the line for you, as to what is and is not appropriate for a WotC product to depict? Are you OK with simply not buying a book that you don't like the subject matter of, or must every book fit your criteria for what is acceptable (as a "family friendly game")?



Frozen_Heart said:


> The thing is there needs to be an expected rough baseline, or 'default setting' as it were. With notes that the DM can make any changes they want when adapting things to their own setting. The reason being that there are infinite varieties of orcs in across every individuals settings.
> 
> Trying to make the core books truly setting agnostic means that you end up with this: Orcs are roughly human sized and human weight though they can be larger or small. And they have similar lifespans to humans but could be longer or shorter. Their skin colour can be anything including human skin colours. Mentally they are like humans, but may also differ from humans.
> 
> And at that point you're not describing orcs. You're describing a variant build-a-species system.



It could go that route, but they could still offer a slightly more distinct description, and then discuss different variations of orcs from different settings. "In Greyhawk, orcs look like pigs and are evil bastards, while in Wildemount they attend Ren Faires and are known for their creme brulee." Joking aside, while I think the danger exists for any text to be over-analyzed and sifted through for signs of this or that faux pas, there is a happy medium where they still describe a race that is distinct from humans, and then augment it with specific examples of orcs from different worlds - and by doing that, they can offer a range of orcs.


Yaarel said:


> In the past, ethnicities lived farther away from each other. It was easier to think in racist ways. Today, all of the "races" grow up together in the same school classes, play in the same games, work together in the same jobs, and are each others neighbors, friends, and family members.
> 
> Today it is obvious that racist generalizations are wrong and toxic.



The vast majority of people wouldn't disagree with this - as a general statement. Where people mostly disagree on is more in specifics, such as what constitutes 'racists generalizations" and whether or not, or to what degree, fantasy should follow the same rules as reality.


----------



## Scribe

Mecheon said:


> Aesthetic is the reason why folks care about a bunch about races as well..




Yeah, the Human with Hat position.


----------



## Yaarel

Mercurius said:


> Where people mostly disagree on is more in specifics, such as what constitutes 'racists generalizations" and whether or not, or to what degree, fantasy should follow the same rules as reality.



The racist generalizations are anything that is obviously a learned cultural tradition, mischaracterized as if genetically "born that way".


----------



## Mercurius

Yaarel said:


> The racist generalizations are anything that is obviously a learned cultural tradition, mischaracterized as if genetically "born that way".



This relates to the second example I gave - of whether or not fantasy should follow the same rules as reality. I mean, for one, maybe "genetics" doesn't exist in a fantasy world - that's a scientific concept of our world, and really only of the last couple hundred years.

Fantasy is a form of imaginative play, and a venue for playing What If. What if a race was created by the droplets of blood from a god, waging war against against another god? What if another god forged stones into servants to work in his mines, and those servants ended up freeing themselves and rejecting their creator? Etc.

Must we look at such ideas through the same lens that we might, say, look at our own history? Or could we engage them as they're intended as an imaginative exercise meant to create a context for a game of make-believe? And furthermore, one in which such ideas as "genetics" don't play a part?

Or to put it another way, if I create a fantasy world that is a disc floating in the etheric sea, am I advocating for Flat Earthism?


----------



## Yaarel

Mercurius said:


> This relates to the second example I gave - of whether or not fantasy should follow the same rules as reality. I mean, for one, maybe "genetics" doesn't exist in a fantasy world - that's a scientific concept of our world, and really only of the last couple hundred years.



To do intellectual somersaults in order to saturate a setting with racism: this is a worthless fight to fight for.

Also, see Thermian Argument.


----------



## Argyle King

Yaarel said:


> The racist generalizations are anything that is obviously a learned cultural tradition, mischaracterized as if genetically "born that way".





I understand your point of view about being against gods imprinting characteristics on an entire race/species.

Do you feel that also applies to robots?


----------



## Yaarel

Argyle King said:


> I understand your point of view about being against gods imprinting characteristics on an entire race/species.
> 
> Do you feel that also applies to robots?



Robots. That is an interesting question. It invites multiple challenges that are relevant to our century now.

So far, there is no such thing as a conscious computer. So there is no deep ethical dilemma. But future technologies might figure out how to imbue consciousness.

At a time when we should be figuring out how to program AI to behave compassionately, we are more often training AI to autonomously kill humans in warfare.


----------



## codo

Mercurius said:


> Again, I don't see many D&D products "throwing the harsh realities of real life racism" in anyone's face. There have been specific examples that have been cited over the years, but not only are most of them in the past, but a lot of them are controversial, and only a segment of the gaming population takes issue with them.
> 
> Let me ask you: If WotC publishes a Dark Sun setting book, will you take issue if slavery is involved? (assuming that they don't glorify it, which I don't think they ever have). Where is the line for you, as to what is and is not appropriate? Are you OK with simply not buying a book that you take issue with, or must every book fit your criteria for what is acceptable (as a "family friendly game")?



For decades over multiple editions numerous "races" allowed as player characters that were explicitly expected to face hated, mistrust, and bigotry because of their "race" and innate negative traits that automatically applied to all members of a "race" (except PCs).   I don't know how much more explicit it can be. 

As for Dark Sun, I don't know.  I am just some random nerd on the internet I don't have all the answers, but I hope so.  I really enjoy Dark Sun(despite all of it's problems).  I hope they can find a way to remake Dark Sun in a respectful way.  I don't necessarily think slavery is an impossible issues to touch on, but it is certainly difficult and needs to be handled with care.  I would understand if they decide to remove slavery like pathfinder did, but I don't think they absolutely need to.

4E Dark Sun actually did a pretty good job from what I can remember.  I haven't really looked at it since it came out, but i think they de-emphasized the slavery, especially the  creepy Mul slave race stuff, they also removed a lot of the sorcerer kings connections to real world cultures, finally they set the campaign setting in Tyr after the overthrow of the sorcerer king.   Is that enough?  I don't know.  I certainly won't be mad if WotC decides Dark Sun just has to much baggage to reboot.


----------



## Mercurius

Yaarel said:


> To do intellectual somersaults in order to saturate a setting with racism: this is a worthless fight to fight for.



Thankfully that's not what I'm doing. 


Yaarel said:


> Also, see Thermian Argument.



I had to look this up, but not sure what you're driving at.


----------



## Yaarel

Mercurius said:


> Thankfully that's not what I'm doing.
> 
> I had to look this up, but not sure what you're driving at.



I am unable to give a clear example without being highly insulting toward some reallife group.



Your comment suggested it is ok to have a racist stereotype in a certain fantasy setting, because there, there is no genetics.

So the "gods" or whatever made this racist stereotype a fact.

The fantasy explanation is still a story that reinforces reallife racist stereotypes.


----------



## Argyle King

Yaarel said:


> Robots. That is an interesting question. It invites multiple challenges that are relevant to our century now.
> 
> So far, there is no such thing as a conscious computer. So there is no deep ethical dilemma. But future technologies might figure out how to imbue consciousness.
> 
> At a time when we should be figuring out how to program AI to behave compassionately, we are more often training AI to autonomously kill humans in warfare.




Very true

Also, in the context of D&D, there are 'constructs' with varying levels of consciousness.

Modrons are an example, as are Warforged.


----------



## Remathilis

Mercurius said:


> Let me ask you: If WotC publishes a Dark Sun setting book, will you take issue if slavery is involved? (assuming that they don't glorify it, which I don't think they ever have). Where is the line for you, as to what is and is not appropriate for a WotC product to depict? Are you OK with simply not buying a book that you don't like the subject matter of, or must every book fit your criteria for what is acceptable (as a "family friendly game")?




Let me begin with: this is my interpretation of things. I speak for no group larger than one.

Forced servitude existed for centuries prior to what we think of as "slavery" existed. It existed in a lot of different forms and still exists today if you take a look at any modern prison system. While i think we can all agree it's never a good thing, it becomes problematic when two aspects get emphasized:

The economy of a given area is built around it. This was the big issue with Absalom; they gave prices in the book like they were another type of equipment. Further, Absalom isn't an overtly evil city; it's supposed to be a home base for PCs like the City of Greyhawk or Baldur's Gate. 

It focuses on a particular type of person, such as racial or gender. Muls being a slave race or hadozee the descendants of a race bred to be servants brings up all manner of uncomfortable topics, while a group of pirates pressing a captured crew into service has less uncomfortable implications. The pirates are evil, they are doing an evil thing, and most of society frowns on it. That is a far cry from the kind of institutionalized slavery that was common in Dark Sun or among ALL drow or ALL githyanki. 

If it's was up to me, I'd limit slavery in Dark Sun to very specific groups or areas, rather than as a systematic element. Maybe a certain Dragon King uses captured slaves as workers or gladiators, but their entire City State isn't built on an economy of slaves and slave owners, especially if the latter are not considered "evil" but just participating in their society.


----------



## Yaarel

Argyle King said:


> Very true
> 
> Also, in the context of D&D, there are 'constructs' with varying levels of consciousness.
> 
> Modrons are an example, as are Warforged.



I also think Elementals can stand-in for AI and robots, with various degrees of consciousness or sapience.

AI creates a weird disconnect between consciousness and sapience. For example, animals are conscious (and can feel pain) but lack sapience. Oppositely, AI lacks consciousness (no one is there to feel any pain), but can be sapient in the sense of discerning information.

But Elementals can cover all of this. Some Elementals are conscious without sapience. Some Elementals are more like nonconscious constructs. But other Elementals are humanlike beings.


----------



## codo

Remathilis said:


> If it's was up to me, I'd limit slavery in Dark Sun to very specific groups or areas, rather than as a systematic element. Maybe a certain Dragon King uses captured slaves as workers or gladiators, but their entire City State isn't built on an economy of slaves and slave owners, especially if the latter are not considered "evil" but just participating in their society.



When you get down to it, when you have a authoritarian, totalitarian country ruled by an incredibility powerful immortal god-king do you really need slavery?


----------



## Vaalingrade

codo said:


> When you get down to it, when you have a authoritarian, totalitarian country ruled by an incredibility powerful immortal god-king do you really need slavery?



I mean it is the dominant form of economy by population in the D&D world.


----------



## Remathilis

codo said:


> When you get down to it, when you have a authoritarian, totalitarian country ruled by an incredibility powerful immortal god-king do you really need slavery?



Potato potahto. 

My point is you can have forced servitude exist as an evil act without the need to use all the slave tropes of the colonial era.


----------



## codo

Remathilis said:


> Potato potahto.
> 
> My point is you can have forced servitude exist as an evil act without the need to use all the slave tropes of the colonial era.



Sorry I was trying to agree with you.  I need to stop trying to be so clever and snarky when discussing serious issues.  It is to easy for tone to be  misinterpreted when writing. 

You can still tell all the same type of stories and explore the same troupes without the baggage of colonial era slavery.


----------



## Olrox17

Isn’t Dark Sun inspired by ancient civilizations, like the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians and possibly the Romans? I don’t really see the colonial era connection, ancient civilizations had plenty of brutality and injustice on their own, no need for colonial parallels.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> This seems like classic Disneyfication to me.  Is that what we're advocating?



how is making a game not default to raciest ablest and sexist a negative no matter WHAT you call it... remember each game can ADD objectional content in easier then someone can remove it...


----------



## Alzrius

Olrox17 said:


> Isn’t Dark Sun inspired by ancient civilizations, like the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians and possibly the Romans? I don’t really see the colonial era connection, ancient civilizations had plenty of brutality and injustice on their own, no need for colonial parallels.



Each of the seven city-states is inspired by an ancient Earth civilization, at least in terms of aesthetic conventions. Urik is Uruk, for instance, while Balic is Rome and Nibenay is Angkor, etc.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Alzrius said:


> Each of the seven city-states is inspired by an ancient Earth civilization, at least in terms of aesthetic conventions. Urik is Uruk, for instance, while Balic is Rome and Nibenay is Angkor, etc.



And if that's a problem too, (and it seems like it is from what I hear), then Dark Sun is off the table.


----------



## Remathilis

Alzrius said:


> Each of the seven city-states is inspired by an ancient Earth civilization, at least in terms of aesthetic conventions. Urik is Uruk, for instance, while Balic is Rome and Nibenay is Angkor, etc.



Those aren't even subtle...

That said, I'm sure they could remix things so that we don't have another "x with the label ripped off" style of world building. 

Oh, but that would invalidate *THE LORE * (angelic choir). So we can't do that. Guess we gotta let it crumble into obscurity...


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> Those aren't even subtle...
> 
> That said, I'm sure they could remix things so that we don't have another "x with the label ripped off" style of world building.
> 
> Oh, but that would invalidate *THE LORE * (angelic choir). So we can't do that. Guess we gotta let it crumble into obscurity...



Well, you can certainly remix things.  You should also change the names and make it a new setting with similar themes.  I'm looking forward to seeing it.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> Well, you can certainly remix things. You should also change the names and make it a new setting with similar themes. I'm looking forward to seeing it.



2025: Shmark Shmun! A setting legally distinct from prior TSR settings.

I get you'd rather have these settings die virginal and untouched rather than to live "defiled". I'm well aware.


----------



## Alzrius

Remathilis said:


> 2025: Shmark Shmun! A setting legally distinct from prior TSR settings.
> 
> I get you'd rather have these settings die virginal and untouched rather than to live "defiled". I'm well aware.



Given how much play a lot of those settings got among their fanbases, I'm not sure you can call them "virginal and untouched."


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> 2025: Shmark Shmun! A setting legally distinct from prior TSR settings.
> 
> I get you'd rather have these settings die virginal and untouched rather than to live "defiled". I'm well aware.



I would be fine if they added new material without rendering the previous lore invalid.  They used to do that all the time.


----------



## Tonguez

Micah Sweet said:


> And if that's a problem too, (and it seems like it is from what I hear), then Dark Sun is off the table.



the City-States take inspiration from your classic Bronze Age (early Iron) empires and should be no more problematic than Glorantha. How does RQ deal with problematic stuff?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Tonguez said:


> the City-States take inspiration from your classic Bronze Age (early Iron) empires and should be no more problematic than Glorantha. How does RQ deal with problematic stuff?



I don't think Dark Sun is problematic, but I also don't have WotC's headaches trying to avoid offending everyone.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't think Dark Sun is problematic, but I also don't have WotC's headaches trying to avoid offending everyone.



To be fair, I don't find it problematic*, but very lazy design. They took an ancient culture, changed one letter in the name, and called it a fantasy culture. 

* Of course, I'm not familiar enough with either the culture or with Dark Sun to determine if there are any more profound problems.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> To be fair, I don't find it problematic*, but very lazy design. They took an ancient culture, changed one letter in the name, and called it a fantasy culture.
> 
> * Of course, I'm not familiar enough with either the culture or with Dark Sun to determine if there are any more profound problems.



Maybe so, but it is what it is.  New stories can and should be more creative.


----------



## Yaarel

Alzrius said:


> Each of the seven city-states is inspired by an ancient Earth civilization, at least in terms of aesthetic conventions. Urik is Uruk, for instance, while Balic is Rome and Nibenay is Angkor, etc.



There is an extremely welldone homebrew update for Dark Sun for 5e.

It used illustrations from the archeology of these reallife places, as well as incorporating their motifs in its art.

My response was mixed.

On the one hand, connecting these in-setting locations to in-reallife places, made the setting even cooler.

On the other hand, these reallife places are culturally sacred today. For example, modern Egyptians are knowledgeable about and extremely proud of their antiquity from Ancient Egypt. One needs to address Ancient Egyptian themes with modern sensitivities in mind.

I assume the same is true in Iraq: Sumeria and Akkadia are culturally sacred today.

Rome has all of European history whitewashing, lionizing, and glorifying Ancient Rome. But the Ancient Romans themselves often said things that are over-the-top Evil and proud of it. So, for a narrative to have the Roman government being unjust or featuring corrupt Evil organizations, Europeans basically shrug.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Yaarel said:


> On the other hand, these reallife places are culturally sacred today. For example, modern Egyptians are knowledgeable about and extremely proud of their antiquity from Ancient Egypt. One needs to address Ancient Egyptian themes with modern sensitivities in mind.
> 
> I assume the same is true in Iraq: Sumeria and Akkadia are culturally sacred today.
> 
> Rome has all of European history whitewashing, lionizing, and glorifying Ancient Rome. But the Ancient Romans themselves often said things that are over-the-top Evil and proud of it. So, for a narrative to have the Roman government being unjust or featuring corrupt Evil organizations, Europeans basically shrug.



I think it's unfair to bash Roman history and then look so fondly on Ancient Egypt given their slave culture and worry about the sensibilities of modern Egyptians when they are so far removed from Pharaoic history, culture and religion. And to claim (without basis) that Egyptians and people from the Middle East are so knowledgeable about their past also seems out of place as if the Italians don't know their own history. Such a peculiar statement to make. Fact is no one is sure how they actually built those pyramids that's the knowledge we are dealing with.


----------



## MGibster

It's weird what some people can live with and what they can't live without as far as changes to their favorite franchises go.  I couldn't care less about psionics in Dark Sun.  Drop it or keep it in the setting, I don't particularly care, but what of the things I did enjoy about the setting was that it was so different from the typical D&D game.  I like the brutality in the setting and think removing it would be a loss for the setting as whole. 



Yaarel said:


> I assume the same is true in Iraq: Sumeria and Akkadia are culturally sacred today.



We often get mixed messages when it comes to RPG settings.

Player 1:  I wish we had more non-European inspired settings. 

Player 2:  Well how about this setting inspired by the people living in the Fertile Crescent circa 3,000-1,500 BCE.  I'm talking Sumerians, Akkadians, etc., etc. 

Player:  3:  Nah, we can't do that.  It'd be cultural appropriation or something.

Player 2:  Okay, how about we just play in a psuedo-Medieval/Early Modern Europe like we always do? 

Players 1 & 3:  Sounds like a plan.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> There is an extremely welldone homebrew update for Dark Sun for 5e.
> 
> It used illustrations from the archeology of these reallife places, as well as incorporating their motifs in its art.
> 
> My response was mixed.
> 
> On the one hand, connecting these in-setting locations to in-reallife places, made the setting even cooler.
> 
> On the other hand, these reallife places are culturally sacred today. For example, modern Egyptians are knowledgeable about and extremely proud of their antiquity from Ancient Egypt. One needs to address Ancient Egyptian themes with modern sensitivities in mind.
> 
> I assume the same is true in Iraq: Sumeria and Akkadia are culturally sacred today.
> 
> Rome has all of European history whitewashing, lionizing, and glorifying Ancient Rome. But the Ancient Romans themselves often said things that are over-the-top Evil and proud of it. So, for a narrative to have the Roman government being unjust or featuring corrupt Evil organizations, Europeans basically shrug.



Do you have a link to the Dark Sun product?


----------



## Yaarel

AnotherGuy said:


> I think it's unfair to bash Roman history



Heh, it sounds unfair to bash Ancient Roman history ... until you read for yourself some of the things the emperor and others actually said! And proudly did.





AnotherGuy said:


> And to claim (without basis) that Egyptians and people from the Middle East are so knowledgeable about their past also seems out of place as if the Italians don't know their own history.



Of course, modern Italians are knowledgeable about and proud of Ancient Rome. But they are also aware of its less than admirable aspects.

Besides, since most of Europe was actually part of the Roman Empire, when Europeans critique Rome, it is often an "insider" point-of-view.





AnotherGuy said:


> and then look so fondly on Ancient Egypt given their slave culture and worry about the sensibilities of modern Egyptians when they are so far removed from Pharaoic history, culture and religion.



Ancient Egyptian slavery was mainly indentured servitude, doing work to pay off a debt. It became the foundation of a quasi-socialist system, where the pharaonic state owned everything, thus demanding taxes, but supplying collective projects and wellfare for the Egyptian citizenry.

The situation was different for foreigners, however, who were captured in war or captured and sold to Egypt. The slavery for noncitizens was actually slavery.





AnotherGuy said:


> Fact is no one is sure how they actually built those pyramids that's the knowledge we are dealing with.



Today, archeologists know exactly how Egyptians built the pyramids.

Happily, archeologists found the tombs of the people who build the pyramids.

Because of the Egyptian custom of writing the accomplishments of the dead on the wall murals of the tombs, the people described how they built the pyramids.

Basically, they created an artificial mountain of sand. They used sand to slide the massive stone bricks (ashlars). Then made a ramp of sand to slide the bricks up to the next higher level. Then made the sand ramp higher and higher, as the height of the pyramid construction progressed. When they placed their top stone and were finally done, they swept away the sand.

Archeologists now have found where they dumped the sand afterward, and where they got the sand from.


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> Do you have a link to the Dark Sun product?



There is an Enworld thread for it.

It is a fanwork called: Dark Sun - City-State of Urik.

Like I mentioned, the reallife archeology makes the setting cool.

But the Dark Sun setting is Evil, with the emperors personally being Evil, and the political ideology and the institutional slavery being Evil.

It kinda does end up demonizing an "other" reallife culture.

The Dark Sun setting has many aspects that I like. Personally, I love the psionics, elementalism, and godlessness. I am less enthusiastic about the slavery, dictatorship, and post-apocalyptic despair. I would prefer options to have a homebase that is more utopian, that strives to build a better city society, with a real chance of healing the planet.

For other players, the nihilism is part of what they like about the setting. I would be happy if there were options of how to decide the mood of the setting by the DM choosing which cities are present on the planet.

I hope there is a way to salvage the interesting aspects of the Dark Sun setting.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Yaarel said:


> Heh, it sounds unfair to bash Ancient Roman history ... until you read for yourself some of the things the emperor and others actually said! And proudly did.
> 
> Ancient Egyptian slavery was mainly indentured servitude, doing work to pay off a debt. It became the foundation of a quasi-socialist system, where the pharaonic state owned everything, thus demanding taxes, but supplying collective projects and wellfare for the Egyptian citizenry.
> 
> The situation was sometimes different for foreigners, however, who were captured in war or captured and sold to Egypt. The slavery for noncitizens was actually slavery.



We know next to nothing about what the Pharaohs actually said. I'm not convinced they'd be more benevolent than the Roman Emperors when their rule was absolute....but anyways.
.


Yaarel said:


> Today, archeologist know exactly how Egyptians built the pyramids.



That is not true. There is no consensus.


Yaarel said:


> Happily, archeologists found the tombs of the people who build the pyramids.
> 
> Because of the Egyptian custom of writing the accomplishments of the dead on the wall murals of the tombs, the people described how they built the pyramids.
> 
> Basically, they created an artificial mountain of sand. They used sand to slide the massive stone bricks (ashlars). Then made a ramp of sand to slide the bricks to the next higher level. Then made the sand ramp higher and higher, as the height of the pyramid construction progressed. When they placed their top stone and were finally done, they swept away the sand.
> 
> Archeologist now have found where they dumped the sand afterward, and where they got the sand from.



Yeah that's what is fed to the general public. If one delves deeper i.e weight and number of the stones, location of the quarry, the materials/tools needed to cut the stone, time required to make a single sarcophagus....etc you'd see that explanation does not add up.


----------



## Yaarel

AnotherGuy said:


> We know next to nothing about what the Pharaohs actually said. I'm not convinced they'd be more benevolent than the Roman Emperors when their rule was absolute....but anyways.



My impression is, some of the Roman emperors were unusually ruthless, even by ancient standards.

Besides the gladiatorial events in the Colosseum are literally, "murder as a sport". It is difficult to find a clearer definition of Evil.



AnotherGuy said:


> That is not true. There is no consensus.



Egyptologists have a consensus.



AnotherGuy said:


> Yeah that's what is fed to the general public. If one delves deeper i.e weight and number of the stones, location of the quarry, the materials/tools needed to cut the stone, time required to make a single sarcophagus....etc you'd see that explanation does not add up.



Heh, I cant believe "alien" conspiracies still exist. When archeologists discovered the tombs of the actual people who personally built the pyramids.

Just like ancient beekeepers describe in their tombs how to do beekeeping, the pyramid builders describe, step by step, how to build pyramids.

Archeologists (including engineers and physicists) know how they did it, can replicate it, and it "does add up".

The cutting thru stone was also done with sand as the abrasive. It was painstaking. There is some evidence, that at least some of the stand had emery (natural sapphire particles), that would make the stone cutting easier. Also there are tombs describing and showing pictures of how to cut stone.

The ancient temples with their colossal pillars were built the same way. Sliding stone by stone across the sand, and up the layerings of sand, then finally sweeping the sand away.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Yaarel said:


> Egyptologists have a consensus.
> 
> Heh, I cant believe "alien" conspiracies still exist. When archeologists discovered the tombs of the actual people who personally built the pyramids.
> 
> Just like ancient beekeepers describe in their tombs how to do beekeeping, the pyramid builders describe, step by step, how to build pyramids.
> 
> Archeologists (including engineers and physicists) know how they did it, can replicate it, and it "does add up".
> 
> The cutting thru stone was also done with sand as the abrasive. It was painstaking. There is some evidence, that at least some of the stand had emery (natural sapphire particles), that would make the stone cutting easier. Also there are tombs describing and showing pictures of how to cut stone.
> 
> The ancient temples with their colossal pillars were built the same way. Sliding stone by stone across the sand, and up the layerings of sand, then finally sweeping the sand away.



We will have to agree to disagree.
I will suggest you start by looking at the UnchartedX channel. There is so much more but that is a good start.


----------



## Yaarel

AnotherGuy said:


> We will have to agree to disagree.
> I will suggest you start by looking at the UnchartedX channel. There is so much more but that is a good start.



To be fair. UnchartedX is a YouTube channel that is dedicated to "super advanced ancient tech". Its focus will inherently indulge conspiracy theories.

(Heh, and I am sure he is doing it on purpose, but one of the guests, Randall Carlson, has the same handsgesture as the Ancient Aliens guy.)

There is a consensus among professional archeologists around the world, because we know how the ancients built the pyramids.

The UnchartedX is one persons exploration of the weirder aspects of archeology.



That said.

Ancient Egyptians were the most technologically advanced culture of that age. We can see in their tombs the descriptions of the breadth of their scientific achievements, including, engieering, geometry, chemistry, gemology, artificial gems, metallurgy, astronomy, zoology, farming techniques, medicine. Classical Egypt correctly calculated the circumference of the Earth. And so on. Much of what we credit Greece for, came from Egypt.



And there are genuine Egyptological mysteries. For example, there is an ongoing debate about the age of the Sphynx at Giza. Archeologists tend assume, it was built at the same time as the pyramids. But geologists judging by erosion patterns insist the Sphynx must be older than 10,000 years. Thus it was already sacred when the pyramid builders built around it. I tend to agree with the geologists.


----------



## Galandris

AnotherGuy said:


> We know next to nothing about what the Pharaohs actually said. I'm not convinced they'd be more benevolent than the Roman Emperors when their rule was absolute....but anyways.




Also, incest. Yes, it wasn't a taboo as much as it is in our societies. It wasn't considered evil. Even if it doesn't concern the PCs themselves, is it something that one would want for its NPCs? "_Your patron is the daughter of Ramses II, and also his wife, along this several of her stepsisters_" doesn't sound like a non-controversial pitch for an adventure. I wouldn't have a problem with it, since I would accept that playing in a setting set in another time exposes to strange moral choices, but I'm pretty sure it's not for everyone.

Romans were also horrible people by our standards (and had horrible people even among them, some of which might be horribler, some who might be closer to our sensibility: a guy saying "gods don't exist unless proven, your Emperor apotheosis story is a children tale and we're just rotting after death, show me the scientific proof of your stories and I'll consider it, in the meantime I won't take part in your silly cult" would probably end up considered evil at the time, while this stance is neutral from our point of view.

Heck, reading this board, I can see that 1980 and 1990's and even 2000's people from Earth were also horrible people... I don't think it's possible to find a past setting without horrible people as a whole. (Which doesn't mean they can't be used as setting! It just needs a sticker on it and a GM that selects what part of the setting to highlight, according to player tastes: one could play in Ancient Egypt without nearing a royal court).


----------



## Jahydin

I read lots of comments and spent a long time thinking about it, but personally still dislike the change.

I like the fact all humans fall under the same "race" in D&D. Feels more unifying than just being part of the same species.

With all the racial contention in the world I think it's nice to escape into a fantasy world where we are all just one race: human.

Regarding the other fantasy "races", I think they are a great tool to explore completely alien cultures as well as exaggerated and/or slightly tweaked real world cultures since using different species provides a distinct line between the real world and fiction.

There will always be bad actors who will use that line to "code" harmful stereotypes into their fantasy, but it only gives them power if people let it. One, if the stereotype in question isn't taken seriously or just not known (I'm of the opinion all stereotypes should be forgotten as fast as they are learned), then the bad literature loses "teeth". Second, if everyone refuses to compare fictional species to real world races (I sure don't), the bad literature also loses its "teeth". Third, if we could just trust that we're all mostly on the same side, silly coincidences can just be laughed and dismissed without all the over the top dramatics.

Seems much saner the alternative: forever altering, revising, and censoring all our art to the sensibilities of whoever is currently in a position to end your career. I can't help but think WotC is an Ouroboros situation and eventually it will ruin them.


----------



## Olrox17

Yaarel said:


> My impression is, some of the Roman emperors were unusually ruthless, even by ancient standards.
> 
> Besides the gladiatorial events in the Colosseum are literally, "murder as a sport". It is difficult to find a clearer definition of Evil.



My impression is that ancient Romans were no more or less cruel than other civilizations around them, we just have an unusually high amount of written information about them compared to everybody else, some of which might have been exaggerated to paint specific historical figures in a negative light for political reasons.
Besides, more recent archeology suggests that gladiatorial events were in large part non-lethal, "staged" fights performed by professional athletes, not unlike modern pro wrestling. That's not to say that nobody ever died in the arena, of course: execution by gladiatorial combat was a thing.


----------



## Galandris

Olrox17 said:


> My impression is that ancient Romans were no more or less cruel than other civilizations around them, we just have an unusually high amount of written information about them compared to everybody else, some of which might have been exaggerated to paint specific historical figures in a negative light for political reasons.
> Besides, more recent archeology suggests that gladiatorial events were in large part non-lethal, "staged" fights performed by professional athletes, not unlike modern pro wrestling. That's not to say that nobody ever died in the arena, of course: execution by gladiatorial combat was a thing.




There were carreer gladiators, which isn't very plausible if lethality was high.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Yaarel said:


> To be fair. UnchartedX is a YouTube channel that is dedicated to "super advanced ancient tech". Its focus will inherently indulge conspiracy theories.



Yes, because everything the mainstream doesn't accept is quickly labelled a conspiracy theory so it can be misaligned and easily dismissed.


Yaarel said:


> There is a consensus among professional archeologists around the world, because we know how the ancients built the pyramids.
> The UnchartedX is one persons exploration of the weirder aspects of archeology.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> And there are genuine Egyptological mysteries. For example, there is an ongoing debate about the age of the Sphynx at Giza. Archeologists tend assume, it was built at the same time as the pyramids. But geologists judging by erosion patterns insist the Sphynx must be older than 10,000 years. Thus it was already sacred when the pyramid builders built around it. I tend to agree with the geologists.



This is exactly the problem that exists that the so-called _professional_ archaeologists who are unwilling to explore different hypothesis nevermind update the current dogma given the mountain of growing evidence which tears holes through The Narrative.
There is a video between Graham Hancock debating the very thing you stipulate here re the Sphynx with the head honcho of Egypt who dismissed him (without reason I might add) as well as the German Archaeological Institute that determined age of the Gobleki Tepe in Turkey to be over 11,000 years in age. There is massive gatekeeping by professionals - to keep the current paradigm fixed.

And if you do not toe-the-line you are quickly smeared and the funding stops. That is not how science progresses.


----------



## Horwath

Yaarel said:


> At a time when we should be figuring out how to program AI to behave compassionately, we are more often training AI to autonomously kill humans in warfare.



That would require to AI be programmed with empathy, that this many humans lack also.

Target recognition is so much simpler. We had more than 30 years of bots in FPS to practice that on.


----------



## Remathilis

The pyramid debate is pointless; extraterrestrials from Alpha Centuri built them as our roadmap to the stars after humanity enters the fourth period of enlightenment and abandons nuclear war for space exploration. I saw that on the History Channel, so it must be true!


----------



## Horwath

Remathilis said:


> The pyramid debate is pointless; extraterrestrials from Alpha Centuri built them as our roadmap to the stars after humanity enters the fourth period of enlightenment and abandons nuclear war for space exploration. I saw that on the History Channel, so it must be true!



map left by our human/cylon ancestors that will show us the way to 12 colonies of Kobol.


----------



## Digdude@1970

AnotherGuy said:


> Yes, because everything the mainstream doesn't accept is quickly labelled a conspiracy theory so it can be misaligned and easily dismissed.
> 
> This is exactly the problem that exists that the so-called _professional_ archaeologists who are unwilling to explore different hypothesis nevermind update the current dogma given the mountain of growing evidence which tears holes through The Narrative.
> There is a video between Graham Hancock debating the very thing you stipulate here re the Sphynx with the head honcho of Egypt who dismissed him (without reason I might add) as well as the German Archaeological Institute that determined age of the Gobleki Tepe in Turkey to be over 11,000 years in age. There is massive gatekeeping by professionals - to keep the current paradigm fixed.
> 
> And if you do not toe-the-line you are quickly smeared and the funding stops. That is not how science progresses.



Professional archaeologist here. To quote Luke Skywalker..."everything you just said is wrong". This is not how it works. You are literally making up a conspiracy, to support your conspiracy.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Digdude@1970 said:


> Professional archaeologist here. To quote Luke Skywalker..."everything you just said is wrong". This is not how it works. You are literally making up a conspiracy, to support your conspiracy.



Nice post.
So which part is making things up?
The video between Graham Hancock and the Zahi Hawass?
The fact that a German archaeologist Klaus Schmidt from the German Archaeological Institute dated the Gobleki Tepe at 12,000?
If the Gobleki Tepe is 12,000 years old that throws the standard narrative out the window - yes or no?

EDIT: I'm referring to the findings found in this clip some 4 minutes in. I'd be happy to learn where errors have been made. I am not averse to correction.


----------



## Digdude@1970

Your mind was made up in the first post, and so I will not waste a minute of my time trying to change your mind.  In almost twenty years I have yet to meet a colleague who shuts out alternate possible hypotheses, as long as they are based on scientific theory. What we do reject is pseudoscience, aliens did it, and all the other non-scientific quack theories out there that are not part of the scientific method. Advances in technology and dating techniques are getting better all the time and we continue to evolve our understanding of the past as new data emerges. That's how it really works, not some smoke filled back room where a select group of archaeologists decide what is right or wrong as you have suggested. The peer review process is public and very often brutal at times.


----------



## MGibster

When did this thread become about Ancient Aliens?  

::History Channel has entered the chat::


----------



## Yaarel

I havent watched the video, but a few quick thoughts:


AnotherGuy said:


> The video between Graham Hancock and the Zahi Hawass?



Archeologists can and do disagree with each other.



AnotherGuy said:


> The fact that a German archaeologist Klaus Schmidt from the German Archaeological Institute dated the Gobleki Tepe at 12,000?



As far as I know, most archeologists who are familiar with Turkish archeology accept that Goebekli Tepe is around 12,000 years old. (Or rather around 11,500 years old.)



AnotherGuy said:


> If the Gobleki Tepe is 12,000 years old that throws the standard narrative out the window - yes or no?



No. The "standard narrative" remains the same.

The standard narrative is the Neolithic Revolution, namely the discovery of farming, sometimes referred to as "herding-and-gardening", is happening around this time, somewhere in this wider region.

The controversy is about what Goebekli Tepe is, exactly.

Currently, there is a vigorous debate about whether the nomadic hunter-gatherers settled down in permanent homes because they had started farming. Or, the other way around, they started farming because they had settled down. This Tepe is an important feature of the debate.

Originally, the archeologists identified Goebekli Tepe as some kind of shrine, and that none of the nomads actually lived there, but just visited there to participate in the sacred site. But recent findings suggest there might have been people living there permanently.

So the debate continues.


----------



## CleverNickName

Hot _damn_ I love it when actual, professional scientists chime in to the discussion.  



Digdude@1970 said:


> Your mind was made up in the first post, and so I will not waste a minute of my time trying to change your mind.  In almost twenty years I have yet to meet a colleague who shuts out alternate possible hypotheses, as long as they are based on scientific theory. What we do reject is pseudoscience, aliens did it, and all the other non-scientific quack theories out there that are not part of the scientific method. Advances in technology and dating techniques are getting better all the time and we continue to evolve our understanding of the past as new data emerges. That's how it really works, not some smoke filled back room where a select group of archaeologists decide what is right or wrong as you have suggested. The peer review process is public and very often brutal at times.




I can't believe so many people finish high school without an understanding of the scientific method (but that's a discussion for another thread).  And anyone who's ever had their work subjected to peer review will flinch involuntarily when they read that last sentence, Dig.  "Brutal" is an understatement.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Digdude@1970 said:


> Your mind was made up in the first post, and so I will not waste a minute of my time trying to change your mind.  In almost twenty years I have yet to meet a colleague who shuts out alternate possible hypotheses, as long as they are based on scientific theory. What we do reject is pseudoscience, aliens did it, and all the other non-scientific quack theories out there that are not part of the scientific method. Advances in technology and dating techniques are getting better all the time and we continue to evolve our understanding of the past as new data emerges. That's how it really works, not some smoke filled back room where a select group of archaeologists decide what is right or wrong as you have suggested. The peer review process is public and very often brutal at times.



Once again you followed up with a nice professional post.
I never once mentioned aliens or any non-scientific quack theories or pseudoscience but you did indirectly infer that I did.
I did however mention two things in my previous post which I note you did not challenge.
What I have since discovered is that it is unproductive discussing anything of substance with you, disappointingly so as the subject matter pertains to your qualifications/job apparently and so I would think you would have taken the conversation a little more seriously. Your argument seems to be based on appeals to authority.
As for the Peer Review Process...
So good day to you.

In ending I will quote something from the video you may not have seen/heard.

_...the reality is some of what we see was simply out of their technological reach. This technological gap between what we know of ancient civilisations and what we see is attested to by so many professionals - craftsmen, builders and engineers, experts who study these things in detail. People who are far more qualified to offer opinions on ancient technology or engineering than the Egyptologists or archaeologists who commonly derive such opinions but couldn't engineer the chair they are sitting on when they do it._


----------



## CleverNickName

"There are more things in heaven earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
"Whatever, Bill.  If you don't help me finish these titrations we're both gonna fail chem lab."


----------



## Vaalingrade

Man, thread have been shifting into OverChaos even more than is usual for EnWorld.

I haven't seen such instability since I went back in time to teach people to build aqueducts.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Yaarel said:


> I havent watched the video, but a few quick thoughts:
> 
> Archeologists can and do disagree with each other.
> 
> 
> As far as I know, most archeologists who are familiar with Turkish archeology accept that Goebleki Tepe is around 12,000 years old. (Or rather around 11,500 years old.)
> 
> 
> No. The "standard narrative" remains the same.
> 
> The standard narrative is the Neolithic Revolution, namely the discovery of farming, sometimes referred to as "herding-and-gardening", is happening around this time, somewhere in this wider region.
> 
> The controversy is about what Goebleki Tepi is, exactly.
> 
> Currently, there is a vigorous debate about whether the nomadic hunter-gatherers settled down in permanent homes because they had started farming. Or, the other way around, they started farming because they had settled down. This Tepi is an important feature of the debate.
> 
> Originally, the archeologists identified Goebleki Tepi as some kind of shrine, and that none of the nomads actually lived there, but just visited there to participate in the sacred site. But recent findings suggest there might have been people living there permanently.
> 
> So the debate continues.



Yaarel, I do want to say how I appreciate the manner in which you have replied.
There is a common misconception that just because one questions the orthodoxy in archaeology one immediately accepts any other theory and/or alien involvement.

With regards to Tepi, you are right but if I'm understanding the UnchartedX clip I posted correctly the issue is that it changes the date as to when they believe human civilisation started (orthodoxy puts it at 6,000BC). Given Tepi's carbon dating this would push it further back.

EDIT: I will also remind you that you did say there is consensus amongst archaeologists and yet now in your reply admit archaeologists disagree.


----------



## Andvari

I did the pyramids before I was exiled from the Q Continuum. I can only apologize so many times.


----------



## Digdude@1970

Yaarel said:


> I havent watched the video, but a few quick thoughts:
> 
> Archeologists can and do disagree with each other.
> 
> 
> As far as I know, most archeologists who are familiar with Turkish archeology accept that Goebleki Tepe is around 12,000 years old. (Or rather around 11,500 years old.)
> 
> 
> No. The "standard narrative" remains the same.
> 
> The standard narrative is the Neolithic Revolution, namely the discovery of farming, sometimes referred to as "herding-and-gardening", is happening around this time, somewhere in this wider region.
> 
> The controversy is about what Goebleki Tepi is, exactly.
> 
> Currently, there is a vigorous debate about whether the nomadic hunter-gatherers settled down in permanent homes because they had started farming. Or, the other way around, they started farming because they had settled down. This Tepi is an important feature of the debate.
> 
> Originally, the archeologists identified Goebleki Tepi as some kind of shrine, and that none of the nomads actually lived there, but just visited there to participate in the sacred site. But recent findings suggest there might have been people living there permanently.
> 
> So the debate continues.



Interpretation of things is without a doubt, the gray area of our field. This is where it gets tricky. All data can be massaged to suit a means, but that's  when it gets hammered out by peer review. Interpretation is also where the scientific method really shines for us. It allows us to circle back around and revist what we previously thought and as long as it holds up scientifically, we are not afraid to revise our past interpretation. Todays brick scatter is tomorrow's lost outbuilding. Now, back to DND talk.


----------



## Vaalingrade

AnotherGuy said:


> Yaarel, I do want to say how I appreciate the manner in which you have replied.
> There is a common misconception that just because one questions the orthodoxy in archaeology one immediately accepts any other theory and/or alien involvement.
> 
> With regards to Tepi, you are right but if I'm understanding the UnchartedX clip I posted correctly the issue is that it changes the date as to when they believe human civilisation started (orthodoxy puts it at 6,000BC). Given Tepi's carbon dating this would push it further back.



The use of 'orthodoxy' in this context and repetition is not helping this _not_ sound like a conspiracy theory.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Vaalingrade said:


> The use of 'orthodoxy' in this context and repetition is not helping this _not_ sound like a conspiracy theory.



Helping what exactly?

EDIT: Fact is there is an accepted narrative. There are many things (carbon dated items) within the field that have been thrown out because the data didn't fit the narrative. There is a rather monotone archaeologist on youtube who runs through all the items that were _exceptions_ that have been "ignored"


----------



## Vaalingrade

There's a monotone girl in a bear hoodie on TikTok that says Rome wasn't real. Being on social media doesn't mean you deserve to be taken seriously. Often, it's the opposite.


----------



## Yaarel

AnotherGuy said:


> Yaarel, I do want to say how I appreciate the manner in which you have replied.
> There is a common misconception that just because one questions the orthodoxy in archaeology one immediately accepts any other theory and/or alien involvement.



Heh, to be fair ... "ancient aliens built the pyramids", "super advanced ancient technology", throw in "Atlantis", and these themes tend to commingle in various conspiracy theories.



AnotherGuy said:


> EDIT: I will also remind you that you did say there is consensus amongst archaeologists and yet now in your reply admit archaeologists disagree.



I said, the archeologists agree about when, by who, and how the pyramids were built.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Vaalingrade said:


> There's a monotone girl in a bear hoodie on TikTok that says Rome wasn't real. Being on social media doesn't mean you deserve to be taken seriously. Often, it's the opposite.



Thing is the most inflammatory thing I have said is that there is no consensus on how the pyramids were made. 
Yaarel upthread initially said there is consensus, and then later admitted archaeologists disagree.
Me using the word orthodoxy to describe the standard narrative apparently does not help my position from your perspective. So what?


----------



## Tonguez

AnotherGuy said:


> Yaarel, I do want to say how I appreciate the manner in which you have replied.
> There is a common misconception that just because one questions the orthodoxy in archaeology one immediately accepts any other theory and/or alien involvement.
> 
> With regards to Tepi, you are right but if I'm understanding the UnchartedX clip I posted correctly the issue is that it changes the date as to when they believe human civilisation started (orthodoxy puts it at 6,000BC). Given Tepi's carbon dating this would push it further back.
> 
> EDIT: I will also remind you that you did say there is consensus amongst archaeologists and yet now in your reply admit archaeologists disagree.



When has Neolithic Orthodoxy claimed to be 6000bc? Tell Qaramel, Syria was inhabited by 9000BC, Gobleki Tepe maybe 9500 BC. Note however that such archeological evidence also indicates people were in the area doing stuff in small camp-villages before that, large building projects dont happen overnight.

The debate is about whether Agriculture preceeds agrarian Settlement.   Gobleki Tepe has no signs of attendent agriculture and has been theorised as being built first as a religious structure by visiting hunter-gatherers.
Later a community settled nearby and started harvesting wild grains.
The mystery is why nomadic hunters decided to build a monumental structure there (which took time and skill away from the practical tasks of killing gazelle and gathering fruits and wild grains)


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Now I'm just here with popcorn and placing bets on how long till the admins shut the thread down.


----------



## Gradine




----------



## Vaalingrade

Frozen_Heart said:


> Now I'm just here with popcorn and placing bets on how long till the admins shut the thread down.



It's rather odd how whenever there's a discussion on how D&D interacts with race, there's a derail over some weird thing that gets it shut down. Huh.


----------



## Gradine

What's sad is that, without even going back and reading the whole thread, and I can guess at what the throughline was that took us from "D&D and race" to "ancient aliens" and it's not especially pretty.


----------



## Yaarel

AnotherGuy said:


> Thing is the most inflammatory thing I have said is that there is no consensus on how the pyramids were made.
> Yaarel upthread initially said there is consensus, and then later admitted archaeologists disagree.
> Me using the word orthodoxy to describe the standard narrative apparently does not help my position from your perspective. So what?



The archeologists dont disagree about the pyramids. (But they do disagree about the Sphynx.)


----------



## AnotherGuy

Tonguez said:


> Tell Qaramel, Syria was inhabited by 9000BC, Gobleki Tepe maybe 9500 BC. Note however that such archeological evidence also indicates people were in the area doing stuff in small camp-villages before that, large building projects dont happen overnight.



Agreed.


Tonguez said:


> The debate is about whether Agriculture preceeds agrarian Settlement.   Gobleki Tepe has no signs of attendent agriculture and has been theorised as being built first as a religious structure by visiting hunter-gatherers.
> Later a community settled nearby and started harvesting wild grains.
> The mystery is why nomadic hunters decided to build a monumental structure there (which took time and skill away from the practical tasks of killing gazelle and gathering fruits and wild grains).



Not ignoring all you said but adding - you have the building of a religious monumental structure *thousands* of years before any other civilisation (Mesopotamian, Egyptian) built one and you do not find that strange?

EDIT: This is my last post on this matter in this thread given the request by CleverNickName.


----------



## CleverNickName

Could we move the archaeology discussion to another thread, please?  It's off-topic.


----------



## Galandris

AnotherGuy said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Not ignoring all you said but adding - you have the building of a religious monumental structure thousands of years before any other civilisation (Mesopotamian, Egyptian) built one and you do not find that strange?




Not really. We've trace of the invention of the wheel by Sumerian and independantly in Central Europe in the fourth millenia BC. Yet the precolombian civilization didn't use it (they knew it, as evidenced by toy, but it didn't lead to practical use). It only shows that a need emerged there first. Nothing strange or particularly mysterious except the specific need the site fulfilled.

Someone must be the first to do anything, and having things not replicated in a continuum isn't strange, it's quite common. The first steam engine much predates the widespread development for industrial needs...


----------



## Digdude@1970

In a weak attempt to bring it back to the topic on hand, do you think there is correlation between archaeologists and the lack of DMs? Discuss. I

EDIT:My bad I forgot what the actual title of this thread was.


----------



## Vaalingrade

CleverNickName said:


> Could we move the archaeology discussion to another thread, please?  It's off-topic.



Or just... away. Forever. Along with the  'Give Romans a chance' stuff that got us here.


----------



## Galandris

Digdude@1970 said:


> In a weak attempt to bring it back to the topic on hand, do you think there is correlation between archaeologists and the lack of DMs? Discuss. I
> 
> EDIT:My bad I forgot what the actual title of this thread was.




No, but I agree that we should speak here of Gobekli Tepe, or other archeological tspecies of early civilization.


----------



## MGibster

Vaalingrade said:


> It's rather odd how whenever there's a discussion on how D&D interacts with race, there's a derail over some weird thing that gets it shut down. Huh.



 That's not an unfair point, but after more than 600 posts just about every thread goes off the rails.


----------



## Jahydin

MGibster said:


> When did this thread become about Ancient Aliens?
> 
> ::History Channel has entered the chat::



Haha, imagine my confusion after spending a good couple of hours formulating my last post, hitting "Post reply", then trying to puzzle out what the hell happened. 

Honestly thought I posted in the wrong forum...


----------



## Remathilis

Jahydin said:


> Haha, imagine my confusion after spending a good couple of hours formulating my last post, hitting "Post reply", then trying to puzzle out what the hell happened.
> 
> Honestly thought I posted in the wrong forum...



Considering most threads end up becoming trench warfare about legacy settings and cannon, this felt a little refreshing.


----------



## Tonguez

Remathilis said:


> Considering most threads end up becoming trench warfare about legacy settings and cannon, this felt a little refreshing.



well it did spin off from discussion of Dark Suns Scorcerer-kings and Mul slavery in the bronze age


----------

